Print

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

[LordBucket]

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

No, the problem is that people don't understand. Yes, in a libertarian society it would be possible for the rich and powerful to use their influence to take control. A opposed to say...any other system in which it would also be possible for the rich and powerful to use their influence to take control, with only exception being systems in which the "rich and powerful" were already in control to begin.

For any system to work, somebody has to agree to work within that system. For example, it would have been possible for your mother to have murdered you as an infant in order to collect insurance money. But we trust that mothers don't do that. And yes, sometimes they do. But the fact that they do doesn't mean that the system is flawed. It means that these people chose to not operate within the rules.

[Nadaka]

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

No, the problem is that people don't understand. Yes, in a libertarian society it would be possible for the rich and powerful to use their influence to take control. A opposed to say...any other system in which it would also be possible for the rich and powerful to use their influence to take control, with only exception being systems in which the "rich and powerful" were already in control to begin.

For any system to work, somebody has to agree to work within that system. For example, it would have been possible for your mother to have murdered you as an infant in order to collect insurance money. But we trust that mothers don't do that. And yes, sometimes they do. But the fact that they do doesn't mean that the system is flawed. It means that these people chose to not operate within the rules.

In a libertarian society the normal rules do not apply. Exploitation and disenfranchisement, even in the extreme, is not only allowed under the rules but encouraged as a social ideal.

[LordBucket]

In a libertarian society the normal rules do not apply. Exploitation and disenfranchisement, even in the extreme, is not only allowed under the rules but encouraged as a social ideal.

I don't think that was a suitable response to what I said. It also contains two implications that I disagree with, and one concept that appears to be self-contradictory.

Would you care to rephrase that?

[Criptfeind]

You two might want to define libertarianism first. Cause you guys are not talking about the same thing.

[LordBucket]

You two might want to define libertarianism first. Cause
you guys are not talking about the same thing.

You sir, deserve a cookie.

* <-- cookie

It is yummy. Please enjoy it.

[Criptfeind]

I believe the cookie system is deeply flawed in that those with cookies are at a unfair advantage in their ability to gain more cookies, thus ever widening the cookie gap.

[GTM]

Some libertarians argue that it's government intervention that gives individuals and corporations the ability to seize power.  They abuse loopholes and game the system to get what they want.  When there's less of a system, they have less levers to pull to achieve their ends.  Lobbying becomes useless because the government is neutered.  In essence, the invisible hand of capitalism will bitch slap everyone into equality. 

The problem is that it's all based on 18th century philosophy without a strong foundation in experiment-driven science, so nobody can say for certain if it would actually work.

[LordBucket]

Some libertarians argue

I'm one of those extreme libertarians that your sociology teacher might have warned you about. I find it difficult to have these conversations because generally people who try to "pose the flaw with libertarianism question to libertarians" are grounded in assumptions that are only valid in a non-libertarian framework.

It's like if someone asked the question: "how do you get put chess pieces away? You can't because rooks only move in straight lines! Hahahah!"

Questions like that totally miss the point. Yes, rooks only move in straight lines. But only if you're playing a game of chess. If you're not playing chess, it's trivial to pick up a rook and put it in a box and put the box away.

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?

The original question is so grounded in assumptions that only make sense within a certain context that it's difficult to give a useful answer that makes sense within that context. To me, someone who doesn't perceive within that context, the entire question and premise of the OP seems both circular and flawed.

 * You don't forbid corporations and wealthy individuals from seizing power.
 * Even if you wanted to, putting them in charge in the first place to prevent them from later seizing it is not a good solution.
 * Who cares if democracy ends? Democracy is a system in which it is accepted policy that individuals have no more say in their own lives than those around them. Why is that a good thing?

All of the above aside, the fact is that those with power have power. Creating bureaucracy does not change this. Creating laws does not change this. It simply hides the understanding of "what is power" behind an illusory wall of self-delusion. You are not safe from the things you fear libertarianism "will bring" simply because you have these rules and laws. Rules and laws are simply a smokescreen behind which those with power can hide to simplify their use of power by deluding you into a sense of safety.

If a man with the power to harm you chooses to harm you, a law stating that he can't will not stop him. In fact, laws don't state that you "can't" do things. There is no law that says you "can't" murder people, and even if there were it would be meaningless. There are only laws saying that if you murder someone, other people have agreed to do something to you in return. "Law" is a way of legitimizing mob rule. It's a way of doing exactly the same thing, but feeling good about it by exteriorizing the decision process.

I assert that exteriorizing responsibility for choice and the consequences of choice is not beneficial to a conscious entity.

I assume that the OPs position and question makes sense from a certain worldview. And I'm sure my position seems ridiculous from a certain worldview. But the questions themselves can't be addressed simply by answering them. The worldviews in dispute need to be reconciled before any useful discussion can take place.

The problem is that it's all based on 18th century philosophy without a strong foundation in experiment-driven science, so nobody can say for certain if it would actually work.

And my answer is that of course it "would work." Just like the present system also "works." And a purely libertarian society would have certain consequences just like living in our system has certain consequences. It's simply a matter of choosing which consequences you would prefer.

But looking around, I see a lot of people unhappy with the consequences of living in the existing system.

[Leafsnail]

Questions like that totally miss the point. Yes, rooks only move in straight lines. But only if you're playing a game of chess. If you're not playing chess, it's trivial to pick up a rook and put it in a box and put the box away.

Of course... this perfectly proves the libertarian viewpoint!  I was stupid not to see it before.

[LordBucket]

I was stupid

You're stupid? Ok.

See? I can quote a little tiny piece out of something and use it to come to an unreasonable conclusion too.

[Hiiri]

Are you for real, LordBucket...?

All of the above aside, the fact is that those with power have power. Creating bureaucracy does not change this. Creating laws does not change this. It simply hides the understanding of "what is power" behind an illusory wall of self-delusion. You are not safe from the things you fear libertarianism "will bring" simply because you have these rules and laws. Rules and laws are simply a smokescreen behind which those with power can hide to simplify their use of power by deluding you into a sense of safety.

There are different amounts of power, you know. Rich will always be more powerful than the poor, but the amount of power they have can be adjusted with bureaucracy and laws (by spreading power around, instead of focusing it on small elite).

Rich or poor, they get punished for murder. In libertarian society, all they have to do is buy the police department.
(If money is not power, feel free to replace "rich" with "those with more power" and "poor" with "those with less power")

If a man with the power to harm you chooses to harm you, a law stating that he can't will not stop him. In fact, laws don't state that you "can't" do things. There is no law that says you "can't" murder people, and even if there were it would be meaningless. There are only laws saying that if you murder someone, other people have agreed to do something to you in return. "Law" is a way of legitimizing mob rule. It's a way of doing exactly the same thing, but feeling good about it by exteriorizing the decision process.

Sheesh. The point of our legal system is NOT to make mobs feel good; it's to make sure harming others is not beneficial to an individual.

If a person keyed my car, I'd love to bash his brains in with a baseball bat. The court would disagree.

The problem is that it's all based on 18th century philosophy without a strong foundation in experiment-driven science, so nobody can say for certain if it would actually work.

And my answer is that of course it "would work." Just like the present system also "works." And a purely libertarian society would have certain consequences just like living in our system has certain consequences. It's simply a matter of choosing which consequences you would prefer.

But looking around, I see a lot of people unhappy with the consequences of living in the existing system.

It's not a matter of preference, if our goal is human happiness. Some societies are better than others. And there will always be unhappy people, which means our work on improving is never done.

[Phmcw]

Please don't be rude to him : I actually want to understand his worldviews, if only to understand what is libertarianism all about.

Now for the obvious question : well, those who are in power sure are in power but my response is to give some more (and some less) power to the state, namely getting more direct democracy, and more taxes on the extremely wealthy, as well as some rule for the financial system that make accumulation of huge wealth harder.

Now I will have the "commie" comment. Understand this : I don't want taxes on usable wealth. If you earn ten million dollars a year, you won't be able to use them by any reasonable means. And you have way to much resources at your disposition to let me be comfortable with it.

Another thing is : how do you make education and healthcare accessible to all without an extensive government? Because those two point are moral imperative to me (Yes they are both accessible to all in Belgium, in reasonable quality, understand "you can do your post doc in one of the Ivy league if you're good" for education, and one of the best of the world for healthcare (though keep an eye on what the nurses are doing, they are not as good as they were)).

[Criptfeind]

I was stupid

You're stupid? Ok.

See? I can quote a little tiny piece out of something and use it to come to an unreasonable conclusion too.

I both agree with and fully indorse this statement. I put all the power of my massive collection of cookies behind it. Basically. Good job on being worthless Leaf.

Anyway. I have a real question for Me'Lord Bucket. Given that what you say is true in the context of this question so that the laws only serve to hide the allocation of power. Do they not also make the use of such power less blatant? IE: The difference between economic slavery and physical slavery. The difference being in anti slave laws. And yet, although they may come to practically the same effect, is one not better in that it offers a higher chance of leaving the wretched state of slavery?

[Leafsnail]

I both agree with and fully indorse this statement. I put all the power of my massive collection of cookies behind it. Basically. Good job on being worthless Leaf.

I was going to respond properly, but got weighed down by the constant non sequiturs and false equivalencies.  And then he said that he didn't intend for anyone else to understand it anyway, so I gave up and made a joke based on one of his weird and unfair metaphors instead.

[LordBucket]

I actually want to understand his worldviews,
if only to understand what is libertarianism all about.

You guys look like you want to have a real discussion, so I'll' accommodate you. Let's start by providing context.

Problems generally have more than one solution. To questions like "in a libertarian society how would X be handled" I offer the general answer of "well, how do we want to handle it?"

Words like "libertarian" "democracy" "socialist" etc. are all somewhat general terms. If somebody asked you "in a democratic society, how is the executive office handled?" it would be difficult to give a simple answer. The US is generally considered a "democracy" and we have a president, but no parliament. The UK is also generally considered a "democracy" but they have a parliament and no president.

Libertarianism is a philosophy, from which methods and solutions can be derived. It's not a specific set of methods or solutions. So any question of "in a libertarian society, how would X be handled" is somewhat missing the point. I can give you answers to questions like these, but the answers that I give are not the only answers.

what is libertarianism all about

According to wikipedia:

"Libertarianism, in the strictest sense, is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the The U.S. Libertarian party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence"

So you've got three different definitions there. But the core essence is the valuation of individual freedom. The idea that the majority is not entitled to act its will upon the individual. I'm guessing that probably most of you read that and think that it sounds fairly reasonable. But...do you realize that it also happens to be philosophically in complete opposition to democracy?

According to wikipedia:

"Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all the people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

Think about that. Really think about that. The basic premise of democracy is that individuals in groups have only equal say in their lives. In principal, your neighbor is just as entitled to make decisions that affect you as you are. There's an old joke that goes: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner." Ten men gang raping a single woman is a democratic process.

Now please understand...it's not my intention to attack a straw man here. Obviously reasonable human beings can live in a democratic society without eating or raping each other. But the philosophy itself leads to "solutions" that involve the group imposing its will on individuals. That is the nature of democracy, and in our particular society that nature manifests in many ways. For example:

Emminent domain:
"an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development."

Translation: if enough people, or in our case the officials elected by enough people, decide that somebody else has better use for your property than you do...they'll take it away from you.

This kind of action is a logical consequence of a democratic philosophy that individuals have only "equal" say in decisions that affect their lives. It is not a logical consequence of a libertarian philosophy that perceives individual freedom as a fundamental value.

Other examples exist. Income taxes being the obvious one. "The group" takes a percentage of your income as spends it as it pleases on any number of things you probably don't care about. Your tax dollars pay for wars in foreign countries, billions of dollars in foreign aid, and hundreds of billions of dollars annually on debt because apparently the people who know better than you do where your money should be spent can't balance their budget of your money.

Again, all of this is a natural consequence of a philosophy that individuals have only "equal" say in decisions that affect their lives, and not a philosophy that values individual freedoms.

I'll answer specific questions in my next post, but it's important that the above context be provided.