The Libertarian Quandary

Hi, folks!

Newbie here.

I've strolled the site a bit, to try to get a feel for how it runs. It appears to me that an awful lot of original posts are "red meat", intended to get a rise out of... somebody. Personally, I find those OPs to be pretty silly. Everybody could write both sides of the script, and no progress is ever made by anyone.

So... I'd like to try a conversation. An exchange of ideas.

I've read the Rules, which sound pretty good for keeping things calm... but the actual posts I see are... often less than calm...

OTOH, one of the Rules says that the OP should set the tone... so let's try that! Here is a tighter enunciation of how people should behave in a conversation:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.

And here's my post:

1) Libertarianism is total individual liberty.

2) That equates to zero government, since all government action impinges on someone's liberty, somehow.

3) Pushed to its ultimate end, libertarianism is zero government -- anarchy.

4) Since anarchy is obviously not acceptable, libertarians fall back from "zero government" to "minimal government".

5) The problem then becomes "what are the acceptable minimal government services?"

6) If libertarians accept that this question be answered democratically, then their message is "smaller government is better government" -- identical to the GOP.

7) If libertarians decree that some services should be proscribed because they are beyond the "acceptable minimum", then those libertarians are recognizing that they refuse democracy as a means of choice, that they are in fact authoritarians bent on imposing their own criteria on society, via government -- and that is the direct opposite of their stated philosophy.

So:
A democratic libertarian might as well be in the GOP... or...
An authoritarian libertarian betrays the theme of liberty that is supposed to be fundamental.
​

Please address this chain of logic. If you think it is wrong, please point out where it is wrong. This chain of logic is the topic of this OP. Any post that does not refer to this chain of logic is off-topic.

Thank you... and I hope I will -- finally -- get some understanding of what "libertarianism" means.

 

Nice intro, I agree.

Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same thing. Libertarians broadly support minimal government, there is a subset within that group who support the abolition of the state. Milton Friedman for instance did not in any sense support the abolition of the state. Others still support a minimal nightwatchman state.

For those libertarians who are also anarchists, yes. It's important to consider what government is to libertarians - the initiation of force. Libertarians support forms of governance so long as they are voluntary (eg: it's not anti-libertarian to oppress speech in your lecture hall). So while I agree with the general tone of your comment, it's important to separate the colloquial and technical uses of the terms government and force, lest we get tangled in semantics.

For those libertarians who are also anarchists, yes.

Sometimes, sometimes not. There is no definite pattern of anarchists becoming minarchists rather than the other way around.

Rather, which forms of government are not coercive/do not initiate force. Minarchists are generally not saying that they will permit certain violations of rights. More often they're saying that certain functions of the state are not actually coercive (ie: providing defense services). Nozick, perhaps the most well known minarchist of all, takes this view.

Libertarians do not accept that this question is to be answered democratically, and neither does anyone else (please see the next quote).

And so we arrive at the bread and butter of your post!

Democracy is not opposed to authoritarianism, you tacitly admit this when you support firm human rights in opposition to the will of the people. If living in a democratic society with limited freedom of speech/religion/whatever, you would resoundingly reject the will of the people and stick with human rights. Does this make you authoritarian? You are, after all, opposing the democratic process.

For instance, it would make absolutely no difference to you as a Jew being marched into the ovens if Hitler was democratically elected or installed as dictator. You would remain fundamentally opposed to the democratic will of the people, because the people have chosen to enact something which is fundamentally immoral and wrong.

All libertarians do is expand that list of inalienable rights a bit, to include firm property rights, a strengthening of freedom of speech to exclude slander/defamation, etc. That is a significant thing to be sure, I don't pretend it isn't a radical ideology - but it's no different in the context of your argument.

[hr][/hr]

Democracy is not the opposite of authoritarianism.

Liberty is almost always opposed to democracy in libertarian worldviews. An "authoritarian" libertarian (as in against democracy) therefore does not betray the theme of liberty at all.

While I trust you will agree I have stayed firmly on topic here, that's not how this forum really works, as you'll shortly see

 

Pretty good!

 

On a theoretical level the problem with Libertarianism comes when the freedom of individual A infringes on the freedom of individual B. This is why anarchy can become chaos. If we are to have a society then we must have laws and a system to adjudicate such conflicts.

 

Excellent responses as usual, but I still expect you to respond to my old response on the other libertarian thread, at least eventually!

 

Thanks mate, could you perhaps private message me a link to it?

 

No problem!

This link will take you to your original response, and my response is on page 21 (I think).

Don't feel the need to rush or anything.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/473552-libertarianism-parody-14.html

 

your argument is valid...but ultimately unsound.

1) Libertarianism is total individual liberty.

this statement ignores consent. consent is the indicator of free choice which is the measure of freedom. the ability to chose what you want to do. if someone else's choice interferes or disrupts your choices, then you do not have total liberty. thus, total liberty as a concept cannot exist unless you have a society of saints or you have a government designed to protect choice.

and so, libertarians simply believe in a different purpose for government...which has a much narrower scope than what our current purpose of government is. that scope is:
1. protection of freedom of choice
2. enforcement of property rights

you need just two forms of government to achieve the above: police and courts. thus a libertarian society consists of courts and police and some level of national defense.

I have not seen the GOP platform advocate for this scope of government. GOP wants to limit certain choices with respect to abortion, drugs, prostitution...purpose of government from GOP perspective is to enforce a moral ideology that they deem correct...nothing could be more tyrannical. was not hitler's crusade a moral crusade to save the world of inferior genetic stock?​

​

 

The tension which exists between the freedoms of individuals is always at the crux of the matter. How does the saying go? Something about the freedom you have to swing your arms ending at the tip of my nose.

I believe libertarianism offers some very interesting ideas, but when you get right down to it, it suffers from many of the same problems as other political philosophies.

 

1) Libertarianism is total individual liberty. {To eat the brains of Homo sapiens, because the libertarian believes they are Homo superior.}

2) That equates to zero government, since all government action impinges on someone's liberty, somehow. {Lack of government impinges on someone’s liberty, somehow.}

3) Pushed to its ultimate end, libertarianism is zero government -- anarchy. {Libertarianism is illogical as anarchy, because lack of government cannot protect any individual liberty.}

4) Since anarchy is obviously not acceptable, libertarians fall back from "zero government" to "minimal government". {Libertarians cannot fall back from zero, they are dragged forward to reasonable.}

5) The problem then becomes "what are the acceptable minimal government services?" {An impossible question to answer because it is not a closed ecosystem.}

6) If libertarians accept that this question be answered democratically, then their message is "smaller government is better government" -- identical to the GOP. {George H.W. Bush is a Democrat, which is why I voted for Andre V. Marrou. All needs (such as defense from predators, including economic…) depend upon circumstances, so smaller is not always better.}

7) If libertarians decree that some services should be proscribed because they are beyond the "acceptable minimum", then those libertarians are recognizing that they refuse democracy as a means of choice, that they are in fact authoritarians bent on imposing their own criteria on society, via government -- and that is the direct opposite of their stated philosophy. {Democracy as a means of choice, whether mob or Republic, does not cease to exist as a means of choice simply because the majority (or a court) decrees that some services should be prohibited. My signature line is an example of authoritarianism, forcing people to not denigrate a Trojan horse. "Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated": Individuals cannot make a stated philosophy for other individuals.}

Good luck!

 

Libertarianism is a good idea in theory, just like socialism. It just needs better people for it to work correctly (just like socialism does). An ideal government would have libertarian and socialist tendencies.

 

This is just a little off the mark. Libertarianism is adherence to the Non-Aggression Principal (NAP). This means total individual liberty to the limit of encroaching against anyone else's liberty.

This is also a near miss. That equates to zero rulers. I've never heard any anarchist libertarian suggest that there could or should be no rules, but the only valid rules are those that protect individual liberty.

Again, not zero government, zero governors. Individuals or groups are free to enforce the rules against aggression, but no individual or group is authorized to initiate force.

With a set of common laws and a firm adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, libertarian anarchy is not obviously unacceptable.

Any "government" service can better be provided by private concerns. No government monopoly is required, just choose your service provider, just as you choose your restaurant or shoe store.

Democracy is anathema to liberty as the majority will inevitably force its will on the minority eventually, but what we have today isn't a democracy. We have an oligarchy with an illusion of democratic republicanism.

Consistent libertarians believe that any "service" that is forced against the will of the individual should be unacceptable. If a service is acquired voluntarily with the mutual consent of all involved parties there should be no proscription of it.

The two essentials of libertarianism are the Non-Aggression Principle and property rights. If you own yourself and the product of your labor, if all legitimate interactions within the society are voluntary and if there is no exception to the NAP for any individual or group, the result is a peaceful and productive society without the need for a class of rulers to plan or control the society.

 

I have noticed many times that libertarians cite "property" very early in their list of rights, if not first among them. Why? Why is property a "human right"? And why would it be an important one?

When I imagine human rights, I think in terms on concentric circles around the person. The first circle is "life", and all other rights are ripples out from there. "Health" is logically an immediate follow-up. "Life" as a right is meaningless, if that life is one of unnecessary physical misery. In the same logic of preserving life, lodgings come next. Life out in the weather may be OK in some climates, but still...

Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, ... are rights concerning things we may do, a very different notion, proceeding IMNAAHO from the "quality of life".

"Property" is an odd right, I think. It is different from the others in that it presumes opposition. It is meaningless if we decree that it is meaningless. Property is not needed for "life" or any of the rights that proceed from life, and property is not at all comparable to movement or speech or belief -- I may do those things as much as I wish without limiting your possibility to do likewise. Property is very different: each person's property is a subset of all property, and unavailable for others. The four million acres that John Malone and Ted Turner own are not available for me to own.

"Property" is the only "right" that excludes others. Who was the "first owner"? By what "right" did he gain ownership?

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau​

​

 

Should the government provide all with, equal in all respects, movable, communal housing?

Since “’Life’ as a right is meaningless, if that life is one of unnecessary physical misery,’” since the determination as to which life is meaningless is left to people, therefore, you support extermination of unnecessary physical misery. Since you support extermination of unnecessary physical misery, since according to our people toiling on or for property we cannot own and pass on for a better life for our children is unnecessary physical misery, therefore, you argue with us for extermination of your right to life, consequently, your life is meaningless.

Where do you place the business structures, communal housing, chemical plant, automated factory, or the farm? Should we live penniless like Rousseau, in a state of nature, destroyed by those who are more powerful?

Real Property is not a right, which excludes others, that is why there is imminent domain.

You have to consider where the man came from, the inequality and time that formed his flawed philosophy.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

In France that may have been necessary, here it was not.

 

You appear to be satisfied with what you imagine to be my thinking. I shall not disturb your fantasy with my reality.

 

You just validated my argument.

 

An easily solved problem. There are already private courts and arbitrators that do a better job than government courts and there is no reason law enforcement couldn't be private as well.

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no ruling elite.

 

For a more thorough treatment of a philosophy of property rights watch this:

[video=youtube;7DN_tqy9MdY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DN_tqy9MdY[/video]

Ownership of private property is an extension of ownership of self. One acquires property by mixing their labor with previously unowned property, or by trading the products of their labor with others. Aside from being an extension of the human right of self ownership, property rights eliminates the problems associated with shared or community property, such as the "tragedy of the commons".

 

As I have said dozens of times in this forum...Libertarianism carried to its logic conclusion...leads to chaos and anarchy.

Lots of libertarians here...lots of Libertarians also.

What you have said here is as obvious as the nose on Washington's face on Rushmore...

...but good luck with getting these good folk to acknowledge it.

Libertarianism, in my opinion, will always be a very minor subset of far right American conservatism...and I personally think it is going nowhere.

 

Today's libertarians support some government. Minimally, of course. But some. Enough to prevent chaos. I'm a libertarian I suppose, but not a literal definition.

 

Wrong. The main reason for the need for a state/government is to provide a safety net for the people of the abyss. We have had plenty of societies that did not provide a safety net for the poor and the result is misery for the people at the bottom of society - not a "peaceful and productive society". How do you think we got 'Democratic Capitalism'? This was to stop the people of the abyss from killing the ruling class which will emerge in any society no matter if there is an official government of not. The reason we have a welfare state is so the miserable masses do not rise up and kill the surplus capitalists. Your libertarian utopia is an utter fantasy. Take away the safety net and the masses rise up and kill everyone.

And any service provided by the government cannot be provided by private concerns. All around the world we see that the myth of privatization bringing down prices due to competition is not true - what happens is that private monopolies are created. And when that happens the people of the abyss want to 'bust the trusts' dont they? But with private monopoly the priority is not to offer the service - the priority is profit. The trust can sell at a loss to break small business, which they do, and then when a private monopoly by one company or a private duopoly is created by two companies then they can charge whatever they like and make their profit margins as high as they like - and this is what happens - google it. Hitler/Nazi used to decide on fair profit margins for business and he also required that business reinvest a certain percentage of their profits back into the national economy within a certain period of time. Do you see how sensible this is? Not only is it important to protect consumer rights by regulating profit margins - it is also important to prevent capitalists from hoarding to keep prices high and demand up. Right back to when Shakespeare was around hoarding has been a problem. Shakespeare himself was a food hoarder that would sit on grain in times of famine to drive up food grain prices. The same thing happens in modern times with food and different commodities. Surplus capitalists will hoard food and use speculation to drive up food prices which cause poor nations to have food shortages - all in the name of profit - and at times the food shortages are a ruling surplus capitalist strategy to cause unrest in nations that they are seeking to cause unrest in for whatever reason according to their planning of global society.

edit- Nice quote too. A bit of a libertarian tyrant are we?

 

Libertarianism is not about total anything.

Many different opinions exist among libertarians but in general they agree on maximum individual liberty and minimal government. This is a far cry from total individual liberty and no government which you describe. What you describe is actually anarchy.

 

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

I see the wealthy as "our ruling elite" today. The only thing that kinda sorta prevents the wealthy from crushing everyone else is the government, enforcing our rights.

How would anarchy prevent the rise of "ruling elites"?

 

Without a libertarian government to establish that definition, to disturb your fantasy with an unknown reality, you may choose your own definition, and it will be valid until disturbed.


“I shall not disturb your fantasy with my reality.” (bobnelsonfr)

Since you will not disturb my creative imagination with your reality, since your thinking and reality are otherwise unknown, therefore, nothing exists to separate your reality and my imagination of it, consequently my argument “your life is meaningless” remains valid.

 

Charles Manson quotes