The libertarian disconnect!!

No, nothing is objectively "good" or "bad". But most people's subjective views would probably agree with me on this.

When you have huge economic influence, that can lead to a lack of real "freedom" IMHO. What if say, 10% of people owned the entire planet's land? Everyone else would have to bend to their laws and by default could be subjected to any kind of punishment or tyranny that the landowners wanted, due to the fact that they'd be on these landowners' property.

The 10% could make sure the 90% were slaves forever. They could force the 90% to create huge gladiator arenas and then fight to the death in them for their entertainment.

And worse and most scarily yet...all this would be considered VOLUNTARY interaction, since these 90% of the human population would be on the private property of the 10%.

 

The key is people with integrity, which leaves out most career politicians, sadly.

 

You're correct. It's entirely subjective. Most people's subjective views are susceptible to demagoguery.

What if, say, 95% of people owned the entire planet's land? What about the other 5%????

At what percentage is there a lack of "real freedom"?

Well, before I go and try and rebut your arguments, you'd really have to explain, in some greater detail, how such a situation could come about without government privilege and monopoly on the use of force in the first place. And then you'll have to explain what gives a land owner the monopoly on the legal use of force within his own property such that he can legally aggress against anyone he wants for any reason he chooses.

Sounds like the US today. We don't have gladiator combat (yet), but we do have wars in which 90% of the people pay for it or die for it and 10% profit from it.

 

would agree they stand for a more radical economic policy than their conservative colleagues who at least admit they want to help those who truly need it over those who abuse the systems...

as pointed out in the OP they will abolish any safety net like unemployment and social security insurance and create a survival of the fittest "free market" that exploits and capitalizes on the weaker.

 

Basically, your whole argument is that libertarianism would be great, but our stubborn government will never implement it? Couldn't you say that for any ideology?

 

Thing is, if Libertarians, in a majority, run the show, why would they stand in the way of their own ideology?

 

Well....We've seen how people change once they get into office. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but big business interests and the prospect of power sometimes are too much.

 

That goes for Reps and Dems. We haven't tried the Libertarian route, have we?

 

I find some libertarian ideas that I like, but ultimately it too often seems that many libertarians (at least the kind found on these types of forums) immediately dismiss anything and everything "establishmentarian" and of course the people who espouse these evil mainstream views are either deluded lemmings and serfs ripe for the global plantation or left/right plutocrats who are (interchangeably) in the pay of Goldman Sachs or the United Nations. The putrid stench of everything and anything that they see as authoritarian kind of ruins conversation with a lot of these people.

That's not to say there are thoughtful, well-read and well-argued libertarians but unfortunately they are not the majority of their sect.

 

No. I'm just saying it's a possibility. But in the end it depends on how accountable they are to the voters and whether or not voters would continue to vote the libertarians in even if they were to violate their own principles (a la Republicans).

 

That is very true.
While I don't agree with the OP, I wonder if the American people are ready for Libertarian Congress and WH, and are ready to live by the Constitution, as so many claim.

 

Okay. So where does this "objective morality/ethics" stuff come in?

Then the 5% would be tyrannized.

Keep in mind, every ideology, when put into practice, has to be arbitrary, sometimes.

According to private property, can't you do anything you want to someone if they're using it/on it against your will?

And it doesn't matter how that could come into play. What matters is that it should be prevented.

You are missing the point, or (more likely) avoiding it. Private property can lead to tyranny in some extreme situations.

Again, that doesn't mean I don't support any private property rights.

 

From adhering to a system of ethics from which right and wrong can be objectively derived. That is not the topic of this thread, however. I'm sure you can find one of the many threads Raskolnikov has started on the subject.

So then your definition of tyranny is to be without land ownership. I've been accused of having too broad a definition of tyranny, but yours is far broader than mine. I think that would be difficult to defend as freedom can be maintained without land ownership.

If you mean advocates of private property, please be more specific. You mean advocates of libertarian principles then no, you cannot just do anything you want, nor can you force someone into a contract that aliens their natural rights. That is the meaning of "unalienable", they cannot be contracted away.

We should prevent pink unicorns from taking over the Earth. I propose that regulations be written that every home be searched for the presence of pink unicorn hair. It does not matter how that invasion could come into play. What matters it that the invasion should be prevented.

Your presume that some situation could happen, and that violence against peaceful people should be employed to prevent it, but you refuse to explain how that situation could come about.

Private property doesn't lead to tyranny. Some people tyrannize others. That is a crime, regardless of whether there is a government to deal with crime or if crime is managed in a private justice system. Inevitably, where there is government, government will be used to tyrannize others, and yet you insist that the type organization which has led to the slaughter and misery and torture of countless human beings throughout history is the only organization that can prevent a few bad people from occasionally harming others.

 

Given that the Austrian school openly disregards empiricism, they do indeed have a disconnect with reality and are proud of it.

 

There is a reason for that..Maybe you might start smaller and prove your political theory 1st before trying to run a nation.
Since Al Franken was elected to congress ..that proves anybody can win a congressional seat ..just be against someone..

At least Jesse Ventura was Mayor ( I was a Navy seal..ya know ) before he ran for governor.

Maybe libertarians should try running a city 1st ?
Then a state..BEFORE trying to say they are superior at running a Nation.

 

Personally I think "libertarian" is a useless distinction.
Most libertarians have more in common with either the liberal or conservative worldview than they do with each other.

Some libertarians, the bulk of American libertarians (or at least the loudest voice) value small government over all else, assuming that will automatically lead to more freedom.
They tend to have little sympathy for the poor, find big business relatively non-threatening, and disproportionately value the property rights of the wealthy and "productive" over all else.
Their worldview is one of intense hierarchy.
They don't care about faraway people, even within the same country. Thus the love of states' rights, which will lead to most states being more oppressive-- but at least New Hampshire will be a utopia!
In other words... they're right-wingers! Aside from a few philosophical things they don't take all that seriously, they are conservatives.

Others have a value system almost identical to modern liberalism, but have different theories on what works. They could more easily compromise with liberals than conservatives because the values are similar (what Matt Yglesias calls cosmopolitan humanitarianism).
Their basically liberals who fear anything top-down. In other words they are excessively idealistic liberals (giving up on the liberal value of empiricism in favor of more pure values).
They're basically liberals.

Then there are centrists who are fiscally center-right and socially center-left and identify with libertarians because it makes them feel that much better about themselves. This is the group that leads elite opinion anyway, while being anathema to the masses.

Basically libertarians are like the fringes who don't get everything they want in a coalition so delude themselves into thinking the masses will join them if they do their own thing.
Or they delude themselves into thinking the big coalition choices have no effect one way or the other.

The country spends entirely too much time talking about libertarians considering.

 

So you argue that the study of human action, that is, what humans actually do as opposed to what mathematical models say they should do, is disconnected from reality?

 

Empiricism is the study of what they actually do. 'Praxeology' or whatever the nonsense is called rejects empricism. Without empiricism you have rubbish.

Now the seperate question as to whether or not mathematical models are useful. The answer is, yes. Unequivocally, yes. The most successful of the sciences is physics, also the most mathematical. Indeed, physics has found an increasing role in the social sciences. Furthermore if one insists on using a 'logical' approach then maths is the only way to go.

Ultimately the rejection of empricism means that Austrian economics is little more than a novelty.

 

Libertarians don't want to rule over others.

There are libertarians in office. In fact, we win about 15-20% of all races in which we enter. The deck is stacked against third parties in higher offices, which is why Al Franken ran as a Democrat and which is why he plays almost entirely within his party's rules.

 

Praxeology doesn't reject empiricism. It just rejects the notion that economics should be treated like physics and human beings as units that act according to rigid, formal laws. It is your version of economics that disassociates from reality and ignores the individual who is at the heart of every economic transaction. It treats each individual as nothing more than an atomical unit, disconnected from all other atomical units.

Sophistry. Back up your claims or withdraw them. Math is not the sole realm of logic.

Ultimately, asserting that Austrian economics rejects all empiricism is the claim of the sophist.

 

Austrian economics also attempts to construct rigid, formal laws that describe how people act and how markets act. The difference is that it does not attempt to test its models and instead relies on a priori reasoning.

Yes, people are individuals but economics focuses on the sum total of their actions. The market for corn is not reliant on one individual. Furthermore one does not attempt to treat them as atomical units except in the most simplified models.

The act of building up increasingly complicated models and using simple models as approximations has been the most successful method in all of science and it relies entirely on experimental and empirical testing.

Simply asserting axioms about human behaviour without actually testing whether or not these axioms hold is junk science at best.

Mathematical logic is the most powerful version of logic as it is less likely to overlook its own assumptions.

The Austrian does not reject all empricism, that is half the problem. They rely on empirical ideas in order to form their axioms and to inform their logic and then assert that all events are the result of this logic. The outright rejection of empiricism, experimentalism and mathematics is a major theme however, most often employed when their conclusions contradict that of the above.

 

Libertarians are anti-violence and promote an ethical system for human interaction which treats violence against peaceful people as wrong. That is neither "left wing" nor "right wring."

I find that people such as yourself often equivocate, conflating compassion with the taking by threat of violence from those who produce and giving some small portion of that to others. That is not compassion, that is a twisted method of reacting to one's feelings of envy and guilt.

Perhaps you don't take your own beliefs all that seriously. How could you, to you, all considerations of ethics must be subjective and when faced with contradiction, you must shift your beliefs to match your feelings. You take your non-seriousness and project that onto libertarians, but your projection is just that. Libertarians take their political ethics very seriously as it is often detrimental to their own political interests.

 

@BleedingHeadKen:

If my statements about the rejection of empiricism seem over the top, then perhaps it would be useful to listen to those of the chief prophet of Austrian economics, Ludwig von Mises:

"Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts." [Emphasis mine]

Not subject to verification or falsification? Sounds like rubbish to me.

 

You make a lot of assertions and puff a lot of hot air on the basis of this superior but as yet unsupported knowledge. Can you explain which "rigid, formal laws" describe how people and markets act, and how you have come about the conclusion that the Austrian school does not "attempt" to test its models?

There is a "sum total" of their actions? The "market for corn" is not a thing that exists in reality. It is a label for the actions of many individuals engaged in transactions in which they offer what they value less than corn in exchange for corn. You wish to believe, that with simple math, that you can "sum up" all of the individuals decisions regarding corn as if each decision is a simple atomical unit. In other words, what you accuse Austrian economics of - being disconnected from reality - you explicitly confirm is your desired goal for economics.

Call it rubbish all you want, but the inherent contradictions of your own hasty rhetorical pronouncements discredits you. You used to be smarter than that.

And your assertion that it works well for physics, so it ought to work well for economics is based upon what evidence?

This is a genetic fallacy. You believe, perhaps because you were told to believe, that economics must be determined by a particular methodology and therefore any other methodology is "rubbish." If you can prove that praxeology is rubbish because the axioms developed and tested from it are wrong, then do so.

Oh, so now math is not the only way to reach logical conclusions or create logical evidence. Really, you should make up your mind.

So you don't like the methodology, and therefore it is wrong and a "problem." Startlingly circular logic, don't you think? How do you justify that with math?

 

What Libertarians fail to explain is how their approach prevents plutocracies. The Govt is the majorities only hope to compete against capital owners. There are a finite amount of resources available, with a growing population. How do Libertarians account for the masses of society that do not own any wealth?