I am for SOME regulations, like with health regulations, and some wage regulations. But I don't understand why people who are economically liberal want the government to intervene and regulate the process of the free market. I guess I'm not liberal then. I am in support of liberal ideas in that I believe that people should have health care, that businesses should be greener, that people should be treated equally without being discriminated against (I'm not advocating for complete equality here, but you get my point), and, I am in support of the poor and the working class getting better treatment. But I am not for the redistribution of wealth, or, for that matter, for the government to regulate private industry and to regulate the economy as much as they have the power to do so.

I've never understood why it is that people who are on the far left are so hypocritical. They want personal freedoms but they would rather the government have their economic freedom. As I've realized how I would prefer the government to intervene less with private industry I've become more and more libertarian. I just don't understand how people would want more government intervention with their economic issues when they already are complaining about other things about personal issues.

I'm not discounting the hypocricy of the conservatives... but that's just where I stand. I've began thinking as a libertarian would... I believe in both personal and economic freedom. But I don't see how you can cry for personal freedom without having economic freedom. You can't have one or the other. Because one always affects the other. You have to have both. As a business I wouldn't want the government telling me what to or to not produce. I think most people who are liberal are rationally liberal like myself where we believe in equal treatment for all people. But, I don't see how in anyone's ideal world, the government would be there controlling everything.

Does anyone else share my views on economic liberalism? I'm for more privatization. I think the government should help some but I don't believe we should become dependent on the government.

Because they have no idea what they are talking about in most cases. A majority of people that associate with one party or another most likely are un-educated in politics or economics, and they follow whatever their favorite politician or news channel is telling them. Most people do not want to think for themselves or investigate what they believe, and blindly follow what ever the trendy thing is to believe.

Thats what I think at least.

Some good ideas, and I think you're right...

The free market has largely come to a grinding halt, or recession - but governments can't fix it.

Government's intervening in such a grand scale now can only introduce one thing, which is bureaucracy and masses of red tape.

Unfortunately, the private financial industry invented technical finance products that no one now seemingly understands, like the credit default swaps and sub prime lending.

It depends on what industry is to be regulated - Australian banks and lenders are closely regulated, for instance, and are currently incredibly profitable and did not partake in sub prime lending.

In European countries and in the US, where there is less regulation, it's resulted in banks having to be bailed out by government.

If the pillars of an economy, banks, are regulated and monitored, the rest should need little regulation beyond the normal checks and balances.

Government's are currently terrified of massive recessions because it could introduce social and political unrest.

The government's are doing all they can to simply save their own hides, and future generations are going to have to pay it all back.

It is an odd dichotomy. On the one hand, liberals want a socialist nanny state- where the government feeds, houses, clothes, wipes the ass of, and regulates everything. On the other hand, liberals also claim they want complete freedom from the big bad government.

The two parties are constructed in such a way that they will always have people against each other, and their personal rights.

Honestly this has crossed my mind for a while. They pulled out some personal freedoms or rights that some people support, and then some that other people would support or be against. In this way, people can align themselves to the party accordingly, if that makes sense.

Ok... to be more clear, examples.

Gun rights. You will always have people for them, or against them. So people for them will automatically think they have to vote Republican to preserve their rights. While the other side feels it is their right to fight AGAINST the right to bear arms.

Abortions. You will always have people for them, or against them. So people will automatically vote Democrat to preserve a woman's right to choose. People against abortions, will consider themselves Republican. Then said Republican representatives will always tout being against aborting, to keep that voter base. And in turn, keep the people fighting over petty issues like this.

People strongly believe that it is their own personal right to control what others can and cannot do. And that is what keeps this two-party system going. The fact that people want to control others, assures that we the people are too busy fighting over petty issues to come together as a whole.

Because of the need to control others, people do not like the Libertarian view. The fact that gun rights, right to marry who you want; even if same-sex, and abortions, are all petty issues that people will never agree on assures that we are all divided.

Government intervention is one of those HUGE things that we should be fighting for. Government intervention in the economy and our personal lives is something both parties are all for. And wars? They're profitable, both sides will keep those going too.

This is why we are getting screwed. Both parties have the same agenda, but we will always fight over those stupid issues so we cannot see how badly we are screwed when we vote for one of the two parties.
Libertarian views rule.

Any questions?

P.S. did you ever get into writing? You can PM me anytime.

Well the Free Market requires a degree of regulation to operate because if monopoly's are allowed to develop there is no market based competition . Without market based competition there is no choice for consumer and including the chance to obtain better service and pricing . Consumer laws are also very worthwhile . Any chance of the Free Market principals ever coming into effect was destroyed by the bail outs . As for privatization I'm not a fan of the government running everything but the most private sector has done when running National Assets in New Zealand is Asset Striping .