If libertarians' motto is "live and let live" - is everyone else's motto "live and let live....."?

Question

as long as you live the way we want you to live?

Answer 1

No mine is live and let live--with protective laws--because absolute power corrupts absolutely and those with too much power will enslave the rest by dictating the rules.  And that's not freedom.  There is no "free market" if monopolies are continually allowed to break anti-trust laws and set prices, wages, and other things that should be determined by supply and demand--they take away our freedom to choose as consumers by eliminating competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Ant...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessN...

idUSN1333754220080814?feedType=RSS&fee...

Answer 2

Libertarians, classical liberals & traditional conservatives ALL have a "live and let live" philosophy, as long as you follow laws & take responsibility for yourself. I am a Libertarian, and I'll tell you that half the battle is people not even knowing what a Libertarian is, or a classical liberal or REAL conservative. Bush type conservatives are not real conservatives, they are fascists who have a LOT in common with the increasingly socialist Democratic party. It's not really a 2 party system, but a 1 party system. If only conservatives were still fiscally conservative, we wouldn't have so much national debt. If liberals were still classically liberal & believed in LIBERTY, they wouldn't be so socialist & totalitarian in their views. Yes, I do use seemingly 'exaggerated' terms... it's just that the meanings of liberal, conservative, etc have been twisted around and changed over the years.

Answer 3

No. The democrats motto would be more like "live however you want, but keep in mind other people have to live here too."

That's the problem with the libertarian philosophy. If you let people live however they want, they interfere with each other. You need a certain amount of governmental protection of each other's freedoms. Also, capitalism facilitates a concentration of wealth, to keep it healthy and to keep it the greatest possible system for everyone, you've got to have some wealth redistribution methods, like a progressive tax and some social programs like basic public school.

Socially, the democrats and the libertarians agree, their differences are primarily in fiscal policy.

I'll let your motto stand for the republicans, anything I come up with may be overly critical.

EDIT: There is little practical distinction between not helping strangers and affirmatively doing bad things to them, as a government (as opposed to as individuals). I'm not at all suggesting the government must or even should render the people dependent. However, absence of regulation leads to a spiralling out of control economy that has lead to the great depression in the past and more recently the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In the latter example, many people bought homes they couldn't afford because regulations either didn't exist or weren't enforced allowing the system as a whole (not just any one part of it on its own) convinced people who did not properly understand mortgages that they could afford something they couldn't. Now those people have lost their homes and the people who expected to make money on the deals so long as the whole system didn't collapse forgot, as they always do, that such schemes always collapse, as the economy always does. Regulation cannot eliminate collapse, it is inherent in the capitalist system that also brings so many wonderful benefits. However, proper regulation can soften the blow when it inevitably comes.

Also, if the government properly saves in the booms (which it never will as long as politicians are in control of that decision because it's an impossible to sell the idea, there should really be some check and balance with the Fed or another organization, which is less directly accountable) then it can spend during the bust. The private sector obviously slows during a bust by definition. If the government properly prepares for that scenario, then it can spend in the bust, which will shorten the duration, plus spending on education and infrastructure will make the nation as a whole more productive long term which helps everybody as it increases supply long term. (That's real supply side economics, not trickle down theory).

Answer 4

what?

Answer 5

yes???????????