[nonhuman]

So I was talking to some people earlier today and I had an idea.

What if the Libertarian party ran a campaign emphasizing their traditional conservative values trying to draw votes away from the Republicans? The Bush administration has made huge departures from Republican and conservative ideals (and not just because of terrorism, he's also increased funding to the NEA which the Republicans have traditionally been very agains). I bet a lot of Republicans/conservatives would like to see a different conservative in the White House even if they think that Bush is better than a Democrat.

Maybe the Libertarians could take advantage of this and do to the Republicans what the Greens threatened to do the Democrats in 2000 (or what Perot did to Bush).

Considering how well Gary Nolan (LP candiate for president) did in the Amazon.com campaign donation thing, I'm thinking this isn't completely farfetched. (Hell, it might even be possible to get him elected, though I wouldn't count on it.)

An election between Bush, Nolan, and whatever Democrat (particularly Dean as his policies are actually fairly conservative) would be a very interesting one, and not one in which the outcome is predetermined as so many people seem to think this one is.

What do you guys think? Is this a possibility? Is it worthwhile to try?

[Nonsuch]

I think conservatives/Republicans are better than Democrats at holding their noses and voting for the guy who can win, even if they don't like him in all the particulars. I can't see a Nader-like spoiler candidacy gaining any traction on the right. If nothing else, Karl Rove would see to it that every potential big donor would keep their wallet firmly shut.

[thunderous_funker]

I think nonsuch is right. Its all about the money and the support. Without dollars and ground troops, its a total fantasy.

The GOP has more discipline over that than anyone else. Even the most outraged and disgusted Buchananite or Perot-head would be talking to an empty room unless they are willing to spend a helluva lot of their own money.

Not gonna happen. Partisan loyalty is a helluva lot stronger on that side of the aisle, IMO.

And that's not a compliment.

[AKcrab]

I would like to see a candidate from a third party get a single, solitary, electoral college vote. It would restore my faith in the system.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nonhuman:

Considering how well Gary Nolan (LP candiate for president) did in the Amazon.com campaign donation thing, I'm thinking this isn't completely farfetched. (Hell, it might even be possible to get him elected, though I wouldn't count on it.)

An election between Bush, Nolan, and whatever Democrat (particularly Dean as his policies are actually fairly conservative) would be a very interesting one, and not one in which the outcome is predetermined as so many people seem to think this one is.

What do you guys think? Is this a possibility? Is it worthwhile to try?

Is it worthwhile to try? ALWAYS. Proves the system, and is an exercise of freedom.

But what, you don't like Michael Badnarik, the other LP Presidential candidate?

I met Nolan and Badnarik on separate occasions. Good people.

[Shaddim]

Nolan's a great guy, and would make a great President. However, since a 3rd party candidate wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting elected right now (Perot was a fluke, yes I voted for him... twice), you'd be throwing your vote away.

That said. I'd rather vote against the persons I dislike (most Liberal Democrats), than vote for the person that fits my views best (a Libertarian), even though I may elect a person whom I don't agree with on some issues (Republicans).

I have voted for Democrats in some local elections, but that's commonly because even the Dems here in TN are pretty conservative, around here they're more like Libertarians (fiscally conservative, socially liberal). In the county I live in we narrowly got a Democrat Sheriff elected, and since then: pot busts have been down 70%, meth busts up 30%, violent crime down 42%, and he's a damn cool guy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Like a lot of people who vote Republican, I actually lean libertarian (small l). However, small l libertarians aren't necessarily capital L Libertarians. If you actually look at the Libertarian Party's platform, they are pretty extreme. I couldn't vote for them.

However, I wouldn't mind pushing the Republicans in a libertarian direction -- more like Barry Goldwater, and less like Richard Nixon.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like a lot of people who vote Republican, I actually lean libertarian (small l). However, small l libertarians aren't necessarily capital L Libertarians. If you actually look at the Libertarian Party's platform, they are pretty extreme. I couldn't vote for them.

except that a lot of LP members and candidates are actually small l libertarians...

so it really comes back down to the candidate, same as when looking at moderate-to-liberal-republicans and conservative democrats.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
What do you guys think? Is this a possibility? Is it worthwhile to try?

I think this is a great idea. If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to vote (for someone other than myself, relations, etc.) I'd definitely vote Libertarian. The problem is that many/most libertarians (nonparty members or whatever) don't believe in voting...

But I would be very happy to see them get more than a few percent of the vote. I don't think they can win...but it would be fun to watch. I might even recommend that unsure "voting types" vote for the guy. (for some strange reason people come to me for political advice)

[davesimondotcom]

I voted for Harry Browne in '96 and intended to in 2000 before the fiasco of government beauracracy that prevented me from voting. (I registered legitimately, with my wife, when we got to the polls, her name was on the list, mine wasn't.)

I would probably consider a vote for a Libertarian again in 2004, due to the overspending of the Bush Administration, except I do have concerns about the Libertarian tendancy towards isolationism as foriegn policy. I don't like being policeman to the world, but I also believe there are times in the world that require a nation to do something. The War on Terror is one of them.

I agree with the idea that it would be wonderful to see a third party gain at least one electoral vote. I'm afraid it isn't going to happen soon, however.

[BRussell]

It's hard to imagine people who lean Libertarian voting for Republicans any more. Republicans seem, at least under Bush, to represent the opposite of libertarianism on all counts: international interventionists, social conservatives, fiscal liberals. Democrats seem more Libertarian than Republicans in every way - not that they're really Libertarian, but more towards that end of the spectrum than Republicans.

I've suspected that many people who say they're libertarians are really just conservative Republicans pretending to be independent-minded. This election will put them to the test more than any other I've seen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's hard to imagine people who lean Libertarian voting for Republicans any more. Republicans seem, at least under Bush, to represent the opposite of libertarianism on all counts: international interventionists, social conservatives, fiscal liberals. Democrats seem more Libertarian than Republicans in every way - not that they're really Libertarian, but more towards that end of the spectrum than Republicans.

I've suspected that many people who say they're libertarians are really just conservative Republicans pretending to be independent-minded. This election will put them to the test more than any other I've seen.

I can think of a number of things where Democrats are anathema to a libertarian. To whit:

Institutionalized racial discrimination (affirmative action)
Overt income redistribution
Coersive environmentalism = diminished property rights
Increased regulation = diminished property rights
Tax increases
Foreign policy that hands the power to go to war over to foreign entities (the UN, Europeans)
Anti-free trade
Pro union
Increased regulation on gun ownership.
Anti-growth (land use)
Support for speech codes
Anti school choice
Anti Social Security privatization (i.e. retirement choice)
More interventionist judiciary
Tendency toward anti-federalist solutions
Tendency toward government solutions in general (e.g. health care)


This is just off the top of my head. Not that every Democrat fits those policy positions, or that every Republican is on the other side of those issues, but there is enough do that a libertarian could see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

Besides, as we have shown with those liberal/conservative/authoritarian/libertarian polls, there are left libertarians, and right libertarians. What is usually described as "libertarian" in this country is basically right libertarianism. But a right libertarian has his rightness in common with conservatives, and his libertarianism in common with left libertarians. So naturally, you would expect some cross over.

What I'm describing in the list above are policies that tend to fall into the left authoritarian quadrant, which a right libertarian would tend to find objectionable. Many Democratic policies are left authoritarian. They involve the government telling individuals what to think just as much as Social Conservatives' right authoritarianism does.

[andi*pandi]

Libertarians can only steal republican votes when the republican competitors are moderates on personal issues. In certain areas, libertarian support of samesex marriage (or, who the hellz biznis is it of yours) personal freedoms, drug law reform, etc, would get them no love from the Bible Belt.

for example, Lib. Carla Howell got lots of Rep. votes in MA when she ran for Senate, because she was more conservative on money issues... yet no more liberal than Ted K. on personal issues.

Just like Republicans Bill Weld and Mitt Romney got voted in to governor because, "for republicans" they still had moderate stances on personal issues.

MacNStein, I don't buy the "throwing your vote away" scenario. Vote your conscience. I think half of Kerry's resurgence in popularity in the last two weeks is because people thought he would get a resurgence in popularity come election time. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ooh, I feel dirty. I've posted in the political lounge. ::scrubs keyboard::

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:

FWIW MacNStein, I don't buy the "throwing your vote away" scenario. Vote your conscience. I think half of Kerry's resurgence in popularity in the last two weeks is because people thought he would get a resurgence in popularity come election time. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes and my conscience tells me that Kerry is a weak canidate. He's wishy-washy on a lot of issues. Never mind the fact that he's a rich, white, liberal who looks like Lurch (with a $100 haircut) from the Addams Family. He's not going to be popular with Joe Public.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I voted for Harry Browne in '96 and intended to in 2000 before the fiasco of government beauracracy that prevented me from voting. (I registered legitimately, with my wife, when we got to the polls, her name was on the list, mine wasn't.)

The same thing happened to me, except my name was on the list and my wife's wasn't. It did not prevent her from voting, she just had to fill out a form for her name missing on the ledger.

[The Mick]

I would like to see a Libertarian candidate get some more exposure and some votes. I don't mind a few limited taxpayer-funded social programs to help people in need, as long as they are run efficiently and at a local level. So I suppose I'm a somewhat left-leaning Libertarian. I think it is time for some alternative voices to be heard, as evidenced by the growing rift between the two traditional parties, and the apparent re-alignment of the parties.

[thunderous_funker]

I'll become a Libertarian when it becomes legal to shoot CEOs of corporations that pollute or exploit workers.

Or perhaps if the notion of property is abolished.

[mr. natural]

I too can think of a number of things where anyone with half a freedom loving brain, libertarian or otherwise, would find the Republican party as construed under Bush like a plague of biblical locusts, best dealt with by fumigating from one's home as swiftly as possible. To whit:

• Laissez-faire racial discrimination (wink wink)
• Covert income redistribution = trickle down and funnel up
• Corporate welfare of public property = diminished Creation and public health
• Corporate Non-regulation = diminished long term Creation and public health for short term private gain (see above)
• Tax cuts for those who don't truly need it and massive shifting of tax burden in a Federal to State shell game upon those who do
• Trade agreements that hands power to an unelected elite of corporate minded bureaucratic hacks and weasely lawyers in foreign based offices (Brussels)
• Foreign policy based on blinkered ideology (we're good, they're evil; god is on our side) regardless of reality
• Pro corporate power and anti-people power
• Abolishment of gun control of any sort (wanna .50 caliber automatic to rid your lawn of those pesky deer, you got it!)
• Pro-growth (the ideology of a cancer cell) with out responsibility into the hands of a corporate elite whose only concern is their further accumulation of wealth and power
• Support for coded speech (wink wink)
• Anti education, never mind the funding
• Anti social safety netting -- if you fail to invest your money wisely, you're up a creek without a paddle, and don't come crying to me to save your dumb ass
• More 'turn-back-the-clock' judiciary activism; at least as far as social concerns go, but damn the torpedoes with corporate winning power and wealth accumulating decisions at the public's expense
• Tendency toward We're the Greatest, who gives a sh!t what you think or reality is
• Tendency to belief in divinely ordained manifest destiny (e.g. We Know What Jesus Would Do)

Yep, this is just off the top of my head too. Not that every Republican fits these policy positions, or that every Democrat is on the other side either, but there sure is enough here to see that Bush and the Republican party are definitely the worst of two evils.

What I'm describing in the list above are policies that involve the government siding with a corporate aristocracy that ultimately doesn't give a god damned Texas sized turd about you or me.

As de Tocqueville, in his tome "Democracy in America," warned: "The friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed" on an "industrial aristocracy... For if ever again permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy make their way into the world it will have been by that door that they entered." Further, he wrote, that life under these conditions would be worse than it had been under the old land-based aristocracy of Europe, who at least felt obliged "to come to the help of its servants and relieve their distress. But the industrial aristocracy... when it has impoverished and brutalized the men it uses, abandons them in a time of crisis." (Actually, now we send them to war for no good reason.)

It's something to think about.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'll become a Libertarian when it becomes legal to shoot CEOs of corporations that pollute or exploit workers.

Or perhaps if the notion of property is abolished.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by mr. natural:


As de Tocqueville, in his tome "Democracy in America," warned: "The friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed" on an "industrial aristocracy... For if ever again permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy make their way into the world it will have been by that door that they entered." Further, he wrote, that life under these conditions would be worse than it had been under the old land-based aristocracy of Europe, who at least felt obliged "to come to the help of its servants and relieve their distress. But the industrial aristocracy... when it has impoverished and brutalized the men it uses, abandons them in a time of crisis." (Actually, now we send them to war for no good reason.)

It's something to think about.

In case anybody missed that

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
What I'm describing in the list above are policies that involve the government siding with a corporate aristocracy that ultimately doesn't give a god damned Texas sized turd about you or me.

Great post. I picked out this nugget cuz I thought it might help illuminate my rather dark and wicked comments earlier.

I fully understand why Libertarians hate a corrupt government that is in league with a corporate aristocracy.

What I fail to understand is the naive notion that abolishing or totally neutering that government would do anything but leave us all at the mercy of the now utterly unfettered corporate aristocracy.

For all it's failures, our government has a remarkably good track record of working for the general welfare--historically speaking.

Take away the power of the Fed in America and it will turn into Brazil in less than a generation. You'll live in gated community or in a cardboard box. Total and absolute oligopoly.

That's why I favor substantial and persistant reform of our existing system, rather than simply abandoning it because people have been too lazy to be vigilant in punishing corruption and mismanagement.

/rant

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I too can think of a number of things where anyone with half a freedom loving brain, libertarian or otherwise, would find the Republican party as construed under Bush like a plague of biblical locusts, best dealt with by fumigating from one's home as swiftly as possible. To whit:

Your list simply indicates that you are not a libertarian since your preferred policies all require significant government intervention.

If taken to an extreme, then I'm not a libertarian either. But a sincere libertarian does not see it as the government's job to ensure fair" outcomes. Since I take it you do, that puts you in another camp from a libertarian.

The way you posted your above post also indicates that you misunderstood what I was arguing. I wasn't necessarily adopting any of those positions, just saying why a libertarian wouldn't confuse liberal democratic positions with a libertarian position. Nor are mainstream Republican positions either, of course (they rely on government just as much as Democrats). But I think it is true to say that Libertarians (capital l) and those in the US who call themselves small l libertarians would be more likely to be more comfortable in the Republican party than the Democratic party. And of course, we know this from voting patterns.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I think it is true to say that Libertarians (capital l) and those in the US who call themselves small l libertarians would be more likely to be more comfortable in the Republican party than the Democratic party. And of course, we know this from voting patterns.

Voting patterns prior to Bush.

But yeah, I don't think the Dems are libertarians by any stretch. However, despite your list, I disagree with you that, for libertarian leaners, Repubs are the lesser of two evils.

I think everyone would agree that there's been a long-running tension between the libertarian leaning conservatives and the religious-right/social conservative types. What united them was a belief in low gov't spending. Now that Clinton declared the era of big gov't over and W. declared it started up again, that platform is gone for Republicans.

I agree with you about the left-authoritarian policies, such as things like speech codes, and many true liberals have been against those kinds of things since the beginning. But I don't think those types of issues are as important as the biggies that would turn libertarian-leaners off: the amount of federal spending and the Bible-belty social conservatism. And on both of those big issues, the Dems have the Repubs beaten.

So I think the Dems have a real opportunity to attract those folks. But at this point it's more of the Republican failure than the Democratic appeal. And I think we make a real mistake if we just go Bush-max: bigger entitlements and even more spending. That's why I think it's a shame that the trend in the primary, perhaps because of Dean's success, is in exactly that direction.

I also think there's a legitimate debate about "economic freedom." Many Republicans, at least in rhetoric, seem to equate freedom with lower tax rates and lower social spending. A former Reagan Treasury dept official is fond of comparing taxes to slavery. But I think one could argue that having a social safety net increases freedom, it doesn't decrease it. For example, I think the evidence shows that social mobility increases when there is a good social safety net, and it decreases with higher social inequality as we currently have in the US. Of course, that's not libertarianism, but I don't think the "lucky duckies"-"broadening the tax base" approach is particularly freedom-enhancing either.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Great post. I picked out this nugget cuz I thought it might help illuminate my rather dark and wicked comments earlier.

I fully understand why Libertarians hate a corrupt government that is in league with a corporate aristocracy.

What I fail to understand is the naive notion that abolishing or totally neutering that government would do anything but leave us all at the mercy of the now utterly unfettered corporate aristocracy.

For all it's failures, our government has a remarkably good track record of working for the general welfare--historically speaking.

Take away the power of the Fed in America and it will turn into Brazil in less than a generation. You'll live in gated community or in a cardboard box. Total and absolute oligopoly.

That's why I favor substantial and persistant reform of our existing system, rather than simply abandoning it because people have been too lazy to be vigilant in punishing corruption and mismanagement.

/rant

You seem to be assuming that all Libertarians are whatcko extremists. Any politician who has any idea about anything is going to know that abrupt and extreme change is either going to just fail or completely destroy the society they're trying to involve.

Just because a politician is Libertarian doesn't mean that they're going to, at first opportunity, completely abolish all government regulation on anything. They're most likely going to go with gradual change just like everyon else. The only difference is the eventual goal.

(Of course I'm not saying that everyone who calls themself a Libertarian is going to have the foresight to realize that immediate radical change is a bad idea. There are idiots in ever sub-group of people.)

[vmarks]

Only if the Democrats can meet and accept the 2nd amendment, end speech codes and pretty much work within the Democrat Freedom Caucus philosophy, which says:

Principles:

A) Personal Liberty

Freedom of speech, press, religion, belief, philosophy, lifestyle, and political activity. Individuals should have the freedom to engage in any activity that does not violate others' freedom. Liberty also includes the right to legitimate self-defense.

B) Economic Liberty

1) Property rights based on justice. There are two forms of property:

a) human-made products, such as cars, houses, and machinery; and

b) land, which refers to spatial locations, along with the natural resources within those locations - therefore, land was not produced by any person. Individuals have the right to private property in human-made products. However, since no person made the land, it should have a different legal status than human-made products. Taxes on income, sales, or buildings all take away the rewards of labor, and should be minimized - as opposed to taxes on land location value and natural resources, which are not the products of labor, but are finite resources.

2) End corporate welfare. Government should not subsidize special interests. Licensing laws should not be monopolistic.

3) Consumer protection. There should be strong laws against business fraud and false advertising.

4) Worker protection. There should be strong laws against fraud in employment practices, such as misleading workers about the safety of work environments.

5) Environmental protection. There should be strong laws against polluting the air or water that others must use. Government should not subsidize developers.

6) Free trade between free countries. We should phase in free trade with other free countries at the same time that we are phasing in freedom within our own country, by removing the obstacles that hinder productivity here. It is unjust to allow imports of foreign products made with slave labor (in countries with very little freedom, the workers' lack of freedom can sometimes border on slavery).

C) Limited Government.

1) Essential government services. Government should only provide those services that cannot be provided adequately by the non-government sector at this time, and which are necessary for the public interest. Government should not provide any services that can be provided adequately by the non-government sector.

2) Government incentives. For those essential services that need to be provided by government, we should attempt to introduce incentives for government efficiency.

3) Constitutional democracy. The U.S. Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) should be enforced. Government at any level should have a clear bill of rights, which should be enforced.

4) Jury rights. The right to a genuine trial by jury is one of the most important means of preventing government from violating its constitution and individual rights. Juries should be informed of their traditional right to judge the constitutionality of a law, in addition to judging the facts, as applied to a specific case. Neither prosecution nor defense should be allowed to pack a jury so as to make it biased or unrepresentative.

5) U.S. defense, not world police. The military should defend the territory of the U.S., rather than being the world's policeman. Our military should certainly not be used to prop up foreign dictators, or to subsidize multinational corporations.

D) Social Responsibility

In cases of essential services, such as infrastructure or assistance for the needy, there should only be cuts in these services if adequate services can be provided in the non-government sector. Recipients of government assistance also have a responsibility to help themselves if they are able. A goal of government assistance should be to try to get people to the point where they can take care of themselves, if at all possible.

As it stands, libertarian democrats are about 9% of the Democrat party. Get that number up, you might have something.

Until then, the Republican Liberty Caucus is much higher- while it doesn't always swing the party in the right direction, it has more influence than it's Democrat analog.
see http://www.rlc.org

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Is it worthwhile to try? ALWAYS. Proves the system, and is an exercise of freedom.

But what, you don't like Michael Badnarik, the other LP Presidential candidate?

I met Nolan and Badnarik on separate occasions. Good people.

I'm seriously considering trying to bring this up with some LP people. I think I probably want a little more supporting evidence before I propose anything, though.

The only reason I picked Nolan over Badnarik is because he did so well on the Amazon.com donations thing which, I think, gives him a certain kind of respectability and legitimacy that everyone, even the non-Libertarians, are going to respond to.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm seriously considering trying to bring this up with some LP people. I think I probably want a little more supporting evidence before I propose anything, though.

The only reason I picked Nolan over Badnarik is because he did so well on the Amazon.com donations thing which, I think, gives him a certain kind of respectability and legitimacy that everyone, even the non-Libertarians, are going to respond to.

Badnarik's done some cable tv appearances, but Nolan's done a far better job of getting himself on local AM radio, which (depending on market) is where a lot of voters tend to listen. If you look at Badnarik's website, he's still advertising for a campaign manager.

This is one of the things about Libertarian candidates- they're pre-disposed against taking people's money, which conflicts with the fact that it takes campaign contributions to buy the necessary adspace, direct mail, and yardsigns necessary to getting elected. Unless of course you think of Rachel Mills who sells the 'Ladies of Liberty' calendars to raise campaign funds. The first time around it was a good gimmick- got her on Crossfire with Carville, and Bill O'Reilly (and she took on O'Reilly like a champ!) - Whether it will be as successful the second time around is hard to predict.

Ron Crickenberger, who was LP communications director, was fantastic at this- he was in charge of raising the 80 grand that allowed the LP to run an anti-ONDCP ad in the Washington Times- the ad also nearly ran in USAToday, until they chickened out on it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Voting patterns prior to Bush.

But yeah, I don't think the Dems are libertarians by any stretch. However, despite your list, I disagree with you that, for libertarian leaners, Repubs are the lesser of two evils.

Yes, but take a look at mr natural's list. Check out how many times he writes "there should be strong laws that . . . " That's the basic conflict between a liberal's concept of liberty, and a libertarian's.

I agree with you on the social regulation aspect of conservatism. Conservatives too often oppose any regulation except the regulation of the bedroom. That's the basic disagreement between the libertarian and social conservative wings of the Republican party. But on everything else, there is more or less agreement.

The opposite would be the case in the Democratic Party. You'd have one corner of agreement, and the rest you would be in fundamental conflict with the core libertarian belief that decisions should be made by the people, not the government.

I'd also say that I don't think all Democrats, or all state Democratic parties are quite as libertarian on social policy as you make out. Many lean almost as socially conservative as some Republicans. I recall, for example, many, many, state legislatures in Democratic control voted for defense of marriage acts. So, just as not all Republicans are social conservatives, also not all Democrats are social libertarians.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your list simply indicates that you are not a libertarian since your preferred policies all require significant government intervention.

My list simply indicates that if you're a supposed small "l" libertarian, the Republican party is full of tweedle dum, tweedle dumber horse sh!t.

At heart, libertarians are freedom loving anarchists, but neither the Republicans or the Democrats offer anything along these lines. It's a crap shoot of picking your poison.

But anti-government liberty without any sense of responsibility beyond oneself, in this day and age, is plain wacko stupidity. A libertarian's small arms won't protect against a star spangled tank rolled up against their door. Nor will a bomb shelter or home grown organic garden protect you from the ravages of chemical toxins polluting your body from corporate malfeasance thanks to non-regulation of sane and decent ecological/human rights standards.

Hence, if you live downwind, or downstream from a corporate factory which is poisoning your backyard, and you're a *libertarian,* don't bother asking Bush's Uncle Sam for help recouping any losses you and your family suffer.

What a pathetic joke of narcism some libertarians harbor.

If taken to an extreme, then I'm not a libertarian either. But a sincere libertarian does not see it as the government's job to ensure "fair" outcomes. Since I take it you do, that puts you in another camp from a libertarian.

If taken to it's logical conclusion, the Republican party as construed under Bush and the right wing running rampant in DC is not libertarian either, but it hasn't stopped them from trying to fool, everybody has it? Any sincere libertarian, would say: Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, fu*k you!

I don't think they want to be slaves to corporate control either, which is precisely the sort of corruption and tyranny we have going in this country now. The Democrats aren't saints in this regard either, but compared to the sell out at the hands of the Republicans and Bush, who are in control now, is astonishing in its brazenness.

I don't know what "camp" you're in, Simey, and my post mentioned you not at all. Your attempt to peg me in any "camp" based on my semi-satirical retort, all in the interest of *fair and balanced* commentary, is, to quote Zimphire, silly.

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Yes, but take a look at mr natural's list. Check out how many times he writes "there should be strong laws that . . . "

You really need reading glasses. Not once did I write: "There should be strong laws that..."

But if popular polling is to be believed, a vast majority of the American people do want "strong environmental" laws, just like they also want "strong laws" against crime -- including white collar/corporate based crime. If you had a point I fail to see it?

[kindbud]

yeah, I noticed he wanted the big bad government to do nothing but enforce laws and punish all those mean people.

Typical of the liberal peacenik platform, moreso than any other.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by kindbud:
yeah, I noticed he wanted the big bad government to do nothing but enforce laws and punish all those mean people.

Typical of the liberal peacenik platform, moreso than any other.

As opposed to the conservative platform of creating lots and lots of expenssive, inefficient social programs like wellfare and medicare...

[Sven G]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
[...] At heart, libertarians are freedom loving anarchists, but neither the Republicans or the Democrats offer anything along these lines. [...]

Here, BTW, is a rather interesting comparison (which I substantially agree with) between libertarianism (a.k.a. "classic" anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism, of the "European" kind) and Libertarianism in the US.

Anyway, it's a real mess with all these small (with different meanings) and big L's - which is maybe just another sign of the confusion and disorientation of today's society...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Here, BTW, is a rather interesting comparison (which I substantially agree with) between libertarianism (a.k.a. "classic" anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism, of the "European" kind) and Libertarianism in the US.

preach!

...The right of inheritance is the factor which allows massive concentrations of property and capital to accumulate, not in the hands of isolate individuals, as Rand would endorse, but rather, along family lines, constituting a transgenerational gathering of wealth, granting each lucky recipient the legal right to acquire more wealth by way of luxurious "exploitative labor," and exempting him/her from gritty, menial "productive labor." Bakunin saw this as nothing less than "the very basis of the juridical family and the State," and thus the abolition of inheritance was imperative to establishing a genuine Stateless society.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

You really need reading glasses. Not once did I write: "There should be strong laws that..."

My mistake. It was vmark's quoted Democratic Freedom Caucus list that included all the explicit "there must be strong laws that . . . " clauses. Your list merely implied it, since the goals you articulated would require strong laws. A real libertarian would object either way, since libertarian philosophy would reject government involvement in those issues.

You seem to equate "corporate" with "government." A libertarian would not do that, since corporations are private entities. A libertarian would side with private entities over the government and deregulate the private entities, which is the opposite of your approach. On the other hand, a libertarian would agree with you about not subsidizing the corporation. A libertarian would say that corporations shouldn't receive subsidies even if they go broke and a lot of people end up unemployed. Libertarians tend to be rather strong believers in Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Here, BTW, is a rather interesting comparison (which I substantially agree with) between libertarianism (a.k.a. "classic" anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism, of the "European" kind) and Libertarianism in the US.

Anyway, it's a real mess with all these small (with different meanings) and big L's - which is maybe just another sign of the confusion and disorientation of today's society...

To be clear. We are talking here only about libertarianism in the US (look at the thread title). You will really confuse things if you start bringing in your European varieties, which are classified as anarchism in this country.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree with you on the social regulation aspect of conservatism. Conservatives too often oppose any regulation except the regulation of the bedroom. That's the basic disagreement between the libertarian and social conservative wings of the Republican party. But on everything else, there is more or less agreement.

The opposite would be the case in the Democratic Party. You'd have one corner of agreement, and the rest you would be in fundamental conflict with the core libertarian belief that decisions should be made by the people, not the government.

Well, that's the Republican rhetoric, that's for sure. But my argument is that the reality doesn't match the rhetoric. I mean, how do account for the fact that Republicans spend more than Dems? In my view, it's a bit like whether one acknowledges one's flaws - if you do, you deal with them better. Dems admit that there are a number of things they want the gov't to do, but not Republicans. So Republicans seem more vulnerable to the excesses.

And I don't think the social conservatism of Republicans is confined to just the bedroom or to "one corner." For example, conservative Republicans are generally "law and order" types. But that's hard to square with libertarian small gov't. On the other hand, a liberal Democratic emphasis on the rights of the accused would be. I think there are quite a few issues like that where the Dems are generally more "libertarian," but on many of the traditionally conservative-libertarian issues, such as gov't spending - which covers a lot of ground - Repubs have proved themselves not only equal to Dems, but even less libertarian.

I'd just say that at some point you have to look at actions and not just rhetoric.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well, that's the Republican rhetoric, that's for sure. But my argument is that the reality doesn't match the rhetoric. I mean, how do account for the fact that Republicans spend more than Dems? In my view, it's a bit like whether one acknowledges one's flaws - if you do, you deal with them better. Dems admit that there are a number of things they want the gov't to do, but not Republicans. So Republicans seem more vulnerable to the excesses.

And I don't think the social conservatism of Republicans is confined to just the bedroom or to "one corner." For example, conservative Republicans are generally "law and order" types. But that's hard to square with libertarian small gov't. On the other hand, a liberal Democratic emphasis on the rights of the accused would be. I think there are quite a few issues like that where the Dems are generally more "libertarian," but on many of the traditionally conservative-libertarian issues, such as gov't spending - which covers a lot of ground - Repubs have proved themselves not only equal to Dems, but even less libertarian.

I'd just say that at some point you have to look at actions and not just rhetoric.

I think it comes back down to that quadrant map of political opinions that we have looked at several times. A lot of Republicans, and also a lot of Democrats are in the authoritarian side of the line. That leaves people who are on the libertarian side to decide where their best interests are. Most libertarians in the US lean right rather than left. An alliance with right authoritarians is not unnatural.

But mostly, I think what you are pointing to is the fact that Republicans have imbibed much of the centralizing tendencies of the New Deal. FDR greatly expanded the federal government at the expense of the states and the individual. Republicans have become thoroughly corrupted by that, and let's face it, the public seems to like it.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

You seem to equate "corporate" with "government." A libertarian would not do that, since corporations are private entities. A libertarian would side with private entities over the government and deregulate the private entities, which is the opposite of your approach. On the other hand, a libertarian would agree with you about not subsidizing the corporation. A libertarian would say that corporations shouldn't receive subsidies even if they go broke and a lot of people end up unemployed. Libertarians tend to be rather strong believers in Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market.

And sadly, any such reading of Adam Smith is woefully misguided. While The Wealth of Nations is a critique of government protection of corprate monopolies, it is also his expressed ideal that the "invisible hand" would flourish in a free market that comprised solely of small buyers and sellers who were rooted to a particular place. (Furthermore, his book, published in 1776, should also be read as a critique of such state sponsored alliances with the monopolies of the day -- e.g.: the East India Company -- which the English crown and parliament actively protected, and which directly aroused the colonists to revolt -- e.g.: the Boston Tea Party. Hence, it is worth noting that those who don't even know their historical facts are bound to repeat them, stupidly so.)

Smith saw corporations as instruments for suppressing the competitive forces of the market, and his condemnation of them was uncompromising. He makes specific mention of them twelve times in The Wealth of Nations, and not once does he attribute any favorable quality to them.

Adam Smith wrote:

"It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established."

He also had this to say about government:

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

He was most definitely not an advocate of gigantic corporations, detached from commitment to any place, funded through capital markets that separate the management of capitol from its actual ownership. Thus, the so-called *free trade* agreements (such as GATT) which strengthen corporate monopoly control of intellectual property rights would have been anathema to him.

Libertarians citing Adam Smith to support their corporate orientated free market economics is not just plain dumb, it is dead wrong.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I don't suppose it has occured to you that other people might also realize that Smith isn't read any more literally any more than any of the other classics. Saying "Smith's invisible hand" is just shorthand for allowing the market to work.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My mistake. It was vmark's quoted Democratic Freedom Caucus list that included all the explicit "there must be strong laws that . . . " clauses. Your list merely implied it, since the goals you articulated would require strong laws. A real libertarian would object either way, since libertarian philosophy would reject government involvement in those issues.

And I do object- but I wanted to show the Democratic Freedom Caucus principles, because that's as close as Democrats seem to be willing to get to libertarian principles. The best thing in there is the elimination of government programs as soon as private ones can replace them-

There is, however, a blogger who has a decent idea about how Democrat party folks can pick up libertarian ideals: http://democraticfreedom.blogspot.co...m_archive.html

and

http://democraticfreedom.blogspot.co...82920525895039

Do I think it's going to happen anytime soon? No. Do I think it would raise the level of discourse on individual freedom over time? possibly.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You seem to equate "corporate" with "government." A libertarian would not do that, since corporations are private entities.

that is totally irrelevant. when you have a small or weak govt., private institutions will take over the job of making and upholding laws which benefit their financial gain.

corruption is the name of the game. if communism failed due to people's innate "selfishness" and "greed", then capitalist liberitarianism would fail because of people's innate predisposition to be "corrupt".

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't suppose it has occured to you that other people might also realize that Smith isn't read any more literally any more than any of the other classics. Saying "Smith's invisible hand" is just shorthand for allowing the market to work.

Oh, I understand that all right. I was still just making it clear that quoting Adam Smith as "shorthand" for corporate economic dominance is utter foolishness.

Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me. But you forgot to add the following to your "invisible hand" theory: State sponsored corporate welfare, tax breaks, and corporate friendly laws.

You're just like the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the invisible hand behind the smoke screen."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
But you forgot to add the following to your "invisible hand" theory: State sponsored corporate welfare, tax breaks, and corporate friendly laws.

Uh, no. I referred to that specifically in the preceding sentence:

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

On the other hand, a libertarian would agree with you about not subsidizing the corporation. A libertarian would say that corporations shouldn't receive subsidies even if they go broke and a lot of people end up unemployed. Libertarians tend to be rather strong believers in Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market.

[zigzag]

I'm not a political scientist by any means, so these are just arm-chair observations:

- I identify with a number of libertarian principles, but I see little need to be an all-or-nothing libertarian. As others have suggested, government probably greases the skids of commerce more often than it impedes commerce. Even social welfare programs, by enhancing social stability, often enhance economic stability and growth and therefore raise the overall standard of living. And that's on top of government-sponsored research and government-sponsored infrastructure (including everything from roads to universities), on which commerce depends. Control government but don't eradicate it.

- Maybe it's generational, but where libertarian principles are concerned, I've always favored Dems over Republicans, so it surprises me that surveys show most libertarians leaning right rather than left. As inane as Democrats can be, it's impossible for me to reconcile the cultural conservatism of the Republican Party with libertarianism. I can't bring myself to vote for people who would control what adults do in their bedrooms, who would prohibit adults from controlling their own deaths, who would control what adults ingest and erode civil liberties via a corrupt and self-destructive drug war, who would use tax dollars to promote religious doctrine, etc. As others have suggested, the Dems have their own authoritarian impulses, so it's a matter of picking one's poison, but I always find myself picking the same poison for these reasons.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_a...rtnum=20040126

I suppose it might be generational because I'm old enough to remember when people went to jail for personal freedoms that we now take for granted, and I don't want to see them eroded. Perhaps both parties are equally concerned with liberties, but Democrats are more concerned with personal liberties while Republicans are more concerned with economic/property liberties? I might be mistaken, but that's my impression.

- I see no contradiction between libertarianism and environmental protection. It seems a fundamental principle of libertarianism that one should be free to do as one pleases as long as it doesn't impinge on others. Anyone familiar with ecological processes understands that pollution on one property invariably impinges on others. Unfortunately, the only agent in a position to regulate such matters is the government.

- nonhuman's original idea seems like a fine one, but I don't see that it hasn't already been tried. Most people just aren't willing to migrate from the major parties.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Perhaps both parties are equally concerned with liberties, but Democrats are more concerned with personal liberties while Republicans are more concerned with economic/property liberties? I might be mistaken, but that's my impression.

I agree with you completely. The thing is American politics has always favored economic libertarianism over social libertarianism. The old statute books are full of socially controlling statutes, whereas economic regulation was much less developed until much later in the nation's history.

The kinds of economic regulation that upset libertarians and which are promoted by Democrats are mostly post war, or at least, post Progressive era. Undoing those is libertarian. But it is also conservative. On the other hand, the kinds of social controls that Social Conservatives favor wouldn't have surprised the Founding Fathers in the least. To take a couple of examples, sodomy was outlawed, so was divorce. I wouldn't want to go back to such laws, but conservatives do have a point when they say that they are the ones with history on their side. Here, it is libertarians who are the progressives.

So basically, complete libertarianism seeks to undo the New Deal, with is conservative, and complete the social revolutions of the 1960s, which is progressive. It's an odd combination, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that neither of the major parties cover both bases.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm not a political scientist by any means, so these are just arm-chair observations:

I'll armchair back.

- I identify with a number of libertarian principles, but I see little need to be an all-or-nothing libertarian. As others have suggested, government probably greases the skids of commerce more often than it impedes commerce.

A libertarian asks, why should it do either?
What business is it of the government's to be involved? Especially at the expense of individual property (the money taken through taxation?)

Even social welfare programs, by enhancing social stability, often enhance economic stability and growth and therefore raise the overall standard of living. And that's on top of government-sponsored research and government-sponsored infrastructure (including everything from roads to universities), on which commerce depends. Control government but don't eradicate it.

No, only tax for the things article 8 section 1 clearly delineate. Roads are included. But research isn't, unless it's a part of defense. For a libertarian, general welfare only means doing those things specified immediately following that clause, not using it as a hole to drive a truckload of pork and programs through, no matter how well-intentioned.

- Maybe it's generational, but where libertarian principles are concerned, I've always favored Dems over Republicans, so it surprises me that surveys show most libertarians leaning right rather than left. As inane as Democrats can be, it's impossible for me to reconcile the cultural conservatism of the Republican Party with libertarianism. I can't bring myself to vote for people who would control what adults do in their bedrooms, who would prohibit adults from controlling their own deaths, who would control what adults ingest and erode civil liberties via a corrupt and self-destructive drug war, who would use tax dollars to promote religious doctrine, etc. As others have suggested, the Dems have their own authoritarian impulses, so it's a matter of picking one's poison, but I always find myself picking the same poison for these reasons.


http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_a...rtnum=20040126

and the hard-core big L Libertarians characterize Republicans and Democrats much the way Sullivan does, two sides of the same coin, even going so far to call them Demopublicans or Republicrats. Republicans will call other Republicans RINO, or Republican In Name Only. Not all Republicans are conservative libertarians. That's why it's useful to look at http://rlc.org where you can see an index for how liberty-minded a Republican elected official may be.

http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/LI2001_Over.htm for example

And may I put this perspective out there for your consideration: If you don't have economic liberty, you don't have much. If your money isn't your own, if your use of it is regulated away, you won't have the ability to exercise other precious liberties.

I suppose it might be generational because I'm old enough to remember when people went to jail for personal freedoms that we now take for granted, and I don't want to see them eroded. Perhaps both parties are equally concerned with liberties, but Democrats are more concerned with personal liberties while Republicans are more concerned with economic/property liberties? I might be mistaken, but that's my impression.

Freedom. Singular. Either you're free or you aren't. Democrats being more concerned with personal liberties is a nice concept, but it doesn't bear out when you consider speech restrictions, gun control, rejection of home-schooling, vouchers, and charter schools as a means of eliminating parental choice in education -- well, to some degree you can pose the argument that some Democrats are as authoritarian as some Republicans.

- I see no contradiction between libertarianism and environmental protection. It seems a fundamental principle of libertarianism that one should be free to do as one pleases as long as it doesn't impinge on others. Anyone familiar with ecological processes understands that pollution on one property invariably impinges on others. Unfortunately, the only agent in a position to regulate such matters is the government.

Agreed, but if your property is your own, you do get to use it as you see fit. The minute you begin harming someone else's property (polluting down stream for example) then they get to pursue you through the courts.

- nonhuman's original idea seems like a fine one, but I don't see that it hasn't already been tried. Most people just aren't willing to migrate from the major parties.

The Republican party wasn't always what it is today- it really only became a serious force following the Civil War. While it isn't often that a third party displaces a major party, it has happened. More frequent is that the two dominant parties switch places, which seems reasonable, especially if they can largely represent people. Unfortunately, as actively as liberty-minded people in office work towards Freedom, there are elected officials working towards either their own benefit or some notion of social justice through redistribution of wealth, itself unjust.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I'll armchair back.

I lied. I'm sittin' on a hard-backed dining chair.

A libertarian asks, why should it do either? What business is it of the government's to be involved? Especially at the expense of individual property (the money taken through taxation?)

I think those are valid and important questions, I just don't think they have to be answered in either/or fashion. My life experience is that either/or is rarely if ever a tenable position.

No, only tax for the things article 8 section 1 clearly delineate. Roads are included. But research isn't, unless it's a part of defense. For a libertarian, general welfare only means doing those things specified immediately following that clause, not using it as a hole to drive a truckload of pork and programs through, no matter how well-intentioned.

It doesn't read that way to me, but we're not going to resolve that question here. Not that I'm in favor of Unlimited Pork.

and the hard-core big L Libertarians characterize Republicans and Democrats much the way Sullivan does, two sides of the same coin, even going so far to call them Demopublicans or Republicrats. Republicans will call other Republicans RINO, or Republican In Name Only. Not all Republicans are conservative libertarians.

No argument there.

And may I put this perspective out there for your consideration: If you don't have economic liberty, you don't have much. If your money isn't your own, if your use of it is regulated away, you won't have the ability to exercise other precious liberties.

[snip]

Freedom. Singular. Either you're free or you aren't.

That sounds attractive in the abstract, but I don't think real life happens in such absolute terms. Even the libertarian platform implicitly recognizes that no one is absolutely free - real life is full of compromises and restrictions and consequences. It's all a matter of where you think the lines are best drawn. I don't see any compelling need to be doctrinaire or either/or.

Of course, I have my own pet causes - the right to die, church-state separation, etc. - and I'd like to see them implemented absolutely, but I recognize that that's unrealistic. There will always be people on both sides of every issue, and the best we can do is hash them out and hope the result is more in our favor than theirs. The Constitution mostly just gives us a good framework.

Democrats being more concerned with personal liberties is a nice concept, but it doesn't bear out when you consider speech restrictions, gun control, rejection of home-schooling, vouchers, and charter schools as a means of eliminating parental choice in education -- well, to some degree you can pose the argument that some Democrats are as authoritarian as some Republicans.

Agreed - as mr. natural said, one picks one's poison, based on one's priorities.

Agreed, but if your property is your own, you do get to use it as you see fit. The minute you begin harming someone else's property (polluting down stream for example) then they get to pursue you through the courts.

That raises an interesting question: are the civil courts efficient enough to serve that purpose? I'm not prepared to say, but I'll settle for some governmental oversight. Environmental degradation can be hard to reverse, and civil remedies are unpredictable. Some people could decide that the rewards of degradation outweigh the costs of litigation.

The Republican party wasn't always what it is today- it really only became a serious force following the Civil War. While it isn't often that a third party displaces a major party, it has happened. More frequent is that the two dominant parties switch places, which seems reasonable, especially if they can largely represent people. Unfortunately, as actively as liberty-minded people in office work towards Freedom, there are elected officials working towards either their own benefit or some notion of social justice through redistribution of wealth, itself unjust.

Agreed, with reservations.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree with you completely. The thing is American politics has always favored economic libertarianism over social libertarianism. The old statute books are full of socially controlling statutes, whereas economic regulation was much less developed until much later in the nation's history.

The kinds of economic regulation that upset libertarians and which are promoted by Democrats are mostly post war, or at least, post Progressive era. Undoing those is libertarian. But it is also conservative. On the other hand, the kinds of social controls that Social Conservatives favor wouldn't have surprised the Founding Fathers in the least. To take a couple of examples, sodomy was outlawed, so was divorce. I wouldn't want to go back to such laws, but conservatives do have a point when they say that they are the ones with history on their side. Here, it is libertarians who are the progressives.

So basically, complete libertarianism seeks to undo the New Deal, with is conservative, and complete the social revolutions of the 1960s, which is progressive. It's an odd combination, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that neither of the major parties cover both bases.

Makes sense.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I lied. I'm sittin' on a hard-backed dining chair.



I think those are valid and important questions, I just don't think they have to be answered in either/or fashion. My life experience is that either/or is rarely if ever a tenable position.



It doesn't read that way to me, but we're not going to resolve that question here. Not that I'm in favor of Unlimited Pork.



No argument there.



That sounds attractive in the abstract, but I don't think real life happens in such absolute terms. Even the libertarian platform implicitly recognizes that no one is absolutely free - real life is full of compromises and restrictions and consequences. It's all a matter of where you think the lines are best drawn. I don't see any compelling need to be doctrinaire or either/or.

Of course, I have my own pet causes - the right to die, church-state separation, etc. - and I'd like to see them implemented absolutely, but I recognize that that's unrealistic. There will always be people on both sides of every issue, and the best we can do is hash them out and hope the result is more in our favor than theirs. The Constitution mostly just gives us a good framework.



Agreed - as mr. natural said, one picks one's poison, based on one's priorities.



That raises an interesting question: are the civil courts efficient enough to serve that purpose? I'm not prepared to say, but I'll settle for some governmental oversight. Environmental degradation can be hard to reverse, and civil remedies are unpredictable. Some people could decide that the rewards of degradation outweigh the costs of litigation.



Agreed, with reservations.

And I agree with you, it's just worth noting that libertarianism isn't an absolute any more than any other political belief attempted to be put into practice; it's on a cline.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Great post. I picked out this nugget cuz I thought it might help illuminate my rather dark and wicked comments earlier.

I fully understand why Libertarians hate a corrupt government that is in league with a corporate aristocracy.

What I fail to understand is the naive notion that abolishing or totally neutering that government would do anything but leave us all at the mercy of the now utterly unfettered corporate aristocracy.

For all it's failures, our government has a remarkably good track record of working for the general welfare--historically speaking.

Take away the power of the Fed in America and it will turn into Brazil in less than a generation. You'll live in gated community or in a cardboard box. Total and absolute oligopoly.

That's why I favor substantial and persistant reform of our existing system, rather than simply abandoning it because people have been too lazy to be vigilant in punishing corruption and mismanagement.

/rant

Government helped to build much of the infrastructure that allows corrorations to grow so large and influence so much control. Take transportation. Without government supported roads, longrange transportation will be hindered. Insider trading would be allowed and other federal regulations would be eliminated, making, presumably, people less likely to invest in corporations. There are more potential complications as well. It is a bit hard to judge what the specific effects of such a change would make. I'd be interested to see it happen though.