roachboy

from this thread, what seems clear to me about libertarianism is that it is a simplistic ideology that exploits the sense of individual distinction---separateness from others---and channels it through a sequence of oppositions (the heroic individual vs. the mindless collective being a good one, market vs. state another) each of which is so simplistic as to be funny on its own, and each of which not only has no descriptive contact with the empirical world, but has no hope of having descriptive contact with the empirical world---not if you understand that description of a world or system and the anecdotal are not the same thing. because the tools are not in place to even start understanding how contemporary capitalism in the actual world operates----the fiction "market" as free-floating natural construct gets in the way---system-level effects (stratification of access to cultural capital, say---educational opportunities, economic opportunities) gets mapped onto some arbitirary moral grid (those who make out make out because of some pilgrim's progress style narrative, those who do not make out do not because they are morally deficient, therefore stratification is acceptable--so long as you, the petit bourgeois observer, are not too close the the bottom)----because the heroic individual/mindless collective opposition is operative--regardless of its stupidity both formally and tactically, libertarians tend to erase any notion of the modern state as a democratizing feature of contemporary capitalism (you can in principle organize and bring pressure to bear on the state for resource reallocation, for example--this is basic stuff)---and are suspicious of collective action, the state then becomes some distorting and distorted monster, separated from the heoric lives of these embodiments of petit bourgeois virtue working in this fabulous market arrangements that enable petit bourgeois values to be reflected in material gain---a theory of elective affinity dressed up as a description of capitalism confused with a politics. so libertarians enact a conception of self-disempowerment confused with its opposite.

you can see this all over the place here---organization=collective=bureaucracy=bad with no trace of consideration for types of organization and no space for it---the heroic individual, the yeoman farmer, operating in a fictional landscape, can band together in ad hoc local committees of no determinate structure in order to do what--sit around and affirm that the state of affairs is the state of affairs, stratification a reflection of some bizarre-o moralityscape....

at least anarchism has space for consideration of organization as a problem, and an understanding that there are multiple types of collective action and that the form adopted within an organization has ramifications for outcomes at a host of levels.
at least anarchists have the possibility of a system-level understanding of capitalism.
and at least anarchism does not rely in the end on some goofy moral economy fiction to guide it down the road to total self-disempowerment.

trick is that because at bottom libertarian ideology seems to appeal to one's sense of one's own distinction as it's motor, it is an endlessly flattering counter-factual little world. as an endless flattering counterfactual little world, it is able to get often quite interesting and smart people to reprocess reality in its terms. so the problems are at the level of the assumptions which shape the ideology, not the people who reprocess the world in terms shaped by them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sound chaser

Libertarians believe that well enforced property rights should be a factor in the prevention of environmental degradation.
Many libertarians think inalienable rights are BS. And it says so in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is a rhetorical document, the latter is law.
The naturalistic fallacy? Some libertarians believe in individual sovereignty and that property rights naturally extend from that.
Happiness is relative. With regard to economics at least countries in the world today that are liberalising their economies have better macroeconomic performances. And what do you mean by equality? Is there any inherent good in economic equality? Freedom in terms of making choices, living unhindered and taking responsibility for one's life is part of the human condition. I doubt thinking that all should be in a similar socio-economic bracket is.

I have more questions, but I think (hope) these are a good jumping off point for discussion.

Thanks for reading and I hope this will be a friendly and fruitful discussion.[/QUOTE]

roachboy

what exactly is individual sovereignty?

it appears to mean that each individual--whatever that category means (typically, it is not a category that signifies past a naive level, except as way of referring to the "i" which is the organizing center of perceptual experience)---is itself a state?

i assume then that popular sovereignty would be a problem because it involves a collective?

how do you have private property without a legal system that defines it?
how do you have a legal system if you only recognize individuals?

libertarians believe in john locke's theory of ownership?
but you understand that locke's state of nature is a fiction, yes?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Poppinjay

I think it's been proven time and again that we don't really have private property. Nobody can live off the grid for their entire lives. In fact, the closest to that ideal in Virginia is a peace based religious group that has formed a commune. And even they sell their farm goods to the public.

So is the current state of private property close to the Libertarian ideal?

And a funny:

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?

A: None -- the market will take care of it.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Sun Tzu

Are you a fan of F. Nietzsche?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

I see homeless people every day. Most of them will never enjoy a reasonable quality of life again because a lot of the social programs that existed even 10 years ago are no longer funded. These are the people who "lose".
Very rarely are there only two competitors in a given event.
You mean like unions? Those aren't looked kindly upon by libertarians as I understand.
I'm really happy that sometimes people down on their luck get a break they've earned on their own. That's great. Still, he could have just as easily not gotten the job and he and his son would have continued living on the street until he realized that it's okay to get a medial job in the interim, while trying to get the awesome job.

Cynthetiq

Many of those people don't want help. Yes there are many who do, but there are a number who don't. I'd also say there are NGOs that take care of them, feed, clothe, house.

No but again, the loser is the loser, no matter how you slice and dice it. Again, life is a competition in it's basic forms. The lion has to run faster than the antelope and the antelope has to run faster than the lion. Sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the antelope wins. Yet somehow there is harmony and balance.

Yep, that's true, but again a determined person will push forward at all costs and succeed where someone who doesn't have the same drive or initiative will not succeed as much or in the same/similar fashion.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

i'd be happy to talk about nietzsche.
i bet i know which aspects of his work appeals, though.
but why guess?
what do you find interesting about his writings?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I realize that you live in NYC, and as such see many homeless people, but I speak with them every day and I can tell you that this attitude is no where near as common as one might think. Most of those who have given up have done so because they feel that the opportunities simply do not exist even if they do their best. I've been working to create job placement services in the downtown area and I can tell you it's damned hard to find a company who is willing to hire someone they know to have been homeless. The deck is stacked against them.
Life may be a competition, but we're a social species. We are demonstrated to work well together. People who have strong familial bonds and strong friendships are likely to be emotionally healthier. Sure we compete but do we do so to the point that the "loser" is starving on the street with no reasonable hope of ever having a normal life again? I'd say we all lose when that happens.
But drive alone does not guarantee success, even eventual success. Ability, drive, and intelligence does not guarantee success. There are no guarantees, because life isn't fair. That's just it, though: life may not be fair but we can sure do a lot to make it as fair as we can.

Cynthetiq

Not true that the deck is stacked against them. There are many programs in many cities to hire people who are excons and homeless.

POSTINGS: Coming to Harlem; A Ben & Jerry's For the Homeless - New York Times


Common Ground The Times Square

employs people to care for the building, also a joint storefront with Ben & Jerry's and Starbucks to employ people who live within the housing facility.

Common Ground is building a new residence near where I currently live. Again, I'd prefer an NGO as opposed to a government agency or program.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Unfortunately, you're not in a position to refute several months of work. I've managed to place only about a dozen individuals in the past 3 months and it practically took begging. The programs we're trying to set up are meeting with heavy resistance from companies throughout the area.
The Ben and Jerry's here (right across the street from SJSU) was one of the first businesses to turn me down.

Cynthetiq

and if you're saying it is just you, then I'm going to turn you down to. Just some guy....

If you are representing your NPO that employs you, well that may be slightly different, but again, without any sponsorship or backing from corporate offices why would any of the corp stores even entertain working with you if you are just interfacing with the manager.

It may be that way in your city, but it's not in mine, and SF as well from what I can tell.

Anyways, this is miles and leagues far away from the libertarian discussion.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

kutulu

Come on, that is a meaningless answer. How do you protect air quality, groundwater quality, and soils in a libertarian society? Give an example.

He's picking it apart because $40 billion is just a number. It has no meaning unless you know how many people contribute to it. If 10 million people are contributing to that then the average is $4,000 per person and that is probably a significant portion of their income. If 100 million people are contributing then it is only $400 per person and it doesn't mean that much.

If you aren't confused then you are being intentionally obtuse. Society only needs x amount of brain surgeons. We only need y amount of toilet cleaners. You are still talking about INDIVIDUALS and leaving out the fact that there is a specific need to toilet cleaners.

/speaking in general here:

I don't get why it is so hard for Libertarians to look at reality. Our society can be viewed as a pyramid. The base of the pyramid makes very little and represents more than half of the area. The tip of the pyramid makes most of the money and represents about 5% of the area and the rest is the middle class.

The area is not static but the angles are relatively fixed. Individuals freely move from top to bottom but to maintain the shape, more move down than up. That is reality. In a fantasy world, everyone could be working to their fullest potential. However, the shape of the pyramid still isn't going to change. Essentially we would end up with overqualified toilet cleaners.

Cynthetiq

Overseas Filipino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is even the listing of countries wherein the monies originate

http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/spei/tab11.htm

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

So a little less than $1300 per person per year. Now what are the statistics on income? We can't assume all 11m Filipinos are making minimum wage, of course.

Cynthetiq

Sorry, you'll have to do the rest of investigating, I've given more than I've needed for my side of the argument. I'm not a research bitch by any stretch of the means. I've provided the fact that 11M send home $15B in various employs and countries.

Again, it is as simple as spending less than you earn and sending something back home to the tithe to the family.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

What were you originally trying to establish? That some people can save more than they earn? I agree. I do know, however, that as a person's income decreases it becomes more and more difficult to live below one's means and eventually it simply becomes realistically impossible.

Sun Tzu

Ill admit my shortcoming in that I can barely understand what he is talking about.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

roachboy

there's a side of nietzsche that i can see appealing to the libertarian set---the stuff about a natural aristocracy that reveals itself and it's hierarchies through agon (struggle, conflict) and that's artifically held in false positions through the workings of externally generated, presumably bureaucratic hierarchies. even from this less-than-cliffnotes version, the mapping of this dimension in nietzsche onto the idea of Markets is pretty straightforward. this side of nietzsche plus ayn rand=>much of contemporary libertarianism. add to it various marketeers on the order of von mieses and aspects of hayek or the lesser lights on the american free marketeer right and in principle that'd about sum it up.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sun Tzu

So are you saying a square is better? Im not being obtuse, or at least not intentionally. In this country someone can come from nothing and create what they choose to. What if a brain surgeon is content with being a toilet cleaner? For every what if, there is one to argue it.

Can you sum up a what you feel is a realistic, optimal direction for the United States to go?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

kutulu

I'm not saying that it is inherently wrong for our class structure to be set up as a pyramid. That is what drives people to be better. I'm also not saying we need to pay people unreasonable salaries for jobs that a trained monkey could do.

What I think is we need to make sure that basic needs are met as long as a someone is making an honest effort. To me, these needs are food, shelter, education, utilities and health care for them and their family. They also have to be able to get to and from their jobs.

When people can't do that, they turn to crime to make those ends meet. Then they become even more of a burden on society.

Sun Tzu

It sounds like your speaking in a somewhat different direction, or I misunderstood you. What about consequences? How do you feel about the homeless man standing on the corner with a sign stating "Why lie I need money for beer" or "My blood alcohol level is dangerously low can you help?" actually . . . anyone with a sign. I just saw one the other day that said "Will code HTML for food".

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

sound chaser

it's what libertarians call self-ownership.
yes.
It depends on the mode of libertarianism. some believe in a small and limited government while others believe that all of government's functions can be provided by the marketplace.
wasn't that hobbes? and lots of libertarians see locke as an influence on their beliefs.

Charlatan

I have always seen Libertarianism as one big Me, Me, Me movement.

I suppose if I were to label myself I would fall increasingly into the Keynesian developmental economics model rather than Friedman.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

kutulu

The HTML one is kind of witty! I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for bums. I make a distinction between bums and homeless people. Bums are POS drunks.

flstf

I was first attracted to Libertarian views because of their "live and let live" philosophy especially on social issues. I guess on economic issues government interference is necessary and oversight from a good government is beneficial but with corrupt polititians like ours less is probably better.

The other two parties seem to be in agreement to control most economic activity to benefit their contributors and those in their ruling class circle.

sound chaser

Yet you probably had a higher standard of living than a poor person in India or Africa. Was that fair? Is it fair that some people are born good looking and others aren't? Some are born tall, athletic, intelligent, etc. and others aren't?

Equality has a number of meanings in political thinking. I don't know of any political school of thought which says that humans should be equal in everything. I'm not sure that would be practical or desirable. Equality in political thinking can mean economic equality, equality in the eyes of the law, equal opportunities, equal outcomes, equality of rights. perhaps it should be clarified what form of equality we mean here, since as far as i am aware libertarians do believe in some forms of equality.

Willravel

It's completely unfair, but the US should deal with in-house problems before trying to clean up other people's problems. While we're cleaning up in house, though, we should be mindful that our decisions have a direct impact on many other nations, and can be detrimental.

sound chaser

Why?
But if inequity is natural then why is a difference in wealth any different?

Willravel

You're asking why people being punished by circumstances just because of where they are born isn't fair? I'd think it would be quite obvious.
Being eaten by predators is natural, but that didn't stop us from defending ourselves with better technology and eventually resting atop the food chain. Natural isn't always equatable with being good or correct.

sound chaser

Why?
But humans are born differently. Is that really in dispute? is it right to say that all inequity in everything is bad? Isn't it also important to accept oneself for who they are not compare themselves to others?

Willravel

"Fair" means an equal playing field. It literally means no bias, dishonesty or injustice. When the playing field is unequal, it's unfair to whomever has the disadvantage. In the question you asked, the poverty stricken African or Indian would be at a certain economic disadvantage, which is unfair.
When inequality means circumstances of squalor for some and excess for others whether or not they work hard and do everything they can to succeed, the yes it's bad. It's symptomatic of a failure or more work to be done.

Accepting one's self has nothing to do with your family starving.

Willravel

Things seem to have died down so it's time for more questions. I'll start with an easy one:

Let us say that the US successfully made a shift to libertarian political and economic theory in the late 40s during reconstruction and it spread throughout Europe and many other industrialized countries. Things seem to be going well, though the space between classes seems to be increasing. Meanwhile, the greatest threat to our species suddenly rears its ugly head for the first time in several hundred years; the smallpox pandemic begins.

In the real world, the Pan American Health Organization and other government and international non-profit organizations were responsible for the eradication of smallpox. Tax dollars ended up footing a great deal of the bill. I have always considered this one of the greatest achievements in human history and a testament to what mankind is capable of when we are forced to set aside our petty arguments and face a true threat.

What would have happened in a world where most of the economic and political power was libertarian? Would a vaccine be possible when different companies were hiding any progress from one another lest they lose the opportunity to make an incredible profit off a cure? Even if a vaccine were created, would poor people be able to afford it?

Sun Tzu

Its hard to say what could have been. Red Cross goes out of its way to aid people in need. Being a Red Cross CPR/ First Aid Instructor I have seen enough to know they are definately for profit as well.

If there is a new epidemic now same question. What happens if someone has an emergency and they dont have insurance? They are still seen by the ER and taken by the ambulance. Yes they still rack up a bill, but its probably one that wont be paid anyway. Even if someone has a history, if they have a valid emergency they should be seen.

Ive refrained from going into conspiracy, but from past history to now its my opinion that there are elements tainting the field.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

Dunedan, I think it's a mistake to assume that every libertarian strictly adheres to the principle of non-aggression. In this entire thread, which is about nothing but Libertarian governmental and economic theory, non-aggression isn't mentioned once. There's plenty on Libertarianism, and much of it matches up with what Tim McVeigh happened to believe.

I'm not blaming you for the bombing of the Murrah building, or even your particular philosophy. I was simply responding to your defying me to name a libertarian terrorist.

loquitur

to my mind much of the confusion here is the use of "beliefs" and "ideology" to describe libertarians. I'm libertarianish, but I don't view it as a set of beliefs, doctrines or ideologies at all. There's nothing to be a heretic or apostate from, and no single set of rules. I view it mainly as a series of preferences and inclinations, any of which in a particular case might give way in the face of other considerations. Or, as I have said in other contexts in this community, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. It might be more accurate to call me a classical liberal than a libertarian, but the label isn't all that important. It's also important to be realistic about things, which is why I say I have preferences and inclinations rather than beliefs and doctrines: theoretical purity is pretty useless as applied to everyday life. We don't live in a world of limited government, so I'm not going to pretend that we do. And I'm not going to pretend that there aren't people in society who need help (though we can argue about how to define that).

Also, I question how much libertarian philosophy has rationally to say about foreign policy, because libertarianism presupposes rule of law and various other forms of cultural infrastructure, institutions and civil society that simply doesn't exist in the international sphere.

Derwood

Interesting discussion.

Here's what I've gleaned from debating with a few Libertarians:

- Every one of them have a personal anecdote about "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by their boot straps", and have projected their personal story onto the world as a whole. I've never met a Libertarian who tried hard and failed.

- They are extremely pro-business and anti-government. I've had a few "by-the-book" Libertarians argue that we should eliminate not only the EPA, but OSHA, the FDA, etc., because the "market" would eliminate the companies that were making unsafe products or created an unsafe work environment.

- Despite some protests to the contrary here, Libertarians are very much in it for themselves. Altruism and Libertarianism do NOT mix. The irony is that the argument is often that we should (or could) eliminate all government social programs and replace them with private donations, despite the fact that the general Libertarian mindset is to keep every penny that they "earn", and fuck those who don't work as hard. Where are all these private donations coming from?


Admittedly, these are broad generalizations and don't apply to everyone, but I've gone head to head with quite a few self-proclaimed Libertarians and the pattern is pretty consistent.

squeeeb

i'm a registered libertarian. what the LP stands for, to me, is a small, non-intrusive government who doesn't pass laws that dictate what i do in private, who doesn't meddle in private business, who allows personal freedoms. the fairy tale part is, with the freedom comes personal responsibility, and there are many people who do not want the responsibility, and so it isn't exactly a 100% viable solution. we need a government, we need to pay taxes, we need things like OSHA and CDC and government organizations that make sure things run well for everyone. government should not meddle in private business, but there should be federal regulations to ensure workplace safety. government should make sure roads are maintained and safe, but not tell me i HAVE to wear a seatbelt and i CANNOT smoke pot.

it's not black/white, either/or to me, i want a bit of both, so i guess i'm not a good libertarian.

in your question, you assume a libertarian government would not use tax dollars to help eradicate small pox and say "its up to the individual to not get smallpox," correct? Making the country safe and healthy for everyone is part of government's role, and so i would think a libertarian government would use tax dollars to help stop something that would kill off the majority of people, if not all, but they would not force me to get inoculated. i would think if the governments were libertarian, they still would have gotten together, figured out how to stop smallpox, and done so, in the same way they did in real life.

i'm a libertarian like Derwood talks about. i started with nothing and now i'm pretty well off. i figure if i did it, why can't others? i wasn't lucky, i didn't get a break, i worked and saved and went without and now i'm where i'm at. when i see a homeless guy i think "that guy doesn't have to live like that, he could get a job and work and live better." at the same time, i still see a human who needs help and i would still help him. my political beliefs do not trump my humanity. i have to believe a person acts how he will act, regardless of their political affiliation. being a libertarian doesn't automatically make someone an "anti government, pro business, heartless self centered money hoarding loner."

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Willravel

I was exaggerating a bit simply to get a handle on where Libertarianism really rests with people. It seems like the hardliners really don't represent your average libertarian. Most libertarians I've spoken to aren't anarchocapitalists, they seem to be fine with a more moderate libertarianism, just as I'm fine with a more moderate collectivism. I don't want every market federalized, just a few things like medicine. Most libertarians don't want everything privatized, just a few things like Social Security.

If I may, though, not everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. While I'm totally certain that you worked hard to get where you are, had a few small circumstances been different for you it's entirely possible that you might not be as successful. Had it not been for a shining recommendation from a professor, I wouldn't have landed my first job out of college. Did I earn the respect of the teacher with hard work? Sure. Did she have to write the letter? No, that was luck. I'm sure if you look back over your life, you might find a similar circumstance. It doesn't make you any less deserving of that which you've earned, but it should point out that not everyone has that one moment go right for them. Some people work just as hard as you or I, just as smart, but they can't reach their potential due to circumstances outside of their control. Because of that very real fluke, and because humans are a species that developed a sense of community and empathy, it's not wrong to help these people as a society.

That hypothetical homeless man may have, at one time, been giving 100% on the road for a bright future, only to get tripped up by circumstance and have the floor give out beneath him. Maybe he was sued and lost everything. Maybe he lost his job and couldn't find another one. Shoot, maybe he was born with a learning disorder and never had a chance to begin with.

When I see a homeless person, I like to think of him or her as a friend. I like to think of everyone as a friend. If a friend of mine was on the street starving, I'd want more than anything to help out. If a friend of mine was addicted to alcohol, I'd want more than anything to help out (without becoming codependent, of course).

loquitur

Actually, Derwood, I have had both failure and success. Both are features of a free society. You are trying to analyze a libertarian "mindset" by reference to your own views and priorities rather than on its own terms. So the features you find relevant are "pro-business and anti-government", for instance. But that's not accurate. I'm pro-freedom, including the freedom of people to make a living as they choose, to follow their muse and seek their fortunes and self-fulfillment within the bounds of the law. Sometimes that requires being anti-business and pro-government, depending on the circumstance. People should be respected as sovereign individuals, free to make their own choices and decisions, free to acquire, use and enjoy their property, free to aspire, free to achieve, free to fail.

It's important to demystify this notion of govt as the agency of the public good. People don't become angels just because they work for the govt. They are normal human beings with normal human needs, wants and desires, and they respond to incentives just like any other person does. Govt by its nature is a mechanism for restricting liberty - sometimes for good, sometimes for not-so-good - so it needs to be used carefully and sparingly. That isn't an anti-govt stance; it's a recognition of the limitations of govt as a tool.

Law enforcement, courts, military, certain public infrastructure, certain kinds of environmental regulation and a very basic social safety net are all things govt can do reasonably well, and are not usually well-accomplished by private actors who don't have the ability to force compliance. Past that, govt tends to be wasteful, corrupt (using a broad definition; we can get to this some other time), inflexible, and a vehicle for rent-seeking by the politically connected (which is another way of describing corruption). Also, govt can't tailor itself to individual circumstances very well; its rules are usually one-size-fits-all, or scaled in ways that don't account well for individual circumstances. This has nothing to do with whether the intentions of the actors are good or bad (or, in the case of most political actors, the stated intentions - you never really know what someone's real intentions are, but usually it's self-interest of some kind). Even the best of intentions have unforeseen consequences, but in the case of govt those get embedded in law, so good luck getting rid of it if it doesn't work out well, especially if the program has a constituency. On the other hand, if another person, or a business, is violating my rights, it makes perfect sense to go to the govt (courts or police) for protection. So I'm not anti-govt as much as realistic about what govt is good at and good for.

I'm rambling so I'll stop now. My point simply was that you're using your own lens to evaluate this stuff, and it distorts things a bit. The liberal (as in classical liberal) premise is that people should be left alone - not that business is good and govt is bad.