Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

I would be curious how you would enforce socialism with the state powers a libertarian society would allow. My guess is that you can't have socialism without coercion, so socialism in a libertarian society probably wouldn't last long.

But Capitalism isn't just a part of libertarianism; it's what happens when you do have libertarianism. Unlike socialism, it will arise spontaneously.

 

Actually you have things backwards. It would be impossible to enforce Capitalism without the power of the State to back it up. When the State is removed from the equation, libertarianism and socialism can thrive.

 

How do you prevent people from engaging in economic calculation?

 

Non sequitur...

 

When you say Libertarianism I understand you are talking about the American definition, as it holds a different meaning elsewhere. The problem is that much of what American libertarians advocate is not practical in the twenty-first century, government is needed to be involved in various aspects of society in order to ensure stability and progress.

 

The real reason libertarianism is not more popular is that it has no political power,

 

Civil libertarianism is easy to sell. Most people prefer not to mess with others in their personal lives.

Economic libertarianism is a harder ideology to sell, because it basically leaves everything up to the market.

Most people prefer a balance of government and the market when it comes to economic policy.

 

Libertarianism, in the end, leads to each individual choosing the economic organization that most suits him and dispenses with state monopolies and state regulations. Some will prefer organizations that are not socialist. How will you deal with them?

 

"The Market" is just mutual, voluntary trade between individuals. Messing with people's voluntary transactions is no different than messing with their personal lives. Without economic liberty, we can never have true personal liberty. The state may grant privileges to some personal behaviors, but it will attempt to regulate and prohibit many others. That is why you can now cohabitate with someone of your own gender, but cannot share a joint with him (or her.)

Ultimately, economics cannot be separated from the individual, so if it's objectively moral to interfere with our individual economic endeavors, then it's objectively moral to interfere with any other individual endeavors. This is why libertarians stand behind the non-aggression principles and, if they are true libertarians, apply it to the regulation of all human interactions.

 

If those individuals choose to try to accumulate capital until they wield power over the people who lack capital, then that would result in the end of libertarian society, and the rebirth of authoritarian Capitalist society.

 

Please explain the overlap because obviously we are having some form of miscommunication, what about the legalization of other drugs is any different than the legalization of alcohol? Both can be abused, both can lead to terrible actions, why ban one but not the other? How is the legalization of marijuana any more an advocation for its use than the legalization of tobacco?

When it comes to your assertions that I am imagining your belief that legalization will result in abuse is... difficult to understand considering that your argument relies on the belief that legalization will lead to increased use...

I'm not saying that in the event that drug use results in actual harm that we should ignore it. I'm saying we should only punish them if/when their abuse results in actual harm. You are arguing that we should punish said users before they have done anything to harm others, under the assertion that EVENTUALLY they will harm someone. I called the harm as potential because you are suggesting we punish people before the fact, before the actual harm occurs, making it only potential harm.

Most of my arguments have been relying on a constitutional basis, but you argue back with moral claims that I don't necessarily disagree with. But, constitutionally speaking, children aren't entitled to the fruits of their parents labors.

You state that men aren't fit to govern themselves, yet you argue that the only solution to that predicament is to have men govern other men, you see where I might have an issue with your logic?

 

I've heard some wacky things from leftists, but I've never heard a leftist treat Libertarianism as anything other than a contemptible ideology. So I think you may be unique. Particularly if you think that spontaneous socialism will arise without coercion from the State.

Some people can believe just about anything!

 

You equate money with power, but it isn't power. Money is only useful as long as people are willing to take it in exchange for their services/goods, in a libertarian society no coercion allowed, but a voluntary transaction isn't coercion. I am failing to see your point.

 

First of all, the next time you omit the link to my post the conversation will terminate, as it's too much hassle to refer back to the previous posts without it.

Yes, but recreational drugs can only be used irresponsibly - not so for alcohol.

You have me confused with someone else.

Horse hockey. By the time any drug abusing parent gets arrested, he has already harmed his child.

Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?

If you understood the first thing about the Constitution, you'd know it does not presume to provide anything like a comprehensive catalogue of fundamental rights.

Again, you have me confused with someone else.

You see where I might have an issue with someone who can't oppose me without lying about what I say?

 

*facepalm* Alcohol IS a recreational drug...

 

How do you see them gaining a monopoly on the legal use of force?

 

Apparently capital in the hands of individuals leads to authoritarianism, but in the hands of a group of individuals, nothing bad happens. Or it goes something like that.

 

There are lots of things that people can do that are irresponsible but which do not cause harm to identifiable victims. Recreational drug use is sometimes one of those things. So is adultery. So is gambling. Doing wheelies on a motorcycle on your private driveway is probably irresponsible. Why must people be thrown in cages for some things but not others?

If there's no identifiable victim, there is no crime.

 

The victims are the taxpayers forced to pay for children of drug addicts who are incapable of caring for their children and since libertarians are not willing to punish anyone for the economic harm they are causing to the collective(because they could care less if the collective even exists as they are really just anarchists in capitalist clothing) then basically no one gets punished for bad behavior that damages all of society economically and morally.

All civilizations must make tradeoffs of freedom/security depending on each individual issue. There can be no blanket "all freedom, all the time" because freedom really is damaging to collective society in too much of a dose.

There really ARE some things more important than freedom.

 

I don't think you are really familiar with the history of libertarianism as an ideology then. Association of the label of 'libertarianism' with extreme right-wing neo-liberalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, even in the United States, with the founding of the "Libertarian Party" in the 1970s. Traditional libertarianism has always recognized the threats posed to human freedom by both State and Capitalist power, which are closely intertwined with each other. The word "libertarian" was first used by anarcho-communists of the 19th century. The Libertarian League based in New York right up until the end of the 1960s promoted a staunch left-wing anarchist perspective.

And I believe it is the only true form of libertarianism, since the neoliberalism of the LP really isn't concerned so much with liberty, as with replacing the State, which the public at least has limited control over, with private tyrannies, who have no accountability at all to the public.

 

If you abolish the State without abolishing Capitalism, who will perform its functions? You will have private companies with guns each competing to do so, whoever has the most money will be able to buy the most protection and the most "justice". Inevitably there will be conflict between the companies, which would result in essentially an armed struggle between warlords for supremacy, until one overcomes the others and establishes dominance. At that point the company would have a monopoly on force, and become the de facto State, although it is still a for-profit corporation, accountable only to its Capitalist owners, without any accountability to the people or to democratic processes.

That's a pretty dystopian society, in my opinion, and not one that would bode well for the expansion of human liberty.

 

I do not know these Libertarians that you speak of and I know waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more Libertarians than you as a member of the party for over 15 years.

Those are left wing talking points that Liberals spout off.

 

Yes, I understand your collectivist thinking that when one person does wrong, everyone who does something like what that one person does therefore deserves to be put into a cage. It's the same argument that socialists use against capitalist. Some are greedy and underhanded, therefore all capitalists should be put in prison.

It's also the argument that two wrongs make a right. The government takes from taxpayers to pay for the children of others, therefore the government must lock up all drug users because some put the burden of their children onto the state. Sorry, I don't buy that it's right to do wrong to correct another wrong.

I don't agree that I am a victim of what drug users do even though I don't pay taxes, so don't include me in your victimization scheme. In fact, I feel that I am more a victim of the authoritarian collectivism of people like you who force me to pay for the destruction of civil liberties necessary to prosecute a war on human behavior and to pay for the millions of people who live in prisons and whose potential to earn a livelihood is lessened by carrying a record.

People who consume substance which the government has not authorized do not need to be put into cages.

Oh sure, gun control to the point of disarmament of all private citizens in order to save lives; affirmative action to overcome generations of racism; welfare for those unable to earn a living wage; the right to free healthcare at taxpayer expense. These are all important things for which society must and should take from your pocketbook and restrict your freedom to follow your conscience and use your life, body and property as you see fit. Don't you agree?

 

Ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "private tyranny" without the state. There is nothing upon which it can depend for legal use of force against citizens who have just as much right to use it.

 

Now see. This is libertarian/anarcho thinking. That everything must inevitably lead to the extreme. That a reasonable safety net must inevitably lead to an authoritarianism or that any form of collective consciousness or conscience will lead to tyranny.

What garbage. There IS a middle ground.

The individual is NOT the most important sovereignty in a society, just one level of it. There ARE higher powers placed above him and it would do anarchos to remember that they are not immune to democracy and the will of the people.

The fact is that alcohol and tobacco take DECADES to cripple a person into economic and social uselessness. The damage to society is spread out over an entire lifetime.

Opiate addiction is almost immediate and the damage to society is immediate and accute, with visible signs of the damage evident within a few years. Opiate addiction is not controllable. It can only be fed.

Alcoholism and Tobacco addiction can be successfully managed. Opiate addiction cannot. Only 10% of those who develop an opiate addiction ever quit. Ever. It is an addiction that cuts the lifespan of the user to 10 years from the point of addiction. Tobacco and Alcohol simply do not do that.

A successful business man who develops and opiate addiction is going to be poor, broke and destitute within 5 years. It's virtually guaranteed.