Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Given that the state and the government are supposed to be the tools through which citizens express and apply their collective will, how do you plan to forbid corporation and wealthy individual to seize the power?
Wouldn't libertarianism ultimately mean the end of democracy?

Edit : this thread is done with the sole purpose of questioning Libertarian, not to debate or convert them.

Edit two : other Libertarians are invited, too. A left wing libertarian would be nice. And another right leaning one so Lordbucket wouldn't completely be alone.

[Heron TSG]

I'm no libertarian, but I can give you my opinion.

The goal of a democracy is to represent everyone equally so that any decisions made are representative of the collective will of (at least the majority of) the population. When someone has more power than that granted by their single vote, the democracy becomes skewed, and the people are no longer fully represented.

I am no lawyer, but some ways to prevent them from doing this spring to mind: Revoke corporate personhood for the purpose of donations and lobbying, possibly put an end to lobbying (There are such things as referendums), and placing safeguards against a politician supporting (via lawmaking) the growth of a business in which he or she holds a majority (or similarly large fraction) of stock.

[Nadaka]

Given that the state and the government are supposed to be the tools through which citizens express and apply their collective will, how do you plan to forbid corporation and wealthy individual to seize the power?
Wouldn't libertarianism ultimately mean the end of democracy?

There are two kinds of libertarians. Those who believe people (in Ron Pauls case "christians") are fundamentally good and that no one will seek license to disenfranchise others for fun and profit in the guise of liberty. And the other kind are those who value the license to disenfranchise others for fun and profit above all else.

I agree with many libertarian ideals, but in practice it is impractical and ripe for exploitation.

[Criptfeind]

Is anyone else reminded of the "A question for Atheists" thread?

[Nadaka]

Is anyone else reminded of the "A question for Atheists" thread?

Maybe.

[Phmcw]

I don't remember that thread, but the topic of this one is to have an answer to that question, preferably by a libertarian.
Alternatively I may post it on the relevant subreddit of r/politics.
Those question are my main concern with libertarianism, and I'd like to know what they think.

[Hiiri]

I'm sorry; "I'm not a libertarian, but..."

I believe it's the naive thought, that people can limit corporation power by not buying their products. So in a way, we have the freedom to buy their products or the freedom to starve to death. Yay for freedom!

[MonkeyHead]

Maybe a derail, but I often pose anarchists a similar question. I am a moderate liberal, left wing leaning, with some nationalistic notions. I ask them if they think removing the idea of nation states and laws will actually work. Often they ramble on and come to a general idea about how people would band together under shared ideals for mutual protection, completley missing the point that they are replacing one set of nation states for another.

Libertaianism need not be the end of democracy, because in any democratic state there could (nay, should...) be checks and balances put in place to prevent explotiative behaviour (i.e. preventing monopolization, lobbying of politicians). This could possibly more a body closer to a planned economic model than a truly capitalistic one, but then I am in favour of nationalizing plenty of things anyway.

[Svarte Troner]

Am I the only one who misread the title of this thread as "A question for librarians"?

[VoidPointer]

The problem with libertarianism (well, one of the problems with libertarianism) is that no two libertarians will give you exactly the same definition of libertarianism. Some libertarians are borderline anarchists (e.g. Lysander Spooner), and some are basically Republicans except less religious. (Not that all Republicans are necessarily religious. It's just that any serious Republican candidate for President has to talk about the sanctity of Christian marriages.)

[Dutchling]

Am I the only one who misread the title of this thread as "A question for librarians"?

No

[scriver]

But.. But..-

[Andrew425]

I guess i'm a libertarian.

To answer the OP, no it wouldn't happen.

Simple regulation could solve the problem. Corporations can't donate to politics and individuals have a max limit of 1500$ per year in donations.

I guess the problem is that libertarian is too broad a political view.

[LordBucket]

how do you plan to forbid corporation and
wealthy individual to seize the power?

Wouldn't libertarianism ultimately mean the end of democracy?

...how does a non-libertarian system prevent it?

Do you really believe that "corporations and wealthy individuals" are not in power under the present system?

[Nadaka]

how do you plan to forbid corporation and
wealthy individual to seize the power?

Wouldn't libertarianism ultimately mean the end of democracy?

...how does a non-libertarian system prevent it?

Do you really believe that "corporations and wealthy individuals" are not in power under the present system?

They mostly are, but the government does place some restraints on corporations and the wealthy that the libertarians have not managed to remove yet. And the Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to do something about it.