Thoughts of a self-professed Libertarian

[Archaic`]

We'll never be there, because libertarianism fails to take into account things like human apathy, general willful ignorance, laziness and predatory practices of the markets without any kind of strict regulation behind them. It relies far too much on people being willing to do the "right thing" on their own.

I'll have to admit, that's a fairly different perspective than I had on it. I've generally seen the free market as funneling peoples natural greed into desirable outcomes for society. It doesn't generally matter if they're doing what they think is the "right thing" or not, only that they do something, and that they don't distort the market for personal gain. The last bit is where it really falls down, and that's where you need laws and regulations to cover the gaps.

[General Zod]

I'll have to admit, that's a fairly different perspective than I had on it. I've generally seen the free market as funneling peoples natural greed into desirable outcomes for society. It doesn't generally matter if they're doing what they think is the "right thing" or not, only that they do something, and that they don't distort the market for personal gain. The last bit is where it really falls down, and that's where you need laws and regulations to cover the gaps.

The thing is, someone's "desirable outcome" for society is likely to be vastly different than what another group may see it as, especially given we have only a finite amount of natural resources available. That's where predatory practices and consumer apathy come in. Even with regulation people will do whatever they can to skirt or avoid the laws if they think they can get away with it if the end goal is profit, profit, profit.

[Darth Wong]

I'll have to admit, that's a fairly different perspective than I had on it. I've generally seen the free market as funneling peoples natural greed into desirable outcomes for society.

The investment banks' and hedge funds' behaviour over the last half-decade neatly disproves this assumption. Freed of regulation, they pursued behaviour which was highly destructive to society.

In fact, the only way to make private enterprise pursue courses of action which are beneficial to society is to create artificial penalties and incentives to keep them on these courses: that requires heavy government intervention. Without such forces in play, they will be free to pursue selfish courses of action which harm society but benefit themselves. The idea that society will collectively punish them to prevent the collective harm from their actions is utter nonsense: no more realistic than Marx's belief that society would collectively work hard for collective reward. People don't function that way; they think small.

This notion of society working voluntarily and collectively for the common good is found in both Marxism and free-market libertarianism, which is one of the reasons I equate the two. It is a utopian fantasy with no relation to reality.

[Archaic`]

I'll have to admit, that's a fairly different perspective than I had on it. I've generally seen the free market as funneling peoples natural greed into desirable outcomes for society. It doesn't generally matter if they're doing what they think is the "right thing" or not, only that they do something, and that they don't distort the market for personal gain. The last bit is where it really falls down, and that's where you need laws and regulations to cover the gaps.

The thing is, someone's "desirable outcome" for society is likely to be vastly different than what another group may see it as, especially given we have only a finite amount of natural resources available. That's where predatory practices and consumer apathy come in. Even with regulation people will do whatever they can to skirt or avoid the laws if they think they can get away with it if the end goal is profit, profit, profit.

I should probably define what I mean by "desirable outcome". In this context, I'm referring to market equilibrium, in the same sense as where you have an equilibrium price in the basic economic models. There's nothing subjective about it. Granted, perfect market equilibrium is of course impossible in practice to attain, but close enough is good enough for the sake of these models.

I'll have to admit, that's a fairly different perspective than I had on it. I've generally seen the free market as funneling peoples natural greed into desirable outcomes for society.

The investment banks' and hedge funds' behaviour over the last half-decade neatly disproves this assumption. Freed of regulation, they pursued behaviour which was highly destructive to society.

The key point here being that they've been freed of regulation. Their behavior in this instance is no different to a government's distortion of the market, and as I stated earlier, the system starts to have issues when people start intervening in the market for self-interest.

In fact, the only way to make private enterprise pursue courses of action which are beneficial to society is to create artificial penalties and incentives to keep them on these courses: that requires heavy government intervention. Without such forces in play, they will be free to pursue selfish courses of action which harm society but benefit themselves. The idea that society will collectively punish them to prevent the collective harm from their actions is utter nonsense: no more realistic than Marx's belief that society would collectively work hard for collective reward. People don't function that way; they think small.

I'd disagree that this requires heavy government intervention. Someone pursuing selfish courses of action does not necessarily have to harm society while doing it. Harming society simply hurts oneself in the long run, regardless of any short term gain. The problem here may be one of education. Technology, and our global economy, have advanced at a rapid rate over the past century. Many top business executives appear to have simply not caught up with the realities of the modern economy, or are too set in their ways to change now.
This might sound like a strange thing to say, but the simple act of a government setting the rules and regulations which govern a market is not in itself a market distortion. What matters is the content of those rules and regulations. You're most certainly right that the idea that society will collectively punish them to prevent the collective harm from their actions is utter nonsense, but I'd say that's more for the reason that by the time society can punish them, the harm is already done. What society can do however is set up systems by where it's hard for those exerting such undue levels of market power to exercise it in a way whereby they can cause that harm.

This notion of society working voluntarily and collectively for the common good is found in both Marxism and free-market libertarianism, which is one of the reasons I equate the two. It is a utopian fantasy with no relation to reality.

Agreed. I probably started from that base of free-market libertarianism when I was starting my undergrad, and have since moderated it over time, as I saw how parts of it simply did not fit in with what I'd observed about basic human nature.

[General Zod]

The key point here being that they've been freed of regulation. Their behavior in this instance is no different to a government's distortion of the market, and as I stated earlier, the system starts to have issues when people start intervening in the market for self-interest.

That's the whole "failing to take into account human nature" thing I mentioned earlier. Since a significant amount if not a sizable majority of people are in it for pure self interest.

I'd disagree that this requires heavy government intervention. Someone pursuing selfish courses of action does not necessarily have to harm society while doing it. Harming society simply hurts oneself in the long run, regardless of any short term gain. The problem here may be one of education. Technology, and our global economy, have advanced at a rapid rate over the past century. Many top business executives appear to have simply not caught up with the realities of the modern economy, or are too set in their ways to change now.

It can most certainly harm society if they have enough influence. Or did you sleep through the last 8 years of the Bush administration?

[Archaic`]

The key point here being that they've been freed of regulation. Their behavior in this instance is no different to a government's distortion of the market, and as I stated earlier, the system starts to have issues when people start intervening in the market for self-interest.

That's the whole "failing to take into account human nature" thing I mentioned earlier. Since a significant amount if not a sizable majority of people are in it for pure self interest.

Which is why you generally only want elected governments to have that power, though as you've aptly demonstrated with your example of the Bush administration, when the checks and balances that exist there are removed as well, things just go to hell in a hand basket.

I'd disagree that this requires heavy government intervention. Someone pursuing selfish courses of action does not necessarily have to harm society while doing it. Harming society simply hurts oneself in the long run, regardless of any short term gain. The problem here may be one of education. Technology, and our global economy, have advanced at a rapid rate over the past century. Many top business executives appear to have simply not caught up with the realities of the modern economy, or are too set in their ways to change now.

It can most certainly harm society if they have enough influence. Or did you sleep through the last 8 years of the Bush administration?

Never said it can't, only that one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Any action a business takes to improve its bottom line is by definition selfish, but that alone does not make it harmful to society.

[Darth Wong]

Never said it can't, only that one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Any action a business takes to improve its bottom line is by definition selfish, but that alone does not make it harmful to society.

Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be harmful to society 100% of the time (which is what you're distorting my argument into). It only has to lack any prohibitions against harming society, which is definitely the case with the libertarian ideal. If it lacks such prohibitions, then it inevitably will harm society sooner or later.

[Archaic`]

Never said it can't, only that one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Any action a business takes to improve its bottom line is by definition selfish, but that alone does not make it harmful to society.

Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be harmful to society 100% of the time (which is what you're distorting my argument into). It only has to lack any prohibitions against harming society, which is definitely the case with the libertarian ideal. If it lacks such prohibitions, then it inevitably will harm society sooner or later.

My apologies if I've given you the impression I've been distorting your argument, but I believe my point still stands. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make either. I think we've pretty much established that, human nature being what it is, it'd be insane to think that we could totally eliminate potentially harmful actions from any economic system. So there will be inevitable harm to society sooner or later...so what? Seriously. The objective is simply to eliminate as much as possible, and to have a system in place whereby society can recover itself from that harm afterward.

Getting back to the main issue though, I'd have to disagree with the point I've put in bold above. That may be the case with American libertarianism, but to claim that's how we look at the libertarian ideal everywhere would be a strawman. I think it's already well established in this thread that the two obviously share some fundamental differences, despite having superficial similarities at first glance. At what point have I stated that it should lack such prohibitions? I believe I've already clarified that my support for the free market and libertarianism should not be considered support for extreme right wing laissez-faire capitalism.

Actually, I suppose that's not the point, is it? My point of disagreement with your original statement was that you said this would require heavy government intervention. I feel that this requires a minimal level of government intervention. Of course, what is considered minimal outside of North America may very well be considered heavy government intervention by American libertarians. *shrugs* It's difficult to tell where we're all setting the goalposts here. Forgive me if I don't elaborate any further on my own positions for now (it's almost 1:30am here, and I'm dead tired. ^^;; ), but might I ask exactly what you consider to be heavy government intervention?

[Melchior]

Didn't cause what exactly? All the things I mentioned? You'll need to be a bit more specific. I assume you're referring to the "gives them more incentive to avoid paying taxes, gives them less incentive to actually go out there and earn an income instead of just sitting on their wealth, and ultimately results in the rich paying less taxes than they would have otherwise by just having a standardized tax rate." part? I'll admit that I don't have the references to hand, and would have to do a decent amount of research on them to check (my specialty being in marketing, not economics or finance), and If I'm incorrect here, I'll gladly retract that and alter my position, but I don't see anything I've said being in conflict with generally accepted economic theory and models. Of course, they're fairly broad abstractions, but testing economic theory as rigorously as we'd like to is difficult, given the lack of a controled environment in which to do so, not to mention the ethical issues with experimenting like that.

Sorry, you're right, I was less than clear. You assumed correctly. If I remember correctly, in the United States, during the Fifties, the tax rate on the rich was exceedingly high (about 90%, I think, I'll look for a source) and it didn't cause significant problems.

In any case, what you have to consider here is that there's a difference between the "top income bracket" as defined by income taxes and "the rich". Depending on the specific country, that can be a very broad group. There's a wealth of difference (quite literally in this case) between, say, a local GP (who would tend to fall into that bracket), and some top executive. The ones avoiding tax now aren't generally amongst your typical hardworking professionals, who while being in that top bracket couldn't simply stop working overnight and expect to continue to live in a live of luxury, but rather amongst your investment banker types, high level corporate executives, and so forth.

The benefit to society provided by overpaid executives is grossly overrated.

[Archaic`]

The benefit to society provided by overpaid executives is grossly overrated.

Need to leave for work, but just quickly, allow me to say that I couldn't agree more. Having said that though, this is, surprisingly, a fairly American centric problem, that's been spreading as American influence in global business has caused a cultural shift.It's interesting to note though just how little a CEO of a Japanese firm earns in comparison to their American counterparts even today. IIRC, in a comparison of major firms like banks or car companies, the Japanese CEO earns about 10% of the salary of his American counterpart. To bring up one fairly recent example, I couldn't imagine the CEO of an American airline cutting his own salary and that of his fellow board members below that of his pilots on national television, so that none of the firm's staff will have to lose their jobs in the current economic meltdown.

[K. A. Pital]

The objective is simply to eliminate as much as possible, and to have a system in place whereby society can recover itself from that harm afterward.

The gist is that harmful behaviour for the market is a modus operandi. It's not a failure of the market but merely the market operating how it is supposed to be. "The market" is just a set of rules for selfish operations of economic agents. There is no moral nature, no judgement, and no concept of suffering in the market. It's a mechanism which simply does it's job, regardless of whether we would consider the outcome morally good or horrendous. Therefore, to "eliminate" this harm, we would have to place artificial restrictions on the "voluntary" transactions between people.

My point of disagreement with your original statement was that you said this would require heavy government intervention. I feel that this requires a minimal level of government intervention. Of course, what is considered minimal outside of North America may very well be considered heavy government intervention by American libertarians.

Indeed. And basically, "minimal" is a maxim. "Minimum" is something streaming to the least possible value. That is not really meaningful unless you are willing to say the government should be trying to lower it's influence all the way down to zero, and then we're back at square one. What is "minimal"? Why do you consider a welfare state a "minimum" intervention, when others, including most libertarians in the US and elsewhere as well - consider it a heavy intervention? There's just something to ponder about the comparative levels of intervention.

The gist is that your goal is to eliminate the harm caused by objective interactions (see above), and to that end, you can use as much intervention as necessary. The goal defines the means, not vice-versa.

[bobalot]

Agreed. We're getting to the point where it's easier for a consumer to be informed and conscientious, thanks to increases in communications technology, but we're still not there yet. Having said that, the free market doesn't necessarily depend on consumers actually making the correct choice, only that they try and make what they believe are individually the correct choices for them.

We'll never be there, because libertarianism fails to take into account things like human apathy, general willful ignorance, laziness and predatory practices of the markets without any kind of strict regulation behind them. It relies far too much on people being willing to do the "right thing" on their own.

The most recent poster boy for libertarianism was Iceland. The loony wing and the more moderate wings of Libertarians were holding it up as an example of the power of deregulation, smaller governments, lower taxes and less intervention is the market. Well, the just about all of them have been caught in the stampede to disown Iceland as too going "far enough" or not reforms not being done "correctly". Libertarianism can never be proven a failure, it can only be failed.

[Darth Wong]

My apologies if I've given you the impression I've been distorting your argument, but I believe my point still stands. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make either. I think we've pretty much established that, human nature being what it is, it'd be insane to think that we could totally eliminate potentially harmful actions from any economic system. So there will be inevitable harm to society sooner or later...so what? Seriously. The objective is simply to eliminate as much as possible, and to have a system in place whereby society can recover itself from that harm afterward.

The objectives of eliminating as much corporate harm as possible with the least government regulation are mutually incompatible. What part of this do you not understand?

Getting back to the main issue though, I'd have to disagree with the point I've put in bold above. That may be the case with American libertarianism, but to claim that's how we look at the libertarian ideal everywhere would be a strawman. I think it's already well established in this thread that the two obviously share some fundamental differences, despite having superficial similarities at first glance. At what point have I stated that it should lack such prohibitions? I believe I've already clarified that my support for the free market and libertarianism should not be considered support for extreme right wing laissez-faire capitalism.

Why not? What is the rationale for not supporting laissez-faire capitalism if you believe that minimal regulation is always better?

Actually, I suppose that's not the point, is it? My point of disagreement with your original statement was that you said this would require heavy government intervention. I feel that this requires a minimal level of government intervention.

"Heavy" means that there is sufficient regulatory presence to be considered pervasive, so that companies are intimidated by it. I don't know what the fuck you think "minimal" means, since there is no sharp line.

Of course, what is considered minimal outside of North America may very well be considered heavy government intervention by American libertarians. *shrugs* It's difficult to tell where we're all setting the goalposts here. Forgive me if I don't elaborate any further on my own positions for now (it's almost 1:30am here, and I'm dead tired. ^^;; ), but might I ask exactly what you consider to be heavy government intervention?

See above. The law is ineffective as a deterrent if one does not have a sense that enforcement is pervasive. Individuals are not intimidated by the law if they do not regularly see police officers in their communities, and corporations are not intimidated by the law if they do not regularly see auditors and watchdogs monitoring and interfering with their businesses.

[Archaic`]

Thanks for that Wong, I see where our lines are getting crossed now. I've been leaving a few things in terms that my students would readily understand, from having been bashed around with it for a few years before they get into the final year classes I've been teaching in, but those terms in the same context can mean very different things to someone who isn't locked into thinking in these perspectives day in and day out. I'll try to explain myself better in future.

The objectives of eliminating as much corporate harm as possible with the least government regulation are mutually incompatible. What part of this do you not understand?

"Heavy" means that there is sufficient regulatory presence to be considered pervasive, so that companies are intimidated by it. I don't know what the fuck you think "minimal" means, since there is no sharp line.

See above. The law is ineffective as a deterrent if one does not have a sense that enforcement is pervasive. Individuals are not intimidated by the law if they do not regularly see police officers in their communities, and corporations are not intimidated by the law if they do not regularly see auditors and watchdogs monitoring and interfering with their businesses.

It seems our line of misunderstanding here is that I'm referring to burden of regulation on the market when I'm talking about minimal regulation, while you appear to be thinking in terms of actual raw amount of regulation.

Those two objectives, when put the way you have here, are mutually incompatible, agreed. But that's not what I'm saying. The goal should be to have the least government regulation possible to eliminate the majority of corporate harm. Removing regulation is secondary to eliminating corporate harm here.
Or to put it in other terms, it's not about slashing regulation for the sake of slashing regulation. It's about stopping over-regulation, where excessive regulation burdens are themselves causing more harm than they prevent.

Indeed. And basically, "minimal" is a maxim. "Minimum" is something streaming to the least possible value. That is not really meaningful unless you are willing to say the government should be trying to lower it's influence all the way down to zero, and then we're back at square one. What is "minimal"? Why do you consider a welfare state a "minimum" intervention, when others, including most libertarians in the US and elsewhere as well - consider it a heavy intervention? There's just something to ponder about the comparative levels of intervention.

The gist is that your goal is to eliminate the harm caused by objective interactions (see above), and to that end, you can use as much intervention as necessary. The goal defines the means, not vice-versa.

I'll answer this below, since it's something brought up by Darth Wong as well, but I just wanted to note here that it's probably not accurate to say that I consider a welfare state a minimum intervention. I suppose it really depends how you define a welfare state. I do think there should be some kind of welfare system to help prevent people get into a poverty trap, to assist the disabled, and so forth, but not to the point as in some countries currently where you have people who should be in the workforce literally bludging off the dole, never attempting even to search for work.

Having said that, what you've said in the part I've bolded is pretty much right on the money. You can use as much intervention as necessary, to the point where further regulation would only end up causing more harm than it's preventing. What is not necessary however, should be eliminated, as it's only placing a burden on the system in the long term, even if it's not yet doing any observable harm.

Why not? What is the rationale for not supporting laissez-faire capitalism if you believe that minimal regulation is always better?

I consider governments to have a moral imperative to improve and protect the base standard of life of their citizens. Laissez-faire capitalism can only achieve that in some kind of utopian ideal that we'll almost certainly never see. Like I said above, minimal regulation doesn't mean reduce regulation to practically nothing, it means bring regulation to the level at which the regulation and what it is regulating combined cause the least possible amount of harm to society.

[K. A. Pital]

What is not necessary however, should be eliminated, as it's only placing a burden on the system in the long term, even if it's not yet doing any observable harm.

That easily follows: unnecessary expenditure is a social waste of resources which otherwise could've been used for improving the condition of the people. However, evaluating the necessity of various policies is not easy; especially so in the longer term. The understanding of economy by those in the economic science field is, quite frankly, rather abysmal and very heavily influenced by whatever ideology is dominating the power field in their particular nation, and in the world.

This is where most problems stem from; not from "too much" or "too little" government. Thinking in simplistic terms is often bound to be wrong, and applying large generalizations as "this is waste spending" or "this invasion is necessary/unnecessary" instead of a proper evaluation of any policy on a case-by-case basis with all the consequences, is wrong.

Ergo, generalizations which rely on ideological imperative instead of the empirical imperative are not going to lead to a better outcome; empiricism is the only way we can reliably gouge the damage and benefit of policies. Incidentally, this also means that some social experimentation is inevitable - but social and economic models are getting better and more complex, so some damage may be mitigated for a greater number of consequences and inputs can be now used in the models.

[Darth Wong]

Those two objectives, when put the way you have here, are mutually incompatible, agreed. But that's not what I'm saying. The goal should be to have the least government regulation possible to eliminate the majority of corporate harm. Removing regulation is secondary to eliminating corporate harm here.

The "majority" of corporate harm? So a huge amount of malfeasance is OK as long as it is not the majority of corporate behaviour? Do you even look at what you're typing?

Or to put it in other terms, it's not about slashing regulation for the sake of slashing regulation. It's about stopping over-regulation, where excessive regulation burdens are themselves causing more harm than they prevent.

That sounds great until you ask yourself exactly how you determine which regulations should go.

Would it not be more reasonable to evaluate regulations based on their actual content, rather than simply looking at them as some sort of cost item on a balance sheet and trying to minimize them?

[Archaic`]

Those two objectives, when put the way you have here, are mutually incompatible, agreed. But that's not what I'm saying. The goal should be to have the least government regulation possible to eliminate the majority of corporate harm. Removing regulation is secondary to eliminating corporate harm here.

The "majority" of corporate harm? So a huge amount of malfeasance is OK as long as it is not the majority of corporate behaviour? Do you even look at what you're typing?

As a matter of fact, I do. I purposely went out of my way to not talk in absolute terms, so as to avoid being the trap of the issue appearing to be a binary argument, and to avoid myself being pigeon-holed into appearing to support an extremist position again. Looks like that backfired, didn't it? Instead, I've just been pigeon-holed into an even worse sounding position, that's so far off target from what I meant that it's laughable.

Given what we've just been talking about, I would've thought it was quite obvious from the context that I meant the vast majority of corporate harm. If anyone thinks that it's possible to eliminate all possibility of corporate bodies causing harm through their actions by simple regulation of the market, they're as foolish as a person who thinks we'll ever go through a year without a single driver dying on the roads, or that we'll ever totally eliminate crime. Of course it's not a good thing that harm may happen, but there's a point where we do have to say that we can't put in any more regulation without overburdening the system and society, and a point where we've reached the limits of what can reasonably be regulated.

Or to put it in other terms, it's not about slashing regulation for the sake of slashing regulation. It's about stopping over-regulation, where excessive regulation burdens are themselves causing more harm than they prevent.

That sounds great until you ask yourself exactly how you determine which regulations should go.

Would it not be more reasonable to evaluate regulations based on their actual content, rather than simply looking at them as some sort of cost item on a balance sheet and trying to minimize them?

You're putting a very negative spin on this that honestly isn't warranted. What you've presented as a binary choice here simply is not. If anything, your two artificial choices here are one and the same thing. You would evaluate regulations based on their content, on their stated goals, on how well they achieve their goals, and on what negative trade-offs arise from their implementation. In many, though not necessarily all cases, the only objective measure you may have of these is the observable economic impact on families, on firms, and on the country market as a whole.

[Darth Wong]

You're putting a very negative spin on this that honestly isn't warranted. What you've presented as a binary choice here simply is not.

It is the way you've presented it, because you are talking about simple numbers of regulations as if that is the most critical factor.

If anything, your two artificial choices here are one and the same thing. You would evaluate regulations based on their content, on their stated goals, on how well they achieve their goals, and on what negative trade-offs arise from their implementation. In many, though not necessarily all cases, the only objective measure you may have of these is the observable economic impact on families, on firms, and on the country market as a whole.

And what makes you think this is not already done? A libertarian must believe that there is too much regulation, yet you have not bothered to name so much as a single regulation that you think should be removed, or altered, or how you would alter it. Instead, you simply complain that there are too many, as if we should simply do a head count.

[Serafina]

The objectives of eliminating as much corporate harm as possible with the least government regulation are mutually incompatible.

Actually, you can have both - you just need a third party that will eliminate/reduce both.
Of course, this either requires the complete removal of capitalistic structures (back to the stoneage, yeah ) or some futuristic stuff (say, the elemination of worth by infinite resources/energy).
Thats a nice proof that libertarian views are utopic - you need to change the very rules our society is build on, requiring means we do not have.

[Archaic`]

You're putting a very negative spin on this that honestly isn't warranted. What you've presented as a binary choice here simply is not.

It is the way you've presented it, because you are talking about simple numbers of regulations as if that is the most critical factor.

Then you leave me to assume you're not reading my posts very thoroughly, as I quite clearly corrected this misconception earlier. Allow me to re-iterate what I said 2 posts ago.

It seems our line of misunderstanding here is that I'm referring to burden of regulation on the market when I'm talking about minimal regulation, while you appear to be thinking in terms of actual raw amount of regulation.]
Let me make that clearer.

Minimal regulation would be having the least amount of regulatory burden possible to achieve the stated goals. It doesn't matter if that ends up being 2 regulations or 2 million, the amount of regulations isn't the issue, it's the amount of burden those regulations create.

If anything, your two artificial choices here are one and the same thing. You would evaluate regulations based on their content, on their stated goals, on how well they achieve their goals, and on what negative trade-offs arise from their implementation. In many, though not necessarily all cases, the only objective measure you may have of these is the observable economic impact on families, on firms, and on the country market as a whole.

And what makes you think this is not already done?

What makes me think it is not already done, is the very same thing that makes us both certain that a utopian society can never work. The fact that many regulations in place in numerous different countries and market sectors were done in a very self serving manner, to achieve short term political goals, that have the potential to cause long term harm to society from not being thought through properly before being implemented.

A libertarian must believe that there is too much regulation, yet you have not bothered to name so much as a single regulation that you think should be removed, or altered, or how you would alter it. Instead, you simply complain that there are too many, as if we should simply do a head count.

In reply to the part in bold...I did no such thing, as I believe I've already clarified.

As to the rest of your argument, why must a Libertarian believe that there is too much regulation? If there is a lot of regulation (in sheer number terms), but that regulation is all justified, and removing that regulation would do more harm than good from an objective observation, then no Libertarian should have a problem with it. Once again, I think you're confusing me with the bastardization of Libertarians that seem to be common in North America, rather than what we Libertarians outside of North America actually think. I'll go back to Hayek again. "Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism." Rigid dogmatic adherence to laissez-faire principles is not a characteristic of Libertarianism.

As for why I haven't named a single regulation I think should be removed, altered, or how I would do so (and while we're at it, let's include the fact I haven't named a single regulation I think should be added, because just as I think there are some things over-regulated currently, there are almost certainly areas which I would consider are under-regulated as well), that's simply because the whole reason I posted this thread in the first place was not to get into a debate about the rightness or wrongness of Libertarianism, as you seem to be thoroughly intent on turning it into. I started this thread simply to try and give a different perspective on Libertarianism, to show those in North America particularly that what seems to be understood of there as Libertarianism is not what we would understand as Libertarianism elsewhere, and to get some feedback from Americans on what they would consider our brand of Libertarianism to be.

[Darth Wong]

Then you leave me to assume you're not reading my posts very thoroughly, as I quite clearly corrected this misconception earlier. Allow me to re-iterate what I said 2 posts ago.

I saw it, you smarmy little asshole. There is no important difference between "numbers of regulations" and "least amount of regulatory burden", you goddamned ass-wipe. The point is still that you are thinking strictly in terms of quantity of regulation. Start debating honestly instead of doing this mealy-mouthed nitpicky chickenshit.

[Archaic`]

Then you leave me to assume you're not reading my posts very thoroughly, as I quite clearly corrected this misconception earlier. Allow me to re-iterate what I said 2 posts ago.

I saw it, you smarmy little asshole. There is no difference between "numbers of regulations" and "least amount of regulatory burden", you goddamned ass-wipe. Start debating honestly instead of doing this mealy-mouthed chickenshit.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. A single large complex regulation can cause the same amount or more regulatory burden as a larger number of much smaller, more concise and specific regulations.

[Darth Wong]

Then you leave me to assume you're not reading my posts very thoroughly, as I quite clearly corrected this misconception earlier. Allow me to re-iterate what I said 2 posts ago.

I saw it, you smarmy little asshole. There is no difference between "numbers of regulations" and "least amount of regulatory burden", you goddamned ass-wipe. Start debating honestly instead of doing this mealy-mouthed chickenshit.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. A single large complex regulation can cause the same amount or more regulatory burden as a larger number of much smaller, more concise and specific regulations.

Jesus fucking Christ, you're dense. The point I'm making is that you're simply looking at quantity. Whether it's one complicated meta-regulation or a bunch of smaller regulations, you're still talking about QUANTITY. As I said, you're being a nitpicky little chickenshit.

[PeZook]

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. A single large complex regulation can cause the same amount or more regulatory burden as a larger number of much smaller, more concise and specific regulations.

Let me ask one simple question: what measures do you use to ascertain the "regulatory burden" of a law?

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. A single large complex regulation can cause the same amount or more regulatory burden as a larger number of much smaller, more concise and specific regulations.

Let me ask one simple question: what measures do you use to ascertain the "regulatory burden" of a law?

I'm guessing it's "how much does it cost corporations to conform to it". Ultimately, libertarianism is all about saving money for corporations.

Nobody ever says "Hey, we need fewer criminal laws", or talks about "minimizing the regulatory burden on criminals". And yet "law" is just another word for "regulation".