Do you support a Libertarian Utopia?

[Traitorfish]

That would be a better argument if most libertarians wouldn't field the "government is evil because people abuse it to gain power over others" argument themselves.

They already conceded that people seek power over others, so why don't engage on this common ground?

You can pull a reductio ad absurdum on this basis (they do make it so easy...), but that doesn't imply that you actually have to internalise it.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Noting a correlation is acceptable. But that's not what you did: you posited that Jews support Israel because they are Jewish, and, indeed, that above all other reasons. The generalising logic is quite the same as that which lead to the assumption that all Japanese-Americans were sympathetic to the Empire.
.

Not quite the same in my opinion. Japanese-Americans were American and Japanese.
American jews, or Russian Jews, are not Arabs at all. So for them to take sides between Israel and Palestine is not the same issue than for American Japenese to take side between the US and Japan.
I also tend to think that more American Japenese were against the US war against Japan that the US war against Germany. the proportions being the opposite within "German American". I don't buy the "Japenese American" are Japanese and shouldn't be trusted theory. But to deny that some of their thinking would be influenced by their japanese roots is utopia.

In Ayn Rand case, the antagonism between the state of Israel "politics" (socialism) and hers should have inclined her to not support that state, or at least to not care. But she did, I don't see any other reason but her cultural jewishness. I may be wrong, but that option does not seem to be completly irrational.

If you think that Arabs are uniformly pro-Palestine, and this only because of their related ethnic backgrounds, then you don't really really know very much about the Arabs or about Palestine.
.

I'm tunisian, french tunisian to be more precise . I may not know about what all Arabs feel about Palestine and why, but I think I am not completly unknowlageable
I think Arab are by a vast majority pro-Palestine indeed, all pols and "manifestations" tend to show that even if pols in non democratic arab countries are not easy to do. And when I say they support Palestine because of their "ethnic backgroud" that does not mean that it wasn't also "thought". It works like religion: most of muslims are muslims because they were born in a muslim family. They also thought about it and are consiously aware about what they think. But fact is they did not make a comparative study between Islam and other religions and chose Islam, I even think that iff they do, the majority would still stick to Islam. The same reasoning applies to other religions by the ways as 99% of christians are of christian heritage and so are Buddist and Hinduist. I therefore tend to think that the Arabs vast support for Palestine is mainly due to ethnic reason. They do also find the "cause" to be just. But very often that is the consequence. The very fact of "caring" about the problem itself is because of ethnic reasons: why should a Tunisian care about what is happening in Palestine and not about what is happening in Timor?! or Northern Ireland some years ago? or even South Africa Apartheid?

And, I'll point out, I didn't say that you are anti-Semitic, or that you are being anti-Semitic, just that what you said sounded anti-Semitic, with the implication that this should lead you to inspect it more closely. That's a crucial and sincere distinction.
So because some Jews came to that conclusion, all individuals of Jewish ancestry who supported Israel can simply be assumed to support that conclusion? That's pure conjecture.

Not all, I never said all jews support Israel because they are jewish because first not all jews supoprt Israel, and many do not because they are jewish but because of other reasons. Now what I am saying is:
1. you'll find more support for Israel among jews than among "buddist" because being jewish make you closer to the "jewish" cause, as being of armenian ancestry would make more sympathetic to Armenia. All that being on average and not specifically for every person.
2. therefore, since Ayn Rand political views tended to be against those of the early Israel, and that she nevertheless supported that State, thinking that such support is due to her jewishness does not seem to me as being "irrational" or leaning towards anti-semitism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not quite the same in my opinion. Japanese-Americans were American and Japanese.
American jews, or Russian Jews, are not Arabs at all. So for them to take sides between Israel and Palestine is not the same issue than for American Japenese to take side between the US and Japan.
I also tend to think that more American Japenese were against the US war against Japan that the US war against Germany. the proportions being the opposite within "German American". I don't buy the "Japenese American" are Japanese and shouldn't be trusted theory. But to deny that some of their thinking would be influenced by their japanese roots is utopia.

In Ayn Rand case, the antagonism between the state of Israel "politics" (socialism) and hers should have inclined her to not support that state, or at least to not care. But she did, I don't see any other reason but her cultural jewishness. I may be wrong, but that option does not seem to be completly irrational.

That assumes that she was otherwise consistently libertarian in her politics, which wasn't at all the case. She expressed a fairly broad support for colonial and imperial policies, in regards to indigenous Americans, in Africa, and in Asia. She was a strong supporter of traditional notions of civilisation and civilisational struggle, and saw the imposition of Western authority onto these regions as an expression of historical "progress", a Whiggism to which she was deeply attached. For all its social-democratic inclinations, Israel was Civilisation in the Levant, just as the far-from libertarian National Party government was Civilisation in South Africa, or the tariff-happy union was Civilisation in the West in the late nineteenth century, and was therefore granted full license to do as it pleased to the Uncivilised Palestinians. (The mistake people often make about Rand is to imagine her as as being in any sense radical or anti-statist, rather than simply being an unusually frank conservative. For all her philosophical gymnastics, her actual politics were very mundane indeed- a legacy generally upheld on both fronts by her adherents.)

I'm tunisian, french tunisian to be more precise . I may not know about what all Arabs feel about Palestine and why, but I think I am not completly unknowlageable
I think Arab are by a vast majority pro-Palestine indeed, all pols and "manifestations" tend to show that even if pols in non democratic arab countries are not easy to do. And when I say they support Palestine because of their "ethnic backgroud" that does not mean that it wasn't also "thought". It works like religion: most of muslims are muslims because they were born in a muslim family. They also thought about it and are consiously aware about what they think. But fact is they did not make a comparative study between Islam and other religions and chose Islam, I even think that iff they do, the majority would still stick to Islam. The same reasoning applies to other religions by the ways as 99% of christians are of christian heritage and so are Buddist and Hinduist. I therefore tend to think that the Arabs vast support for Palestine is mainly due to ethnic reason. They do also find the "cause" to be just. But very often that is the consequence. The very fact of "caring" about the problem itself is because of ethnic reasons: why should a Tunisian care about what is happening in Palestine and not about what is happening in Timor?! or Northern Ireland some years ago? or even South Africa Apartheid?

Hoisted by own petard there, I can't help but admit that.

Anyway, my point was that the relationship of Arab peoples to Palestine isn't just an abstract ethnic fellowship, it's bound up in the historical relationship of the Arab world with Western imperialism, in which Israeli and Palestine function as a proxy for a conflict that goes back to the 19th century, which isn't so of Timor or Ireland. Granted, the aspect of shared religion and ethnicity can't be ruled out altogether- there's obviously some reason why Copts or Kurds don't get into it as much as Muslim Arabs do- but I would say that it's important in how it permits the articulation of a more fundamental political orientation than in being the point of departure.

Not all, I never said all jews support Israel because they are jewish because first not all jews supoprt Israel, and many do not because they are jewish but because of other reasons. Now what I am saying is:
1. you'll find more support for Israel among jews than among "buddist" because being jewish make you closer to the "jewish" cause, as being of armenian ancestry would make more sympathetic to Armenia. All that being on average and not specifically for every person.
2. therefore, since Ayn Rand political views tended to be against those of the early Israel, and that she nevertheless supported that State, thinking that such support is due to her jewishness does not seem to me as being "irrational" or leaning towards anti-semitism.

Even if point 2 was correct- and as I've suggested above, I don't think it is- this is still based on conjecture. You're noting a bunch of correlations, and assuming that these correlations constitute some sort of general rule. There could be any number of reasons why a Rand who opposed Labour Zionism might still support Israel- opposition to Soviet influence in the area, opposition to Nasserism, opposition to Palestinian claims of nationhood, an interest in creating a "safe-haven" for the Jews- just as plenty of people who were neither Jews nor sympathetic to the Israeli left supported it. Was DeGaulle known for his Jewish parentage or left-wing politics, for example? Yet he was undeniably a supporter of Israel.

 

[Mark1031]

"Exactly. What their philosophical anthropology fails to acknowledge is that my philosophical anthropology is better. Why oh why can't they see that I'm just right?"

I don't disagree that the right-libertarian conception of society is broken in several dozen different ways, but this? This is just lazy.

There are no libertarians making any significantly thoughtful argument beyond govmt is bad and leave me alone or watch 50 hrs of Paulestine UTube vids . I am not going to put in work making arguments with myself and certainly not on CFC. Besides I don't even accept you premise.

 

[amadeus]

It's easy to say they aren't making the arguments when you won't listen.

 

[Traitorfish]

There are no libertarians making any significantly thoughtful argument beyond govmt is bad and leave me alone or watch 50 hrs of Paulestine UTube vids . I am not going to put in work making arguments with myself and certainly not on CFC.

That doesn't excuse making entirely half-arsed arguments like that.

Besides I don't even accept you premise.

What premise?

 

[Mark1031]

It's easy to say they aren't making the arguments when you won't listen.

Where is this argument? Please repost. Your only replies in this thread are 1 and 2-sentence statements. That is not an argument.

Answer a simple question or 2. In a libertarian society how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth from corrupting the system? You agree there must be some laws regarding contracts. These must be made by people and implemented through the power of the state. How do you prevent the first group of John Galt’s who are successful from using the acquired resources to change these laws and prevent anyone else from competing with them? Was the US circa 1900 a sufficiently libertarian society? If not, what were its flaws?

 

[Traitorfish]

In a libertarian society how do you prevent the accumulation of wealth from corrupting the system?

I honestly have no idea what this means.

 

[Mark1031]

That doesn't excuse making entirely half-arsed arguments like that.


What premise?

And stating that something if half-arsed does not make it so. That is the premise I disagree with. It never occured to me that "people seek power over other people" was controversial. This simplist understanding of history makes it quite apparently so. Not ALL people seek this but that just makes it easier for the portion that do.

 

[Akka]

Exactly. What the libertarian argument fails to acknowledge is that people seek power over other people and that money is power. While libertarians chafe under the power of government, and rightly so in many cases, they seem to be blind to the notion of power from any other source. Are they not aware that the biggest problem with the power of government at the moment, in the US at least, is that it is corrupted by the people with money buying control to help themselves at the expense of others. The proposed society would quickly devolve into corporate labor camps where workers were paid in minimal food and lodging in the company town with private police forces to stomp any complaints just like in the Libertarian Utopia at the end of the 19th century. It has been tried before many times in history. The key question is how to distribute resources efficiently without the wealth accumulation leading to run away corruption and exploitation. Asking nicely and invisible hands do not seem to work.

Sums it up pretty nicely, especially the bolded part.

 

[Mark1031]

I honestly have no idea what this means.

OK. In the next US Presidential race Obama and Romney will both raise over $1 Billion and use this $$ to run vapid and missleading commercials to win votes. When they win (either one) they will govern in a manner that supports those very wealthy entities that gave them these bribes at the expense of the majority. And it is all perfectly "legal"- go figure.

 

[Mark1031]

Sums it up pretty nicely, especially the bolded part.

Sorry but is has already been shown to be half-arsed and lazy.

 

[Akka]

Sorry but is has already been shown to be half-arsed and lazy.

I quote people and bold the most relevant parts, I'm even lazier.

 

[Traitorfish]

And stating that something if half-arsed does not make it so. That is the premise I disagree with. It never occured to me that "people seek power over other people" was controversial.

In as one-dimensional terms as this, I don't see how it could be much else.

This simplist understanding of history makes it quite apparently so. Not ALL people seek this but that just makes it easier for the portion that do.

Can you find a notable modern historian who would express such a view?

OK. In the next US Presidential race Obama and Romney will both raise over $1 Billion and use this $$ to run vapid and missleading commercials to win votes. When they win (either one) they will govern in a manner that supports those very wealthy entities that gave them these bribes at the expense of the majority. And it is all perfectly "legal"- go figure.

I still don't know what this has to do with "corruption". That would imply a corresponding purity, which seems an oddly religious notion to invoke when discussing economic and political organisation.

 

[Mark1031]

In as one-dimensional terms as this, I don't see how it could be much else.

Good we agree.

Can you find a notable modern historian who would express such a view?

yes. And while you goaded me this time I shan't go looking up support for every simple statement I make. Make an argument and I may respond but simply calling everything I say simplistic and lazy and half-arsed is, how should I put it....simplistic and lazy.

I still don't know what this has to do with "corruption". That would imply a corresponding purity, which seems an oddly religious notion to invoke when discussing economic and political organisation.

This makes no sense to me. Giving money for influence is corruption IMO. Why don't you find me an authoratative argument that it is not.

 

[NYHunter]

Exactly. What the libertarian argument fails to acknowledge is that people seek power over other people and that money is power. While libertarians chafe under the power of government, and rightly so in many cases, they seem to be blind to the notion of power from any other source. Are they not aware that the biggest problem with the power of government at the moment, in the US at least, is that it is corrupted by the people with money buying control to help themselves at the expense of others.

That's actually the point. Remove power from the state, and the state has less power to serve the interest of those seeking to use it for their own purposes. That includes all business, labor and religious interest.

The proposed society would quickly devolve into corporate labor camps where workers were paid in minimal food and lodging in the company town with private police forces to stomp any complaints just like in the Libertarian Utopia at the end of the 19th century.

Why would it devolve into that?.

Also, private police are no worse than public police. When cities, in the U.S. anyway, first formed police forces, despite the existence of the voluntary ones, they were used mainly to serve the interest of the corrupt. Rarely, did they effectively combat crime. And I would argue, not much has changed to justify the existence of them.

I was wondering where this thread went.

Reminder about some key questions
How to enforce regulations? How to check whether regulations are met?

Outside, of private-certification/regulation and consumer response, not really much of anything. I'm not going to pretend that there will be no bad side effects of removing state-regulation from the markets. While I am a libertarian, I'm not an Austrian, and therefore do not believe that removing the state will cause the market to gain magical super powers.

How to overcome human nature in a libertarian utopia?

You don't overcome human nature in any society.

And what is the difference?

I've got a serious question: What's the difference between someone who owns a significant portion of land and exercises "private" control over it and a government who uses police to do the same thing? Monarchies were essentially just wealthy landowners, weren't they?

Monarchs really served no purpose other than to act as a rallying figure for the many landowners/nobles. The idea of landowners rallying around a central figure and accepting his/her authority, to settle disputes and manage defense and any other operations, does not contradict with libertarianism at all. The problem is when those who oppose such an association are forced into it. So, monarchies as they came to exist, operated in a way that is different from what libertarians support.

 

[Akka]

That's actually the point. Remove power from the state, and the state has less power to serve the interest of those seeking to use it for their own purposes. That includes all business, labor and religious interest.

And this power is rather taken by these same groups, which can have and use it directly rather than having to get it through a government that keeps them in check.

 

[Mark1031]

That's actually the point. Remove power from the state, and the state has less power to serve the interest of those seeking to use it for their own purposes. That includes all business, labor and religious interest.

But even libertarians want a state and legal system to enforce contracts. Legal authority is immense power and it will be exercised by people and those people can presumably be influenced and the various laws changed, just like now. My understanding of what the libertarians want is to strip away many of the communal safety net programs and protections afforded people in their interaction with corporations over many years of struggle. So now you have a minimalist state and legal system governing contracts and the first people to accumulate wealth will use that wealth unfettered to mold that system to one that benefits them at the expense of everyone else. Do you not think this would happen? What would stop it? We would essentially reset to 1900 US with the conditions I described previously. While there is creeping corruption now, there is no comparison to the “gilded age”.

Why would it devolve into that?.

see above.

Also, private police are no worse than public police. When cities, in the U.S. anyway, first formed police forces, in addition to the voluntary ones, they were used mainly to serve the interest of the corrupt. Rarely, did they effectively combat crime. And I would argue, not much has changed to justify the existence of them.

Sure. And corruption still exists but it is much better than it used to be. Why, because of laws and oversite and internal affairs, and federal civil right laws and the FBI and all those fancy gubmnt restrictions on cops freedom. And more recently UTube.

 

[civver_764]

This makes no sense to me. Giving money for influence is corruption IMO. Why don't you find me an authoratative argument that it is not.

(I'm pretty sure) he's saying it isn't a corruption of capitalism, rather that it's the essence of capitalism and to quit expecting something else in such a system.

Monarchs really served no purpose other than to act as a rallying figure for the many landowners/nobles. The idea of landowners rallying around a central figure and accepting his/her authority, to settle disputes and manage defense and any other operations, does not contradict with libertarianism at all. The problem is when those who oppose such an association are forced into it. So, monarchies as they came to exist, operated in a way that is different from what libertarians support.

People weren't forced into it, it was simply the reality of their economic situation. If you didn't want to farm for the nobles and put up with their crap you could leave...but all the land was owned by them and so to leave meant to starve.

 

[Mark1031]

(I'm pretty sure) he's saying it isn't a corruption of capitalism, rather that it's the essence of capitalism and to quit expecting something else in such a system.

Well if that is what he is saying then he is also saying that capitalism is incompatible with democracy.