[Dr House]

Oh, in other news a Libertarian Democrat?

Someone who believes in both larger government and smaller government.

Catch 22!

That's kind of superficial. It's possible to believe in certain positive rights principles such as equality of opportunity (though NOT of outcome), a cleaner environment and the provision of certain public services while still seeing the necessity to reduce and streamline the size and scope of government.

I, for example, believe it very good policy to have single-payer insurance and temporary unemployment benefits. I also think that instead of granting corporations complete freedom, we should enforce laws against them in a similar way as we do against individuals. Big brother policies and preventative oversight hinder economic growth, and are an invasion that we would never allow the police to perpetrate against people. But companies should not get away with poisoning water supplies or poisoning their own products, for example. Should such complaints arise, public law enforcement should be mandated to investigate and prosecute after the fact, just like they are with crimes committed by people such as assault, theft and murder.

In my ideal system, the Corporate Crime Division of the police would've investigated the Enron crash, the company bosses of both Enron and Arthur Andersen would have been prosecuted and promptly tossed in jail for accounting fraud, and their employees would have later had the chance to use the evidence collected to pick them clean in a civil trial. Congress would not have been involved, Serbanes-Oaxley would not have been passed, but the assholes responsible would not have gotten away with it. In the world we live in, the exact opposite happened. Congress blamed the free market and not the actual people responsible, the People ate it up and the result was that the Enron bosses walked and the rest of the corporate world was punished for the excesses of those bastards.

In other words, rules: good, preventative oversight: very bad.

I also support state-sponsored market solutions to problems such as global warming that cannot feasibly be tackled by non-government entities alone.

I consider libertarian liberalism by far the most sensible ideology there is, and it is the one I subscribe to, though I generally lean farther right than most of them econimically. For example, I consider that very few of the goods that are currently public should be so. Museums and theatres should not be public, roads should not be public, et al.

However, I think the "democrat" label is kind of limiting, since Democrats tend to stick closer to economic populism. On healthcare, for example, they have focused this year on the non-issue (the 47 million uninsured) and ignored the two real concerns (insane prices, lack of quality coverage in the name of cost efficiency). Free market policies would depress prices. A single-payer system would guarantee complete coverage, and probably cost less than the system we got now. None of the two Democratic frontrunners produced either policy. Instead they seek to double the size of our retarded, corporatist HMO system, which is no better than the military-industrial complex.

It is because of that that I have decided to pinch my nose against McCain's hawkishness and support him in the election. He's by far the most pragmatic candidate, and he supports the most issues I consider important. He is pro-immigration, pro-free trade, pro-budget balance and fiscal responsibility (unlike mainstream borrow-and-spend republicans), pro-gun, anti-global warming and anti-torture. Of course, if any of the other republican candidates (save Ron Paul) were to get the nomination, I would vote Democrat anyway. Protectionism be damned, I don't wanna see the national debt double again and the country further slide towards theocracy.

[Goranhammer]

That's kind of superficial. It's possible to believe in certain positive rights principles such as equality of opportunity (though NOT of outcome), a cleaner environment and the provision of certain public services while still seeing the necessity to reduce and streamline the size and scope of government.

It really isn't that superficial. I am a minarchist, not an anarchist. Libertarianism, for me, doesn't include an absense of law. The problem I see with the "cleaner environment" argument is that the state tries to take an active approach instead of a passive one. There is nothing wrong with corporations having "pollution credits", endowing them with a static amount of runoff pollution they're allowed to use and having credits be bought and sold in the market from people who don't pollute as much to people who pollute more than others. The law should only exist to rope it in when people are committing massive violations and not so much like a watchdog with a caffiene problem. The environment is a concern, but not one that is so dire that it needs militant state services to run around yelling like a drill sargeant.

I, for example, believe it very good policy to have single-payer insurance and temporary unemployment benefits. I also think that instead of granting corporations complete freedom, we should enforce laws against them in a similar way as we do against individuals. Big brother policies and preventative oversight hinder economic growth, and are an invasion that we would never allow the police to perpetrate against people. But companies should not get away with poisoning water supplies or poisoning their own products, for example. Should such complaints arise, public law enforcement should be mandated to investigate and prosecute after the fact, just like they are with crimes committed by people such as assault, theft and murder.

Which I agree with, and am happy they do. However, along with that, the market can still help to dictate it properly. Hell, look at the 80s when Japan was taking over the economic world. America inbred their own brand of protectionism by invoking patriotic bullshit like "BUY AMERICAN!" and "SAVE AMERICAN JOBS!". Yeah, I'm sure massive tariffs, quotas, and other protectionist legislature did more, but you can't discount the market's own ability to regulate itself. The invisible hand does occasionally need a nudge.

In my ideal system, the Corporate Crime Division of the police would've investigated the Enron crash, the company bosses of both Enron and Arthur Andersen would have been prosecuted and promptly tossed in jail for accounting fraud, and their employees would have later had the chance to use the evidence collected to pick them clean in a civil trial. Congress would not have been involved, Serbanes-Oaxley would not have been passed, but the assholes responsible would not have gotten away with it. In the world we live in, the exact opposite happened. Congress blamed the free market and not the actual people responsible, the People ate it up and the result was that the Enron bosses walked and the rest of the corporate world was punished for the excesses of those bastards.

Not quite. I don't think you can argue that Ken Lay's life has been sunshine and roses for the past 7 or 8 years. And it shouldn't have been...not so much that I consider him a criminal, but I do consider him to be negligent. As a former practicing accountant (and partially still practicing), I can confidently say that the old corporate axiom "blame the accountants" is pretty much true. The main problem for Enron, with regards to upper management, is that they could have stopped it. Now, whether it was because they were too ignorant to step in and do something about it or that they were trying to fatten their wallets by cashing in on stock options, I have no clue. However, employees voluntarily bought into and put faith into corporate stock which anyone with a lick of sense in securities would tell you was a faulty move. It's like these people who seriously couldn't predict the dot-com bubble when Google was trading for 600 bucks a pop.

Maybe I'm just considering what I know "common sense" because it's in my field. Who knows. I still say that a little research is better than blind trust.

I also support state-sponsored market solutions to problems such as global warming that cannot feasibly be tackled by non-government entities alone.

Which I can also agree with. Pollution is a market failure. Granted, it's not nearly the failure that hardline socialists claim it is, but it is one and does need state help. I doubt too many would disagree.

I consider libertarian liberalism by far the most sensible ideology there is, and it is the one I subscribe to, though I generally lean farther right than most of them econimically. For example, I consider that very few of the goods that are currently public should be so. Museums and theatres should not be public, roads should not be public, et al.

Museums and theatres would be better private, I agree. Aesthetics tend to be public goods because their value cannot be accurately predicted. However, in a private setting, they can - by the charge of admission.

Roads, I don't agree with. Just too much problems that go with it.

I guess I agree and disagree with a lot of what you've said. I don't have the time to go over the whole thing but I agree with enough of what you've said. Just, as a minarchist, I think the state, while necessary, should be the absolute last resort.

[Dr House]

Which I agree with, and am happy they do. However, along with that, the market can still help to dictate it properly. Hell, look at the 80s when Japan was taking over the economic world. America inbred their own brand of protectionism by invoking patriotic bullshit like "BUY AMERICAN!" and "SAVE AMERICAN JOBS!". Yeah, I'm sure massive tariffs, quotas, and other protectionist legislature did more, but you can't discount the market's own ability to regulate itself. The invisible hand does occasionally need a nudge.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention I heavily frown upon state intervention in the economy. The invisible hand does not need a nudge, that's a myth. "nudges" on the market either damage it's action (think Great Depression) or benefit some people at the expense of others who deserve it or need it more (Modern anti-globalization).

No, I'm talking exclusively quality control. The market can set prices, supply quantities and the best and most efficient ways to produce beautifully, but in many cases it is lackluster at best in reaching quality standards. In fact, sometimes it will purposefully steer towards lower quality/ higher risk in the name of cost efficiency. And I have identified the biggest problem with regulation. It is preventative, so rather than people self-censoring and auditing their own work because they fear punishment (the equivalent of not robbing a bank becuse you'll go to jail), you get people that can't wipe their asses without first consulting the Government, waiting for their request to make its way through the machine, and then having them stand over you while you do it. You'd get a shitload more people starting businesses if they don't have to worry about having to go through the bureaucratic machine at their own expense.

Not quite. I don't think you can argue that Ken Lay's life has been sunshine and roses for the past 7 or 8 years. And it shouldn't have been...not so much that I consider him a criminal, but I do consider him to be negligent. As a former practicing accountant (and partially still practicing), I can confidently say that the old corporate axiom "blame the accountants" is pretty much true. The main problem for Enron, with regards to upper management, is that they could have stopped it. Now, whether it was because they were too ignorant to step in and do something about it or that they were trying to fatten their wallets by cashing in on stock options, I have no clue. However, employees voluntarily bought into and put faith into corporate stock which anyone with a lick of sense in securities would tell you was a faulty move. It's like these people who seriously couldn't predict the dot-com bubble when Google was trading for 600 bucks a pop.

So in a criminal investigation and trial, the Courts would find exactly the extent of the blame for each person involved and the appropiate punishment. Nonetheless, fraud had been committed, which means somebody committed it, even if everybody else was merely negligent. And in some cases, negligence is in and of itself a punishable offence. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that was just the result of a series of errors, but that would all have come out in a criminal investigation and trial. By handing the case over to Congress rather than the Courts, we hopelessly politicized it.

[Vera Politica]

I consider libertarian liberalism by far the most sensible ideology

Libertarian Liberalism is not an ideology, it is a reduantant terminology.

Libertariniasm is Classical Liberalism, so I'm not too sure what you mean by Classical Liberal Liberalism.

In other words, how do you differentiate Classical Liberalism from "Libertarian Liberalism"?

[Dr House]

You're right. I was referring to libertarian left liberalism. Basically the ideology of the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

And libertarianism is much more extremist than classical liberalism, by the way.