Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

People who read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead in HS aren't necessarily going to understand the distinction between Ayn Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) and Libertarianism. The difference is in the fact that many libertarians dispense with rationality in pursuit of political freedom, seeing no need to prove their case by reference to reality. Objectivity as a method is hard to learn and harder to exercise.

 

Randianism is even worse than mainstream right-wing "Libertarianism". It's a pretty demented cult, idolizing a shameless hypocrite.

 

Decentralization. Realizing that just because people vote for something, that does not transfer legitimate authority to the body that receives the votes. When there are multitudes of smaller democracies, they tend to compete with each other and most people can afford to change their town of residence if they are not happy with the use of power in their current town. It's much harder, lifechanging really, to change state or country.

Money really isn't all that powerful. It's a commodity and there are many things that can be used as money aside from the money the government tells you that you can only use. Historically it's not been the wealthy that use money against those without wealth, but government power used by some groups to disenfranchise others. Serfdom arose out of taxation schemes in which the poor were forced to serve masters who were often taxed severely themselves. The misery of the late 17th century arose as guilds used political power to prevent workers and entrepreneurs from interfering in their markets. Anyone could learn to smith, for instance, but guilds demanded that government grant them privileges and limit the number of people allowed to swing a hammer and afix a horseshoe. Industrialization saw and end to that, but industrialists are just as good at using government power to limit their markets. Here's an example video of why it can be so hard for the unemployed to find jobs. the government licenses most work efforts, either among the employers or the would be self-employed. https://www.ij.org/license-to-work-release-5-8-12

Libertarianism is very democratic, it just doesn't recognize that the initiation of force is a legitimate end of the democratic process.

 

I think it is popular among some folks , I also listen to many how I believe are libertarians but do not realise it, I also hear and see other claiming to be but as someone said already hate Muslims for and example or vote republican , my favorite example is Boortz and Hannity both have claimed to be libertarians but I can't see it .

 

Well there's a contradiction in terms!


I really think the reason why Libertarianism is doomed to be a minority philosophy is because people correctly figure out that under a libertarian system, smart, motivated people would excel, and people who are of low intelligence, low motivation, and just bad at life in general will be worse off. Currently they have the State to fall back on when they screw up. They don't want to be responsible for their own decisions.

 

"Libertarian capitalism" would be a contradiction in terms. Genuine libertarianism is socialism.

 

That is such a good story it is almost poetic. What a lesson.

 

This is why I'm not a libertarian. You guys cannot agree on what liberty is or how it should be implemented. The initiation of force is what it is no matter how you try to dress it up. Call it anarchy, libertarianism or socialism (a rose by any other name).

 

I don't think they should be coerced. I think they should agree to it voluntarily. But it's why I think progressive taxation makes sense, and taxation in general.

I would like to see some kind of way of makes taxes voluntary. I once suggested trying something with bonds instead of taxes, but nobody wanted any part of that.

 

They are both forms of permission: the latter from God, the former from the devil.

They generally favor legitimization of self-indulgent behavior such as recreational drug use and extramarital sex, under the rationale that it "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket", heedless of the fact that children of self-indulgent parents are likely to be breakers of legs and pickers of pockets - which of course is why the American electorate has been increasingly willing in the last few decades to elect scoundrels to the highest federal offices.

 

In other words, they uphold the rights of the individual consistently and do not advocate aggressing against peaceful people.

 

Can you own a lot of property peacefully?

 

I assume you are referring to land and I am a "moderate" geoist in that respect. Wherever land scarcity occurs, some form of mutual reciprocity is needed. I think Locke's view on "working" land has some real merit but should not necessarily be universalized since there are other perfectly legitimate private uses for land.

 

Other than the children of the licentious and their victims, you mean.

 

Ummmm....saywhu?

 

Question, how does a guarantee of what you call negative rights make a government more intrusive? These "negative" rights limit the actions of the government/individuals that could restrict your actions, what about that is intrusive? Also, in regards to "positive" rights, when you start saying that people have a right to food, healthcare, etc. you are saying that they are entitled to the fruits of others labor, regardless of what they provide in return. What are you saying about the rights of those who do grow wheat, who make bread, who provide medical services? They have to provide it for them? By giving some a right to the services of others, you are taking the others right to choose who they provide their services to.

I agree with the notion that some are okay with giving away their freedom in exchange for security, however to suggest that everyone should give up their freedom for security just because some are content with it is as ridiculous as saying everyone should have to buy Chevy Volts just because other people bought them.

This "structure" is called nature. If you want the services of others (food, health care, etc.), you need to give them a reason to provide it to you. If the services aren't worth your effort, don't exert effort. Sure they don't have the ability to buy everything they desire if they don't have something valuable to exchange in return, but to argue that this is somehow a "lack of freedom" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what freedom is. Freedom is the power to act and speak as one wants... one isn't not free just because those actions have consequences.

I would also like to point out that I am in no way arguing that we should let everyone die, I simply disagree with the notion that we have to be forced (taxed) to help others.

 

The easy way out is usually more appealing to the masses. Especially modern day Americans.

 

Your argument basically amounts to "everyone else is doing it," must I bring up the cliche saying about the bridge? And yes, we formed a government, a limited constitutional republic, for a reason.

We need a military (and paid for it without an income tax until 1916), we need international representation, and we need a force to defend us from the violent actions of others (police, managed locally). I understand the value of government but it should never start treating citizens differently, their should be a flat tax (preferably a set fee, no income taxes would be more preferable), and every citizen should receive the exact same services. We shouldn't force some to help others, we shouldn't have policies that benefit one group or another (including tax exemptions), and it should then leave everyone alone.

You confuse my position with anarchism.

 

If you subscribe to the current definition of Capitalism, which is exemplified by the U.S. economy, then yes I would agree that libertarianism isn't capitalism. However the initial definition of capitalism being a system of completely free and voluntary trade, then I would say libertarian capitalism is not a contradiction in terms. What has given you the impression that true libertarianism is socialism? I am having issues understanding why one would make that leap in judgement...

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Wealthy people should want to pay more, but to MAKE them pay more is an egregious overstep.

 

You confuse the legalization of a behavior with the condoning of a behavior. I'm sure most if not all libertarians would agree that drug abuse is not healthy and can ruin families, but we libertarians realize it is not our right to dictate the way another person lives, unless the "break someone's leg or pick their pocket." Once someone does commit a harmful or fraudulent action, then they should be punished, but we shouldn't punish non violent actions.

Your logic would suggest that we should punish all people who drive cars because they have the potential to cause accidents, and we should punish all gun owners because they might hurt someone. Your reasoning suggests we should imprison anyone who has the potential to harm another being (everyone on the planet).

What gives children a right to the food their parents provide? What gives children a right to the homes their parents own? I feel that children are valuable and all people who create them should want to care for them, but to say that a child has a right to his parents support just because he/she needs it is as ridiculous as saying I have a right to a mechanic when my car breaks down.

 

The funny thing is that Ayn Rand rejected libertarianism, equating it with anarchism and calling it inherently collectivist.

Today "libertarians" are really just objectivists (objectivism being Ayn Rands school of thought).

 

I do no such thing, trust me.

But what you do not realize is that by countenancing immoral behavior you are an advocate for breeding people who will do just that.

I know that's what you believe, but there is no objective basis for it.

No, those are inferences you have chosen to draw.

Not what, but Who. See the DoI.

Assuming he or she is not your parent, the mechanic did nothing to bring you into the world; so the parallel is nonsensical.

 

I'm going to try to better explain myself because you seem to be misunderstanding my point.

Earlier I wrote that you were mistaking the legalization of an activity for the condoning of said activity and you wrote...

However, right after that you write...

I have already pointed out, and you have pointed out, that one should confuse legalization of an activity with condoning of that activity. But the whole basis of the argument above rests on the point that by legalizing drug use we are 'advocating' for it's use and all its consequences. I'm having a hard time grasping how you can hold these two contradictory notions in your head as truth at the same time.

Legalization isn't advocation. It's legal to drink alcohol, but does that mean the government is supporting alcoholism? It's legal to smoke, does that mean the government is suggesting everyone smoke? It's legal to drop out of high school, but do you feel like it's being publicly advocated for? Of course not, because regardless of it's legality, it doesn't make sense. You seem to believe that because something is legal, everyone will feel pressured to do it. If it were legal to drive on the left side of the road, would you? Of course not, because it doesn't make sense. There will be people who make the wrong decision, once they do though, there will be real life consequences (alienation of their family for one), and they will have to deal with that. Ultimately, once we stop providing support for these failed families, natural selection will force them to change their behavior or it will wipe them out.

In regards to this statement ^ about my belief in punishing only actions that harm others, neither of our sides have a fully objective basis, were debating the role of government not the existence of gravity.

You have argued that we should ban drug use because it has the possibility to lead to harm to others (via the children the users improperly raise). Please explain to me how the potential harm caused by drug use is any different than the potential harm caused by gun owners, or car owners? Each have the potential to cause harm, why is drugs where you draw the line?

When thinking about rights you have to think about how these rights affect other people. Your declaration that children have a right to their parents support also declares that parents don't have a right to choose what they do with their own property. I don't see why them being your parents has anything to do with your entitlement to their services.

Again, I would like to stress that I think child rearing is a valuable thing to do and I am in no way advocating for people to abandon their children, I am simply stating that children don't have a right to parental care.

 

And I haven't.

There is no contradiction. While legalization and condonation are not the same thing, there is plenty of overlap in this context.

No, it's condoning the consupmption of alcholic beverages.

No, it's condoning smoking for those so inclined.

No, it's being condoned.

That appearance is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

Actually it does in some circumstances; and it should be obvious that if that law were repealed, people would do it more when it suited their purposes.

You are more than welcome to speak for yourself.

The harm done to children by parents who misuse drugs is actual, not potential, because it tempts the child to hold the parent in contempt.

To be sure. Too bad you don't do that.

Sure they do, as long as whatever they do with it doesn't prevent them from meeting their obligation to the children.

Then to be absurdly charitable, you don't see very much at all.

they have a right to do so. Yes, I get it. What I'm not sure I get is how you have the chutzpah to ask why libertarianism isn't more popular and then proceed to regale potential libertarians with such patent lunacy.