Can a Libertarian win over the working class?

[Axulus]

One easy one: stop putting so much restrictions on new housing construction and stop subsidizing demand for homeownership (mortgage interest and real estate tax deduction, reduced downpayment requirements and reducted mortgage interest rates). When you restrict supply and subsidize demand like is done with housing, large price increases are the result. Those working americans will have to pay a whole lot more in rent. Lower rent (usually the single biggest expense they incur in their lives) will benefit their lives.

Restrictions on new housing are not arbitrarily put in place to maintain high real estate prices. The most common reasons for restrictions are environmental concerns(flood zones, drainage, etc) and surrounding infrastructure. When you put a 200 home development at the end of a 2 lane country road, it causes problems where that road meets the main highway.

But, you raise an interesting point. Would it be possible to socially engineer Libertarianism? Maybe the government could renew it's homestead program. Unused and under utilized land could be sold to individuals for a small price with a contract to make certain improvements, such as sewer and electric service. After the five years of residency, you have the right to say, "Get off my land."

You're forgetting a bunch of other reasons: existing property owners and residents not wanting population and density to increase, not wanting lower income people moving in and potentially lowering property values (which can be prevented by requiring expensive standards for visual appeal of the house and lot and preventing lots from being subdivided to allow more but smaller housing units in a given area, etc.)

There are lots of libertarian type policies that would lead to lower housing and rent prices without causing envioronmental problems or allowing houses to collapse in a wind storm.

 

[ksen]

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

I can imagine no libertarian ruled paradise that wouldn't want to do away with all building codes since they are government coercion. In a libertarian ruled paradise consumers would be expected to do their own homework on house builders to weed out the ones that build houses that would kill them in their sleep.

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.

Why?

Good luck getting rich libertarians on board with that one since it's the wealthy that receive the most benefit from those tax deductions.

Goalpost shift

Is it?

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

So back before all these onerous building codes there was plentiful cheap, affordable and safe housing in America?

 

[dismal]

libertarian policies.

Could you be a little less vague. I'm trying to wring out the "against sin and for motherhood" platitudes.

It seems a bit pointless to write out a bunch of stuff given what passes for discussion on this forum. If you would like to propose various policies I can tell you whether I would support them or how I would improve them.

 

[ksen]

told you

 

[Bronzeage]

Restrictions on new housing are not arbitrarily put in place to maintain high real estate prices. The most common reasons for restrictions are environmental concerns(flood zones, drainage, etc) and surrounding infrastructure. When you put a 200 home development at the end of a 2 lane country road, it causes problems where that road meets the main highway.

But, you raise an interesting point. Would it be possible to socially engineer Libertarianism? Maybe the government could renew it's homestead program. Unused and under utilized land could be sold to individuals for a small price with a contract to make certain improvements, such as sewer and electric service. After the five years of residency, you have the right to say, "Get off my land."

You're forgetting a bunch of other reasons: existing property owners and residents not wanting population and density to increase, not wanting lower income people moving in and potentially lowering property values (which can be prevented by requiring expensive standards for visual appeal of the house and lot and preventing lots from being subdivided to allow more but smaller housing units in a given area, etc.)

What you are talking about are usually known as "subdivision restrictions", which is a civil contract between two private citizens, not a government law. Are you advocating we restrict property owners power to enter into contracts with buyers, to increase housing opportunities?

 

[Bronzeage]

Could you be a little less vague. I'm trying to wring out the "against sin and for motherhood" platitudes.

It seems a bit pointless to write out a bunch of stuff given what passes for discussion on this forum. If you would like to propose various policies I can tell you whether I would support them or how I would improve them.

I feel your pain, which is why I asked the question in the first place. No one seems to think poor people want to be Libertarians, and there's no way to talk them into it. Any party that can't get poor people's votes are not going to make it in the US.

 

[Axulus]

You're forgetting a bunch of other reasons: existing property owners and residents not wanting population and density to increase, not wanting lower income people moving in and potentially lowering property values (which can be prevented by requiring expensive standards for visual appeal of the house and lot and preventing lots from being subdivided to allow more but smaller housing units in a given area, etc.)

What you are talking about are usually known as "subdivision restrictions", which is a civil contract between two private citizens, not a government law. Are you advocating we restrict property owners power to enter into contracts with buyers, to increase housing opportunities?

If every property owner in a given area agreed to it then I don't have a problem. That restriction would validly remain on a future sale. However, these restrictions do not always come about via a privately agreed contract. Cities impose them all the time.

You almost always have to get government permission to subdivide even in the absense of these private restrictions you mention.

Just take a look:
https://www.google.com/search?q=off...oid-sprint-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[SimpleDon]

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.

Good luck getting rich libertarians on board with that one since it's the wealthy that receive the most benefit from those tax deductions.

Goalpost shift

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

So in a Libertarian paradise there will be no building codes and no zoning?

Since these are local government matters and there are about 40,000 local government entities, how is this going to be accomplished with a central government that only enforces contracts?

 

[Axulus]

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.



Goalpost shift

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

So in a Libertarian paradise there will be no building codes and no zoning?

Since these are local government matters and there are about 40,000 local government entities, how is this going to be accomplished with a central government that only enforces contracts?

Another person who can not imagine a state of affairs between all or nothing.

 

[Axulus]

Perfect example of where a libertarian candidate would be appealing to the poor by overturning this ridiculous ban:

A Los Angeles City Council panel gave a resounding thumbs-down on the so-called tiny houses for the homeless Monday, determining they are illegal on public property and also cannot be used for human habitation even on private property.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/social-a...ney-says-tiny-houses-for-homeless-are-illegal

In other words, government enforced homelessness.

 

[Axulus]

Another way a libertarian candidate can appeal to the working class:

It's the poor/working class that are most negatively impacted when the necessity arises to navigate government restrictions/regulations and obtain government permissions. Those who are well off tend to be better educated (to navigate through it themselves) or have the money to hire attorneys, accountants and consultants to do it for them. They can also afford to pay extra to avoid violating the regulation (getting what they want using a more expensive method that complies with the restriction/regulation and/or allows them to obtain the permission they need).

This is true whether it be business related or personal.

 

[ksen]

Another way a libertarian candidate can appeal to the working class:

It's the poor/working class that are most negatively impacted when the necessity arises to navigate government restrictions/regulations and obtain government permissions. Those who are well off tend to be better educated (to navigate through it themselves) or have the money to hire attorneys, accountants and consultants to do it for them. They can also afford to pay extra to avoid violating the regulation (getting what they want using a more expensive method that complies with the restriction/regulation and/or allows them to obtain the permission they need).

This is true whether it be business related or personal.

I'm not sure making it easier for everyone to pollute drinking water and air consequence-free is the way to appeal to poor people like those in Flint, MI.

- - - Updated - - -

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.



Goalpost shift

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

So in a Libertarian paradise there will be no building codes and no zoning?

Since these are local government matters and there are about 40,000 local government entities, how is this going to be accomplished with a central government that only enforces contracts?

Another person who can not imagine a state of affairs between all or nothing.

But the state of affairs in a libertarian paradise is nothing. So the choice is literally between what we have now and nothing.

 

[Axulus]

I'm not sure making it easier for everyone to pollute drinking water and air consequence-free is the way to appeal to poor people like those in Flint, MI.

How does obtaining government permission to braid hair make the air cleaner or make the water safer, for example?

- - - Updated - - -

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.



Goalpost shift

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

So in a Libertarian paradise there will be no building codes and no zoning?

Since these are local government matters and there are about 40,000 local government entities, how is this going to be accomplished with a central government that only enforces contracts?

Another person who can not imagine a state of affairs between all or nothing.

But the state of affairs in a libertarian paradise is nothing. So the choice is literally between what we have now and nothing.

I see, so this whole conversation is about a nothing strawman position. Typical.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What type of Libertarian. No two are alike, as per the Ron Paul Exclusion Principle.

That is a popular misconception around here due to the difference between the board's definition of libertarian and the actual definition of libertarian.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Make an appeal based on the laws that most harm the poor. This includes several of the absurdities in business licensing.

At this point people will think I'm talking about hiring a janitor to do brain surgery.

You don't need an expensive license and hundreds of hours of training to be a florist. Or to mow lawns. Or to drive an Uber car (look at how "progressives" are slamming Uber, which actually helps the poor but does so at the expense of politically connected taxi companies). Or to cut hair. There are laws all over the country about landscapers, hairstylists, and the like, which prevent people from doing these things on their own. They cut into established businesses.

And then even if we got rid of or at least diminished the specialty licensing burden, you still have to face the fact that business licenses themselves are expensive.

Each of these laws, ostensibly there to protect the consumer, keep people from working themselves out of poverty.

Of course there are other laws that disproportionately harm the poor, especially minorities. I cannot figure out why (other than our own lousy ability to communicate) ethic minorities aren't flocking behind our "end the drug war" platform. It isn't middle-to-upper class whites who get arrested for pot, it's poor and dark. There are so many ways in which the drug war harms the poor that one could go on for many pages explaining all of the adverse consequences. Civil asset forfeiture abuse ranks near the top, as well as gang violence by gangs without badges.

Concentrate on the laws that actually hurt the poor as the lead in. There are plenty of those, and most of those are supported by Republicans on the basis of corporatist protectionism and by Democrats on the basis of protecting the consumer.

 

[Ford]

How do you sell entrepreneurialism to people who have no chance to start their own business and/or aren't inclined to? How do you sell no wage requirements to anyone except business owners?

And how do you sell social conservatives on the idea that government is not going to regulate other people's behavior?

It's a losing ideology from both sides of the platform.

That's why the Republican party has been so keen to push social conservatism. Of course Ayn Rand-inspired economic policy is a disaster for poor and working class people. An ideology that holds up "job creators" as vital to the economy while at the same time deriding job performers as a drag on business can hardly be expected to stand up for blue collar folks. So you scare them into voting for you with claims that their "religious liberty" is under attack, that they're the victims of some sinister liberal (or perhaps even communist) plot, and that "good old fashioned American values" are on the decline, and only stalwart social conservatives will "Make America Great Again."

Libertarians have the shitty economic policies, but not the fearmongering social conservatism, so yeah...a tough sell to the guys down at the factory.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What type of Libertarian. No two are alike, as per the Ron Paul Exclusion Principle.

That is a popular misconception around here due to the difference between the board's definition of libertarian and the actual definition of libertarian.

That'd be due to the different type of Libertarians that post here. Social libertarians, Economic Libertarians, fuck you Libertarians, and self righteous Libertarians.

 

[bilby]

That is a popular misconception around here due to the difference between the board's definition of libertarian and the actual definition of libertarian.

That'd be due to the different type of Libertarians that post here. Social libertarians, Economic Libertarians, fuck you Libertarians, and self righteous Libertarians.

Don't forget True Libertarians.

There's only one; but it's all of them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, there's a difference between an FRDB defined libertarian and a real libertarian, but you would call it true libertarian instead of real libertarian.

 

[Ford]

Well, there's a difference between an FRDB defined libertarian and a real libertarian, but you would call it true libertarian instead of real libertarian.

I was wondering how long it would take before you asserted your role as the definer and defender of all things libertarian.

So...what's the definition of "real" libertarian, and upon what do you base your authority?