Perhaps even the staunchest libertarian can recognize that we live in a complex, interdependent society in which there is much inequality of opportunity and much scamitude and corruption going around.

So a libertarian is not dogmatic, saying there should be no protection for the weak and that dog-eat-dog and the hell with everybody. That's a parody of a libertarian. It's a strawman used by people who don't understand libertarianism.

Libertarianism just says that there's a continuum, and perhaps we should sometimes try to see if LESS government intrusion might solve a particular problem better than more. And to keep a sharp eye on all the way the government causes problems then says that more power for the government is the solution. We should all be aware of that common pattern.

Libertarianism is a tendency toward liberty. Not an absolute my-way-or-the-highway.

Libertarianism is a tendency toward liberty. Not an absolute my-way-or-the-highway. — fishfry

Yes, it is; but, it is not a solution unless everyone is not playing on a level playing field, and I have created no straw men as much as I've tried in this thread. Thanks for pointing out the straw men that may have arisen unbeknownst to some or myself.

The principle problem I see in libertarian thinking is 20/20 vision about the problem of governments, and blindness to the problem of corporate power. Free enterprising libertarians also seem to miss the critical role governments have played in corporate success. As Marx put it, "The government is but a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie."

Corporate power is just as dangerous to individual freedom as government power - especially when the two are entwined and support each other at the cost of our individual freedom.

A true libertarian shouldn't just want to limit government overreach of power, but any overreach that threatens individual liberty. The power of the corporations should be checked, just as the different branches of govt. are, to ensure fair competition and options for the consumer. It's just that the elitist corp. and govt. are in collusion with each other and will squash anyone who tries to rock the boat.

Libertarians don't think that everyone should ideally be on a level playing field (although they wouldn't force an uneven playing field if that should contingently come to be). They realize that some people are going to have advantages that others do not, but there's a bit of a pro-"social darwinism" aspect to it. If you are at a disadvantage and you want to not be, you need to step up your game, be creative, be increasingly resourceful with what you can manage, to try to compete. Libertarians see that as an asset of libertarianism, not a liability.

As Marx put it, "The government is but a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie." — Bitter Crank

I don't get it. Doesn't that rather support my point? That we should keep a sharp eye on government and not entrust it with too much power?

Libertarianism is NOT a move towards freedom or liberty...it is a move toward chaos and anarchy.

Anyone who truly wants to live in a libertarian society can EASILY do so. Somalia is a libertarian paradise. So is the Amazon basin...and great outback of Australia.

The last thing in the world most Libertarians want...is a libertarian society.

What, exactly, do you expect boldly forwarding straw men to accomplish?

I don't get it. Doesn't that rather support my point? That we should keep a sharp eye on government and not entrust it with too much power? — fishfry

In a capitalist society / economy (such as ours, Europe, Japan...) the central role of the government is to facilitate the accumulation of wealth by the bourgeoisie. "Facilitation" is a matter of establishing law and treaties, and assisting in the accumulation of wealth. For instance, the U.S. government gave land to the railroads to encourage their westward expansion. The government built the Panama Canal to facilitate east coast/west coast transportation, and trade with the rest of the world. The government helps break strikes, and levies taxes to support its various activities.

The government (federal, state, county, city) can be, has been, and is sometimes an oppressive force--no doubt. But in focussing on the nefarious activities of The Government, libertarians overlook or fail to see the nefarious activities of many powerful corporations -- from which we consume pretty much on corporate terms, under whose various and sundry terms we work--or don't work -- and cohabit in an environment which is quite often fucked over by the corporation for purposes of cutting costs and increasing profits.

Here's an old example: Firestone Rubber, Standard Oil, and General Motors formed a combine to buy up perfectly fine electric rapid transit systems. Once owned, they were forthwith wrecked, and replaced by buses running on tires and gasoline (or diesel). The wrecking of electrically powered transit systems was imposed upon the local governments and people by the schemers at these three very large (among the largest!) corporations.

A more recent example: in 1980 most people drank tap water from fountains or taps. Perrier was a small specialty product. By 2000 there were whole aisles in grocery stores devoted to water in bottles. Better? Hardly. In many cases the water in the bottles was municipal water--perfectly good, but the same as the stuff coming out of the faucet. And all those 1 use and toss plastic bottles? Waste. Further, some of the water in the bottles had more bacteria in it than the water coming out of the faucet (still true).

Selling ordinary water by the bottle was a clever way of taking money out of your pocket and transferring it to Pepsi and Coca Cola. The water business has not been without significant externalized environmental consequences.

A current example: Boeing's 737 MAX. Somehow Boeing didn't think so much as a pamphlet was necessary to prepare pilots to fly the plane which had some special software to compensate for a stall hazard. All those 737-MAX planes are currently sitting on the ground. The government of the USA just doesn't seem to think the problem is that serious. Let the company figure it out...

↪Frank Apisa


What, exactly, do you expect boldly forwarding straw men to accomplish? — Terrapin Station

I do not understand your question.

If you are taking issue with something I wrote...tell me what it is and we can discuss it.

Libertarians don't think that everyone should ideally be on a level playing field — Terrapin Station

Then that's the issue right there. If they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation.

Then that's the issue right there. If they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation. — Wallows

It may be good to remember Goldwater at this juncture. He claimed to want a certain set of progressive values while also claiming that the social engineering proposed to bring about those goals would permit too many bad things for the project to be worth the cost.

And here we are, still balancing the equation.

Does this sound correct? Is the (what I call) 'level playing field' problem an issue that can be resolved without appealing to notions like starting from scratch or tabula rasa? — Wallows

I think that there are many problem with idealist libertarianism, like with libertarians who are anarcho-capitalists.

The 'level playing field' isn't the only problem. Another problem is that when any libertarian envisages an libertarian society simply assumes defence of the state with an armed forces, hopefully made of libertarian 'citizen soldiers'. The ideological problem with this is that there seldom is anything more collective, more against libertarian individualism than the idea of an armed forces. Even libertarians don't assume that the role of the armed forces can be better solved with the market mechanism: having competing armed groups isn't good idea in any society. And when you open up the role of the government to defence, you also open up the whole discussion for everything else the government can defend.

The next natural problem is democracy. You see, in the perfect function libertarian state, let's say something equivalent of Switzerland, thanks to the liberty in the society other political ideologies would prosper. And of course there indeed are the left-libertarians, like Chomsky. The Bernie type socialists would prosper very well in a libertarian society and they would get their socialism-light through. Just look at, well, Switzerland.

One may begin to see the whole appeal of libertarianism by those nefarious elements that promote it. — Wallows

Yet don't confuse those talking heads for the present system that portray themselves to be libertarians always to be true libertarians. For example, a true libertarian doesn't have any issue with there being trade unions, assuming they are voluntary organizations, and will accept the idea that workers can group together when meeting their employers.

Just look at how many of the so-called libertarians just loose it when you talk about trade-unions.

Then that's the issue right there. If they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation. — Wallows

That is because a "level playing field" is a pipe dream in todays society. For a level playing field to be obtained would require humans to be genetically engineered to be the same and all raised in the same environment by the state.

That is because a lwvel playing field is a pipe dream in todays society. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't matter what it is because of. The only relevant question here is whether one ought to do what one can about it. If I can take money from those born fit, clever and desirable, and give it to those who are born stupid, unfit and undesirable, then should I? The answer has nothing to do with the reason why those differences exist in the first place.

I once met a kid who was training to be a nurse in america. He spent years 0-16 in somalia at the height of the 90s chaos. I mentioned I had been to prison and he was dead serious asking me: "wasn't that scary?" Even in Mogadishu the coca cola factory kept operating. Because apparently nothing goes with khat better than an ice cold coke.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a blood on the floor anarchist. I think the us is in terminal economic decline, and I'm already living in that future. I think it people will have to be more honest with themselves under those conditions.

I would like to point out as well that the social kabuki in a violent environment eg prison is very interesting because it actually is meaningful in a way school isn't.

Edit: I wouldn't go to somalia anyway because I don't speak the language or know anything about the culture; why put myself at such a disadvantage? Beyond the cities muslim elders have power....why would I want to live under them? Anarchy doesn't exactly mean what the greek would suggest: it just means that power is more fluid.

Interesting comments.

I'd prefer not to go to Somalia either.

But it certainly is Libertarian heaven.

"But it certainly is Libertarian heaven."

Oh, "certainly", is it?

yupamiralda
22
↪Frank Apisa


"But it certainly is Libertarian heaven."

Oh, "certainly", is it? — yupamiralda

One of the objects of libertarianism...is as little government as possible.

Damn near none there.

But, I will concede that the Australian Outback...and the Amazon Basin both have even less government.

It doesn't matter what it is because of. The only relevant question here is whether one ought to do what one can about it. If I can take money from those born fit, clever and desirable, and give it to those who are born stupid, unfit and undesirable, then should I? The answer has nothing to do with the reason why those differences exist in the first place. — Isaac

So your question is, "should we treat people differently because of how they were born"?

One of the objects of libertarianism...is as little government as possible. — Frank Apisa

The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. That doesn't amount to libertarians wanting no government, or wanting some arbitrarily small government. Also, libertarians see government as organized, non-voluntary control, which isn't limited to formal or official governments per se.

It helps to understand what you're going to critique before you critique it, but when does anyone ever take that advice on the Internet?

Terrapin Station
8.1k

One of the objects of libertarianism...is as little government as possible. — Frank Apisa


The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. — Terrapin Station

Specifically, what do you see as the major difference between "as little government as possible"...and "the smallest government sustainable?"

That doesn't amount to libertarians wanting no government... — Tarrapin

I never suggested Libertarians want no government.

...or wanting some arbitrarily small government. — Tarrapin

Wanting "the smallest government sustainable"...IS some arbitrarily small government!

Also, libertarians see government as organized, non-voluntary control, which isn't limited to formal or official governments per se. — Terraipin

In my opinion, Libertarians are full of shit. That is more important than how they view governments.

It helps to understand what you're going to critique before you critique it, but when does anyone ever take that advice on the Internet? — Terrapin

It also helps to make sense when one defends something like libertarianism...but when does anyone take that advice on the Internet?

So your question is, "should we treat people differently because of how they were born"? — Harry Hindu

Well, that is everyone's question. If you have money, you must decide what to do with it, you can't not. One of those choices is o give it to someone less fortunate than you.

Likewise if you have power (say by collectivising), then you have to decide what to do with that power, again, you can't not. One of the choices you have is to force rich people to give money to poor people.

I raised it because you answered the proposition "if they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation." with a reason why. But nothing in that reason prevents anyone from controlling monopolies if they can muster the power to do so.

This is the problem with libertarianism. We either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. If we choose the second option then which objective is 'right' becomes nothing more than a matter of preference.

Specifically, what do you see as the major difference between "as little government as possible"...and "the smallest government sustainable?" — Frank Apisa

The rest of my post was part of my answer.

The idea of the latter is to non-arbitrarily have the smallest government that won't lead to additional organized control via force or threat of force. The former, in the context in which you employed it, referred to the current situation in someplace like Somalia, which has nothing at all to do with libertarianism.

In my opinion, Libertarians are full of shit. — Frank Apisa

This demonstrates an admirable economy of expression.

Terrapin Station
8.1k

Specifically, what do you see as the major difference between "as little government as possible"...and "the smallest government sustainable?" — Frank Apisa


The rest of my post was part of my answer.

The idea of the latter is to non-arbitrarily have the smallest government that won't lead to additional organized control via force or threat of force. The former, in the context in which you employed it, referred to the current situation in someplace like Somalia, which has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. — Terrapin Station

One...Somalia, the Australian Outback, the Amazon Basin...ALL have everything to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy.

You can have all the small government you want...but most Libertarians will never even consider moving to where it is. They want to provide us all with chaos and anarchy.

Okay...lucky for you guys we live in a society that allows those sentiments.

Good luck with it.

Bitter Crank
7.5k

In my opinion, Libertarians are full of shit. — Frank Apisa


This demonstrates an admirable economy of expression. — Bitter Crank

Thank you.

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa

Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy. Again, if you want to critique something, it might help to understand it first.

The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. — Terrapin Station

Small government and sustainability are two very different objectives. Both of them are beneficial but pursuing one may get you further away from the other. I imagine it's safe to say that libertarians are more interested in small government than they are in sustainability. Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

This is the problem with libertarianism. We either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. If we choose the second option then which objective is 'right' becomes nothing more than a matter of preference. — Isaac

This is the most common illogical argument made against libertarianism. The fact that you make it tells me that you aren't really informed enough for me to have this discussion with you.

Libertarianism isn't letting everyone do whatever they want. That is anarchy. Libertarianism is the belief in limited govt. not no govt.

So a Libertarian would be just fine with laws that stop others from infringing on other people's rights.