I'd much rather support other third parties than the Libertarians. After all, if we are already going to break out of the major two and thus ignore the "least of the available evils" argument, why should I stop with a party that I only partially agree with?
Do you debate Rothbardians?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
I'd much rather support other third parties than the Libertarians. After all, if we are already going to break out of the major two and thus ignore the "least of the available evils" argument, why should I stop with a party that I only partially agree with?
GhostWriter16
Deity
That's true. But mainly because they are on the ballot in more places
I don't have a problem with supporting the lesser of two evils if its, you know, lesser. But there IS no lesser of evils here...
I don't have a problem with supporting the lesser of two evils if its, you know, lesser. But there IS no lesser of evils here...
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I have a newfound appreciation of libertarianism after some deep though last saturday. But it only works in a Fukuyama endless war meets markets meets democracy, disequilibrium kind of way. It's not pretty, it's not desirable, but in the context of a bunch of things I don't feel like articulating it makes sense.
This doesn't mean the arguments for libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, or whatever are logical and good, it just means that a byproduct of that philosophy has a value beyond what any of us are discussing here.
This doesn't mean the arguments for libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, or whatever are logical and good, it just means that a byproduct of that philosophy has a value beyond what any of us are discussing here.
GhostWriter16
Deity
What do you mean?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Was going to be an edit but GW got a post in there: Libertarianism, is in a weird way, the healthier version of some of the ideology that lead to fascism. It is a celebration of the superior individual at the cost of those lesser folks who cannot compete. Lesser and superior is in context of the Régulation school's definition of social regulation for that kind of political economy. So fascism would be the dear father leader dude, and perhaps the revolutionary hero/villain who combats him, but in libertarianism it is of both the starving renowned buck-the-system artist who can rally the people, and the superior capitalist.
@GW, a libertarian paradise is economically a Schumpetarian creative-destruction, uncontrollable cycle. Politically it is the state in turmoil against the individual and the people. In the 21st century it is an urbanized, high terrorism, armed cartels, class conflict filled battle in which no one can ever gain supremacy. We are all subject to conflict and competition only, but otherwise we prevent each other from ever producing a peaceful society with a shared authority. The robots won't take over. The government won't control our lives. We won't be happy, we won't be safe, and we'll only be free to fight, not free to live. Free to die with our middle fingers in the air knowing in a sick and twisted way, we lived. Smoke cigarettes, drive fast, get crunk, leveraged hostile takeovers, street justice, in-your-face lawsuits, blast music until your ears bleed, careless sex, obsessed love. Pure decadence saying no to the inevitable equilibrium and safe stagnation of society, while accepting the inevitable that you will die and so will everyone else.
@GW, a libertarian paradise is economically a Schumpetarian creative-destruction, uncontrollable cycle. Politically it is the state in turmoil against the individual and the people. In the 21st century it is an urbanized, high terrorism, armed cartels, class conflict filled battle in which no one can ever gain supremacy. We are all subject to conflict and competition only, but otherwise we prevent each other from ever producing a peaceful society with a shared authority. The robots won't take over. The government won't control our lives. We won't be happy, we won't be safe, and we'll only be free to fight, not free to live. Free to die with our middle fingers in the air knowing in a sick and twisted way, we lived. Smoke cigarettes, drive fast, get crunk, leveraged hostile takeovers, street justice, in-your-face lawsuits, blast music until your ears bleed, careless sex, obsessed love. Pure decadence saying no to the inevitable equilibrium and safe stagnation of society, while accepting the inevitable that you will die and so will everyone else.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Sounds more like anarchy than libertarianism.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
it's not. Anarchy is a different social regulation that is an end-of-history equilibrium. This doesn't preclude the state, either.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Considering that as yet, no Rothbardian has chimed in and made a dick of himself as all of us have on occasions, I'm starting to wonder whether Rothbardianism may have it's merits.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Xarthaz doesn't post here anymore. There's the dude with the epic libertarian thread who doesn't either. Amadeus might not consider himself Rothbardian.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
How do you sustain life, liberty and property without police, courts and government? You need taxes to support that.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I don't think that's a fair characterization of Fascism.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
In fairness to GW, I don't believe he is against taxation as a means to providing police, courts etc. I believe he is against simply redistributing wealth as a method "evening out" income disparities.
You could argue that since the wealthy will pay the lions share of the taxes needed to sustain these apparatus, it is still redistribution. But in the context of the discussion here, I don't think GW's view that redistribution is wrong and that government's role should be to sustain life, liberty and property is thus logically countered by the need for taxation to do so.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
It is redistribution whether or not it comes from the rich. I am arguing that all of these things are in fact a form of redistribution and do even out income disparities. Without courts, police, government, etc., you would have a scenario like Somalia. A few of us would be absurdly rich, the rest absurdly poor and miserable.
The fact that we have laws and police does in fact even out incomes, and it is paid for by redistribution (through taxation) regardless of which group pays the lion's share.
Really, I'm knocking his overly-simplistic take on things.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Definitely in agreement that "government should not redistribute wealth, just provide safety, a legal system, police etc" is simplistic and frought with discrepancies. As you point out, the mere existence of a legal system, police etc ensures some redistribution anyway, so the whole argument falls about there and then.
But getting past that, what I think is being said in principle is that taxation should be at the minimum level to only pay for these and a few other essentials, that there should not be anything left to distribute in the form of welfare, healthcare, even subsidies for business. No transferal of money from John to Peter via taxation.
Certainly not my kind of society, but I think the aforementioned effect of redistribution by the mere existence of police, courts etc, while exposing flaws in the position doesn't necessarily dismantle GW's beliefs. The fact that it would be a damn awful society to live in goes a lot further towards doing so.....but that's to discuss another time.
But getting past that, what I think is being said in principle is that taxation should be at the minimum level to only pay for these and a few other essentials, that there should not be anything left to distribute in the form of welfare, healthcare, even subsidies for business. No transferal of money from John to Peter via taxation.
Certainly not my kind of society, but I think the aforementioned effect of redistribution by the mere existence of police, courts etc, while exposing flaws in the position doesn't necessarily dismantle GW's beliefs. The fact that it would be a damn awful society to live in goes a lot further towards doing so.....but that's to discuss another time.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
That is weird! Looks remarkably like modern society to me. Maybe I just live in a rough neighbourhood or have a distorted pov.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Yeah I get what you're saying. I even know what GhostWriter16 meant.
But some ideas are so awfully simplistic they should be combated on the spot simply to point out to the believer that they are riddled with fallacies and not suited to the real world.
It's one thing to claim to be a libertarian. It's quite another to state your case for why this is the correct worldview in terms that don't actually apply to the real world.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Bingo! QFT......you reading this GW? I think a smart fella like you will come around.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
