Libertarians

[ProxyAmenRa]

I was just wondering due to a debate I have induced in the yes man thread, are there many libertarians in this forum?

 

[Agent Intellect]

I agree with much of what John Locke (the father of libertarianism) says on a philosophical level, but I think libertarianism is just as unsustainable in practice as communism is.

Locke says that property (including money) is 'anchored' in labor - that the property we accumulate is the value of our labor. In many capitalist countries, the accumulation of property is quite independent of anyone's labor (inheritance, trust funds, stock market investing etc). So a dilemma seems to arise: if we are to be consistent with libertarian theory, then people should have to work for their money, but the governments only job is "the preservation of private property" and is unable to do anything else without the consent of the people (in a democratic nation, often from popular sovereignty, but I'm not sure if that really fits into libertarianism).

Philosophically I would consider myself a constitutionalist, which is an American flavor of libertarian. In practice, I know that it's not very practical (even Thomas Jefferson couldn't live up to it as president, and he wrote the damn thing), but it's an ideal to keep in mind while governing. I'm a libertarian in the sense of people having 'freedom from the government' but not so much 'freedom to...' Essentially, a limited government in that they require consent from the governed and are unable to govern arbitrarily. I don't think any corporation or company has the right to lie, cheat, bribe, or infringe on anyone elses civil liberties as a means of making capital; but they should (ideally) have the freedom from arbitrary government intervention (whether that be a tax for no other reason than regulation or a multi-billion dollar bailout). This is what makes me a social liberal, I guess.

EDIT: I just have to add that philosophically, I'm a hypocrite, since I'm using the federal pell grant to pay for my education - free government money.

(I can't skip the opportunity to point out hypocrisy, even if it's my own).

 

[Oblivious]

What he said.

 

[Latro]

Why does libertarianism fundamentally relate to any economic theory? (Certainly Locke's views include both, but that is not sufficient, in my opinion, to associate libertarianism with any economic theory at a fundamental level.) By what I understand, libertarians' basic goal is (in theory, anyway; a lot of "libertarians" are really just anarcho-capitalists in disguise these days) maximization of individual freedom. This is a nontrivial task, because paradoxically freedom has to be taken away in order for the most freedom to be given: one must not have the freedom to kill another human being, for then the person who is killed loses the freedom to live, for example. This point is of course trivial, but then areas like, say, prostitution (with the two different situations of independent prostitution and pimping, and difficulty separating them) and details of gun ownership (both "can you have a gun?" and "if so, what kinds?") are much grayer.

Libertarianism, strictly speaking, needn't have any fiscal policy associated with it, I think, as well. In theory you could have someone who was heavily socially liberal and heavily fiscally liberal as well, and they could be a libertarian, since the underlying philosophy is merely about individual freedom. This is uncommon because libertarians tend to believe that one of "big government"'s major roles is invading individuals' lives and telling them what to do, and so become opposed to it in general, but strictly speaking this is not essential, by what I understand.

Maybe I have the wrong word, though.


Anyway, I call myself the kind of libertarian that I described up there, pretty much.

 

[Thoughtful]

I was a conservative in my youth, then libertarian, then greenie, then anarchist.

My current impression is that anarchy is unsustainable (It usually reverts to tribalisim/despotisim really fast), But it makes a great castle in the air, and it's interesting to try to figure out ways to make it work. Plus I don't really have a say in what our form of government is, so I don't see the need to have a "moral" and "responsible" outlook on politics.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

In response to latro I was referring to Laissez-faire Libertarian. I tend to steer away from associating libertarianism with right-wing because conservatives are an odd bunch.

Wikipedia has a list of different so-called libertarian philosophies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Libertarian_conservatism

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

In response to latro I was referring to Laissez-faire Libertarian. I tend to steer away from associating libertarianism with right-wing because conservatives are an odd bunch.

Wikipedia has a list of different so-called libertarian philosophies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Libertarian_conservatism

-The term libertarian is like the term christian, it means something different to just about anybody you ask.

-Libertarianism is like drinking alchoholic beverages, take it in moderation or you end up a fucked-up mess.

-Libertarian economics is only for the obstinate who refuse to see what has always happened whenever the power money players were left unchecked. In other words, it's just goddamn stupid. Now before anyone says "but...but...the government will (fill in the blank) due note that government is just a concept and isn't inherently inept or evil. It's just that the people who we elect to run it aren't very good at it. That's our own fault.

 

[Unfall]

I prefer to not be shoe-horned into one particular "group/denomination/sect." I tend to side more with the Libertarians than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that I obey them without question. For instance I believe that essentially if it isn't hurting me or anyone else then it should be legal, if it does hurt people then by all means the government should step in. For instance, why is pot illegal? It's effects are simmillar to alcohol, but it's illegal. Likewise concerning special programs, if I or a few friends can't accomplish it to a satisfying degree then once again the government should help out. By that I mean I can't defend the country single-handedly, but I can pay for my own medical bills, decide what should and what shouldn't be censored, buy my own food wit my own money, the list goes on and on. \

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

-The term libertarian is like the term christian, it means something different to just about anybody you ask.

-Libertarianism is like drinking alchoholic beverages, take it in moderation or you end up a fucked-up mess.

-Libertarian economics is only for the obstinate who refuse to see what has always happened whenever the power money players were left unchecked. In other words, it's just goddamn stupid. Now before anyone says "but...but...the government will (fill in the blank) due note that government is just a concept and isn't inherently inept or evil. It's just that the people who we elect to run it aren't very good at it. That's our own fault.

Hell, where I am from no one has a conception of what a libertarian is apart from a few law or economic students I have encountered.

I think I should proposed the question as there many anarcho capitalists in this forum.

I do agree with you that people we elect to represent government don't effectively form good government. In many circumstances politicians are making decisions based on bad advice or incomplete information. This is a problem that is not necessarily created by politicians themselves but more or less the bureaucrats that constitute the public service.

I was about to write a long winded argument to prove a point but I decided not to. People with money and power will always try and coerce the rest of the economy for more money and power. That can be achieved either through anti-competitive behavior in the market or using government's coercive powers. If governments are there to keep the power in check they are not doing a very good job of it.

Amusingly Karl Marx envisioned class war, this may come to pass if people are pushed to the limit by the ruling elite.

Tyranny of the majority ... yada yada yada ...

 

[denaria]

My own position tends towards libertarianism, but I view it essentially as permitting consenting adults to do anything they like as long as they don't harm anyone else, subject to a) not messing up common goods or taking more than a fair share, and b) the regulation of monopolies and near monopolies, national, international or indeed local, which always mean someone (customer, supplier, regulator) gets screwed; therefore one of the primary tasks of government after defence and law'n'order should be to force any organisations, be they private, charitable or governmental, to break up when they become too big. Turning over more than $300 million per annum seems to me to be too big.

As I come from one of the most over-regulated countries in the world when it comes to gun control, I would also dearly love to be able to a decent firearm or two for the protection or my family and my property; currently the only people in the UK with weapons are a very few trained police officers and lots of the bad guys.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I agree with AI that Libertarianism is just as impractical as Communism.
However, I don't even agree with Economic Constitutionalism (at least I don't think).
I think Locke's many conceptions of property are flawed on many levels.
I'd probably prefer Marx's theories of labor, personally.

In fact, one of my favorite arguments is the perpetuation of inequality.
Essentially, it argues that absolute property is unjustified.
Plus, I'm more leaning towards Communitarianism/Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism.
I'm not really sure if I'd favor a reformed capitalistic model, or a reformed socialist model.
But, I'm somewhere in between. Definitely some reformed model of either (or maybe a mix of both).

Communitarianism makes sense to me.
As well as pluralism (from political philosophy, which is opposed to majoritarianism).

At the end of the day, Libertarianism is incompatible with modern society.
It clashes, fundamentally, with the very idea of the social contract theory/society at large.
Society is made upon the assumption that we are greater in numbers and bonded.
When people are not bonded, but only independently working alongside one another, there can't be as much benefit as you'd have otherwise.

Also, I agree largely with libertarianism socially, but not economically. I think people should be able to have many freedoms (where it does not matter restrict rights, such as sexual deviancy and whatnot). But economically, I see the need for moderate restrictions (to put things lightly).

Hence, libertarianism has a social side and an economic side. I think conservatives favor the economic side (small government, more rights, more freedom, less intrusion, more wealth, greed, ect.). But conservatives probably favor Communitarianism socially.

I like the overall idea of Communitarianism, without the emphasis on social morality and whatnot (although, I do think people should be held to moderate expectations of what is appropriate/inappropriate, just not from a strictly moral point of view, but from a pragmatic point of view).

Anyway, that's the tip of what I think.

 

[Philosophyking87]

EDIT: I just have to add that philosophically, I'm a hypocrite, since I'm using the federal pell grant to pay for my education - free government money.

(I can't skip the opportunity to point out hypocrisy, even if it's my own).

I'm all for social spending, if it's done right.
I don't really care to be against the welfare state. I think the Nordic countries are doing fine with welfare.

Although, an anti-welfare-state person once challenged me with this question, when I said I was against the idea of charity, to try to make me look hypocritical:

"If someone offered you 100,000 dollars right now, would you take it?"

I said, "Of course."

My reasons? I'm against charity, in principle, but not in practice.
I don't expect people to rely upon charity as a way of life in any society. That is the way of dogs.
But in a society which offers nothing, it's only practical for someone to accept charity. So why not? I'd rather have an extra 100,000 than starve. I just don't expect people to expect others to rely on charity, as if that somehow nullifies the need for welfare, because it doesn't.

Idealistically -- in principle -- I think people shouldn't have to need charity.
Yet, many people are staunchly against ideas like "basic income."
But, that's a matter for argument.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Yeah... so if we have any staunch libertarianism in here.
Meet your match. I enjoy debating the idea.
I'm almost entirely against it, economically, for many reasons.

Yet, my views are complicated. But I am a pretty radical left.
Not too radical, but relative to most Americans.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I'm a staunch Laissez-faire Libertarian and have defeated many leftists in rigorous debate (I'm a member of a debating society).

Down with central banking and state enforced currency!

---

One problem I have is that people try to allot me into the American political spectrum which entails they are trying to group me with neoconservatives. I dislike neoconservatives ideology.

 

[typus]

But I am a pretty radical left.

Pah! You seem similar to the average supporter of our so called "center-right" coalition.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Pah! You seem similar to the average supporter of our so called "center-right" coalition.

Really, how?

 

[Philosophyking87]

(I'm a member of a debating society).

That sounds interesting. I love debate.
What's an average session like? And how do you join one?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

That sounds interesting. I love debate.
What's an average session like? And how do you join one?

Most of them that I know are run through universities. The one I attend allows anyone to join regardless of whether they go to the university. Turn up to one I suppose.

The sessions are quite fun. You have to get use to biased adjudicators; ones who judge your performance on their feelings rather than your ability to construct an argument. Mostly they side with the position that begins the debate with the imposed moral high ground.

Even if you are a good public speaker and debater when you first arrive, you will still learn, and over a period of time you will develop assertive modes of communication. In a formal debate assertive communication is brilliant at getting someone to sit down and stop interjecting but conversely useful at coercing the current speaker to answer your interjections. Being proficient at assertive communication is beneficial when managing and or organizing large groups in work situations and prevents you from having to micromanage.

You will never see a technical debate so don't get you hopes up.

---

My fondest memory was in an euthanasia debate. I concluded a strawman argument by saying 'Yes, these socialists even want to control your time of death for the benefit of their corporate masters!' All the members of the opposition bench jumped to interject. I told them all to sit down and shut up then directed to the speaker 'Now we see the socialists upset that righteous have uncovered their malicious plot.' Damn, it was amusing.

---

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention it is full law students. Most of them are egotistical asses and ignorant about legal or lawful processes and just about everything else, especially technical subjects. Some are very unintelligible.

 

[Agent Intellect]

That sounds interesting. I love debate.
What's an average session like? And how do you join one?

The forum has a formal debate section, but it never really took off.

 

[crackedWise]

"I heartily accept the motto, — 'That government is best which governs least', and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have"

-Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau was an optimist, but I like his style. Men will never be ready for anarchy, but, accepting that limitation, I believe we should get as close as possible while still maintaining a just society (realizing that 'just' is a painfully subjective term, as are the very concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'). In principle, I believe in the preservation of individual freedom above all else in nearly all circumstances. In practice, this pans out to be a nearly unwavering support for the American Libertarian Party. I realize, of course, that they will probably never win any meaningful election (Americans, for whatever reason, don't seem to like freedom very much), but they have my support all the same. Comments like this are about as involved as I get in politics, ever since a rather stark moment of clarity when I realized there wasn't a damn thing I could do about any of it.

 

[babrock]

I have been libertarian since my late teens. Carter reinstated draft registration at that time and libertarians were the ones opposing it the most. Government is force. Most anything worth doing someone will either do voluntary or be able to get someone else to do, probably by paying them for an agreed on price.

 

[babrock]

Honestly, I don't care that much about the central bank or currency. I like the personal freedoms like not getting drafted and legalized drugs. I do tho side with other libertarians on economic issues like that just as most libertarians mostly interested in those issues side w me on the issues that matter to me. We both are working towards maximizing freedom and minimizesing government force and interference.

I do find libertarians to be weak on protecting the environment. Basic the strategy is to privatised everything and figure people will take decent care of what is theirs. And that anyone can sue anyone else for any environmental damages they are forced to incur. I don't think that works for the air we breath and a few other recourses.

 

[babrock]

Honestly, I don't care that much about the central bank or currency. I like the personal freedoms like not getting drafted and legalized drugs. I do tho side with other libertarians on economic issues like that just as most libertarians mostly interested in those issues side w me on the issues that matter to me. We both are working towards maximizing freedom and minimizesing government force and interference.

I do find libertarians to be weak on protecting the environment. Basic the strategy is to privatised everything and figure people will take decent care of what is theirs. And that anyone can sue anyone else for any environmental damages they are forced to incur. I don't think that works for the air we breath and a few other recourses.

 

[Melllvar]

I'm probably a libertarian, in the social sense, but definitely not an anarcho-capitalist. I agree with the non-aggression principle, but not that it should be applied to corporations as well as individuals, which seems to be basis by which anarcho-capitalists are able to call themselves libertarians. Corporate entities do not deserve the same rights and protections that people do, IMHO.

I tried hard to keep an open mind to anarcho-capitalism when I first came across it, both in order to try and remain unbiased in the face of a liberal upbringing, and also because self-organizing systems seem in principle to be favorable to human-built, structured systems (I won't go into why I think this is so, it'd take too long). The main two reasons that the idea has fallen out of favor is that it relies on market fundamentalism to push the idea that all economic problems are a result of regulation, and despite the fact that continued deregulation has lead to serial bubbles and economic crises (yes, I know this is debatable, there are plenty of ancap economists who would love to tell me how wrong I am), the best response is that those were not failures of the deregulation but failures of the fact that things weren't deregulated enough...? The other reason being that underneath it all the philosophy of ancap typically relies on simplistic, black-and-white, classist arguments about people always deserving what they get (i.e. the poor are poor because they are unfit, the rich are rich because they are fundamentally better than the poor, efficient people and corporations always prosper and inefficient ones don't, etc.). Overall this has made it clear to me that ancap is simply a push for a system that will reward a few elite members within it at the expense of the rest, backed up by arguments about how the ones disenfranchised by the system deserved their disenfranchisement.

So at this point I'm very much pro-libertarianism, in the sense that the guv'ment shouldn't be interfering with people's lives unless it is to prevent harm to others, but also very much anti-ancap, since it seems like a bullshit philosophy that serves only certain minority groups.

If anyone wants to argue with me about any of this, I'm more than glad to hear them out, but I've done my share of reading of ancap books and websites, and the common arguments clearly haven't won me over.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I was raised in a red flag waving socialist household even though my family is actually quite affluent. My political leaning change when I exposed myself to alternative political-economic philosophies. People like Hayek, Mises, Rothbard and Friedman put forward some extremely persuasive arguments; especially the Austrian School economists. Personal and economic freedom sounds very appealing.

Anyway I will debate with you. ^_^

The main two reasons that the idea has fallen out of favor is that it relies on market fundamentalism to push the idea that all economic problems are a result of regulation, and despite the fact that continued deregulation has lead to serial bubbles and economic crises (yes, I know this is debatable, there are plenty of ancap economists who would love to tell me how wrong I am), the best response is that those were not failures of the deregulation but failures of the fact that things weren't deregulated enough...?

Evidence displays as argued from the Austrians that booms and busts in the economy are artificially created by government control of central banking. Numerous books have been written on the topic. Read The 'Theory of Money and Credit' by Mises published in 1912.

You can read it for free here: http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Contents.aspx

The Austrians argue for a free market in currencies not controlled by government. I guess this falls under the libertarian argument of not enough deregulation.

The recent economic crisis was fundamentally caused by the US federal reserve due to interest rates being kept at ridiculously low levels for an extend duration which subsequently resulted in risk of investment to diminish fuelling speculation in the housing markets which was additionally propagation by US government subsidization and backing of subprime mortgages.

Some would say that the speculation was allowed to occur due to lack of regulation. I blame cheap credit created by government.

The other reason being that underneath it all the philosophy of ancap typically relies on simplistic, black-and-white, classist arguments about people always deserving what they get (i.e. the poor are poor because they are unfit, the rich are rich because they are fundamentally better than the poor, efficient people and corporations always prosper and inefficient ones don't, etc.). Overall this has made it clear to me that ancap is simply a push for a system that will reward a few elite members within it at the expense of the rest, backed up by arguments about how the ones disenfranchised by the system deserved their disenfranchisement.

So your upset that different types of labour performed by people whom have different skill-sets are valued differently?

In an anarcho capitalist society, a person and or corporations become wealthy because they provide goods and services which people demand and are willing to purchase under their own free will. Hence, the person and or corporation is rewarded for its service to society and the reward is that people purchase the goods and services they provide. I see no injustice or inequity.

In our current society for a person and corporation to become affluent they use government's coercive powers to reap the wealth from the masses. We are forced to subsidise monopolistic large corporations or those who do not produce goods and services we demand through regulation or the transference of wealth via taxation. I see injustice and inequity in this system because those who reap the wealth of society or not deserving. This is a production of socialism and conservatism; they both believe in preordain power structures that have the right to coerce others; in reality they have no right to do so.

Further more, in our current system the low skilled and people who are not able to produce labour of sufficient value are detrimentally effected by taxation to provide welfare for the middle class.

 

[Melllvar]

Honestly, I'd become much more interested in economics and finance recently, so I'm grateful for the book recommendation. Part of my problem has been that it seems to be such an opinionated field of knowledge, without the more unarguable, fundamental basis you generally get in the fields I'm more familiar with (physical science and math) it's been hard to get a grounding the subject. I've wanted to find a way to get to the mathematical/theoretical underpinnings so I could decide these things for myself, but it's rather hard when there don't seem to be simple equivalents for things like Newton's Laws, Einstein's postulates, etc. in economics.

I went to the public school system in a state that's famous for being second worst in education, so our economics class was literally a day-care time-waster type deal.

Er, this is my way of saying, if you have any more book recommendations I'm all ears. Book-wise I've mainly only read Machinery of Freedom, which is far, far too simplistic for a mathematically/scientifically inclined person to be happy with (comparable to trying to learn physics from 'Brief History of Time'). But I'll definitely check out the one you mention.

The Austrians argue for a free market in currencies not controlled by government. I guess this falls under the libertarian argument of not enough deregulation.

The only question/contradiction I can think of is something I read recently about how allowing the market to set currency rates has allowed the rampant printing of money, particularly by the US to try and minimize the damage of the national debt, which then causes other countries to print more money in order to keep up. I'm not really familiar with how all this works though (maybe we should be having this discussion after I'm more well-read on the subject, lol).

The recent economic crisis was fundamentally caused by the US federal reserve due to interest rates being kept at ridiculously low levels for an extend duration which subsequently resulted in risk of investment to diminish fuelling speculation in the housing markets which was additionally propagation by US government subsidization and backing of subprime mortgages.

Some would say that the speculation was allowed to occur due to lack of regulation. I blame cheap credit created by government.

Hm, I'm not really qualified to say what caused the economic collapse. From what little I know about it, I've heard the continual decrease in per capita savings over the past few decades, even going negative a few years back, had a lot to do with it. Not really sure what lead to that decrease though. I've also heard the repackaging of securities into derivative securities, which were then resold to investors unaware of, or unable to know, their true value created the bubble. The big investment firms didn't feel a need to sort it out, sometimes misleading their clients as well. That sure sounds like a problem with lack of regulation to me.

There was a third implication I was aware of, but I can't remember was it was right now. If I remember I'll edit or more another post.

So your upset that different types of labour performed by people whom have different skill-sets are valued differently?

In an anarcho capitalist society, a person and or corporations become wealthy because they provide goods and services which people demand and are willing to purchase under their own free will. Hence, the person and or corporation is rewarded for its service to society and the reward is that people purchase the goods and services they provide. I see no injustice or inequity.

Ah, now here's where I can make a point (I hope).

To put it simply, I don't think the free market is as infallible as some would have us believe. It's similar to evolution, in that both rely on selection of the best/most fit entities against the worst (be they corporations or organisms). In a large system of such entities, the better ones are statistically more likely to survive and have their models copied than the worst are. But underneath that statistical predisposition to find better conditions both really rely on circumstance and random chance.

Bear with me, I'm actually going somewhere with this. In evolution, it's not so much that the species better fit for survival will succeed, so much as that the one which has the most grandchildren will succeed (and there is a difference). That doesn't necessarily yield the best overall outcome for the total ecology, or even the individual species. You can see this with invasive species that destroy new ecosystems, decreasing overall diversity. You can also see it with species that waste energy on useless traits in a self-competition with members of their own species instead of developing new traits to succeed in their environment (peacocks and their feathers are an example). Likewise, a market evolves according to circumstance (which is often partly luck). A corporation may find an equilibrium position from which they cannot be challenged by new competitors, despite the competitors being more efficient or offering a better product (it's why we have anti-trust laws, after all). Likewise, a corporation may make money by exploiting it's consumers, but if moving to a new producer is not an option for them they will not be able to change it through the free market.

Eh, this is becoming a rather rambling argument, so let me just say that people often attribute omniscience and omnipotence to both systems that they do not deserve. I hear a lot of arguments about human nature essentially claiming, "This is the best way for us to be because otherwise evolution would have made us another way." Such arguments are simply fallacious, whether applied to the free market or to evolutionary forces. This is why some call it "market fundamentalism": there is no evidence that the free market is actually capable of finding the optimal solution so much as it will find "a solution," which some will then claim must have been the optimal one. Yet there seems to be plenty of evidence that, left to their own devices, powerful groups will form monopolies, cartels, etc. in order to eliminate competition in favor of their inclusive minority, and will exploit their consumers for maximum profit.

This is why I think anarcho-capitalism is as bad an idea as communism. It has nothing to do with a need for universal equality (although I could make another argument that the free market does not distribute wealth according to value... and I think the major investment banks and algorithmic trading are a good example of this).

In our current society for a person and corporation to become affluent they use government's coercive powers to reap the wealth from the masses. We are forced to subsidise monopolistic large corporations or those who do not produce goods and services we demand through regulation or the transference of wealth via taxation. I see injustice and inequity in this system because those who reap the wealth of society or not deserving. This is a production of socialism and conservatism; they both believe in preordain power structures that have the right to coerce others; in reality they have no right to do so.

Further more, in our current system the low skilled and people who are not able to produce labour of sufficient value are detrimentally effected by taxation to provide welfare for the middle class.

I'm not going to argue that government doesn't fuck a whole lot of things up. Social security is retarded (forget class-based distribution, it robs from the youth to give to the elderly, and straight up cheats the ones who die young, among other things), and most laws are written by lobbyists for big corporations in such a way that will favor themselves. Personally, I think a good balance between the two extremes (ancap and socialism) is probably the best answer.

Edit: I hope some of this made sense. Let me know if it didn't. I've had these misgivings for a long time, but it's probably the first time I've tried to put it into a written argument.