So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[GoodSarmatian]

The absence of government does not imply the absence of corporations. They make too much economic sense to just spontaneously vanish.

I would go further and say that the absence of 'government' does not imply the absence of government. There will always be individuals or groups that can and will exert power over the rest, and whether they call themselves councils, governments, corporations, clans, gangs or militias is just sophistry.


I hate it when people quote my post before I have seen and edited the typos.

 

[Cutlass]

I would go further and say that the absence of 'government' does not imply the absence of government. There will always be individuals or group that can and will exert power ower the rest and whether they call themselves councils, governments, coroprations, clans, gangs or militias is just sophistry.

Which is also true. Governments happen spontaneously. Whenever some have the power to force their will on others, they will, call it what you like.

 

[Perfection]

"Human nature" seems to be a sufficient argument against everything.

"Communism?" "Ah, but human nature..."
"Libertarianism?" "Ah, but human nature..."
"Putting some pants on?" "Ah, but human nature..."

Putting pants on in 90 degree weather because of stupid work is against human nature

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not like the people who 'rule' can do as they please in our modern states. They too are -in theory- bound by the same laws as the citizenry. Checks and balances and all that. It's not a perfect and the reality doesn't always live up to the theory, but it's preferable to the alternative.

Were those laws constructed by people who were not human, and so free of the existential shackles of human nature?

With inclusive groups the extremes tend to be moderated by averaging them out.

If the majority are unfit to rule, what good is there in "averaging out" the yet-more-unfit minority? You still don't have anybody fit to tell other people what to do.

Which is also true. Governments happen spontaneously. Whenever some have the power to force their will on others, they will, call it what you like.

Even if it the exercise of this power is not beneficial to them?

 

[Defiant47]

What is human nature, anyways? Is it a set thing, or is it malleable? Can I raise my child to be either a charitable and kind person or a cruel cold-blooded criminal? Or is it completely out of my control, regardless of the beatings I lay on him and thrusting my own hypothetical drug lifestyle?

 

[potatokiosk]

While I do not intend to compare Libertarianism morally to Fascism, even though some will undoubtedly, it is a spin-off thread of the said thread.

I think everyone on CFC would be curious to know an answer to that question, so, here we go.

One issue with libertarianism is that it is probably incompatible with democracy, because people will tend to support politicians that promise to make them better off, and that will tend toward a redistribution of wealth by the government because the income of the median voter is well below the average level of income.

Another issue with libertarianism is that it is probably incompatible with a lack of democracy, because the ruling elites will tend to use their power to further enrich themselves.

Libertarianism requires that people accept the "non-aggression principle" (according to whatever interpretation the person advocating it considers valid) even when it interferes with a person's own self interest, even while libertarianism encourages people to be self-absorbed jerks.

 

[Cutlass]

If the majority are unfit to rule, what good is there in "averaging out" the yet-more-unfit minority? You still don't have anybody fit to tell other people what to do.

With inclusive groups, you have people wrong in all directions, and the compromise is something in the middle that most people can live with.

Same old argument. The alternative is the most viscous and unrestrained monsters rule by brute force.

Humans are involved: There is no such thing as a perfect outcome.

Even if it the exercise of this power is not beneficial to them?

It will be beneficial to someone. And they will act to impose their wills on others.

 

[kramerfan86]

"Human nature" seems to be a sufficient argument against everything.

"Communism?" "Ah, but human nature..."
"Libertarianism?" "Ah, but human nature..."
"Putting some pants on?" "Ah, but human nature..."

I dont think its a general problem with human nature, but a problem with the worst in our species. The power hungry and greedy who crave more so much they are sociopathic. This are the people who go after power most aggressively and systems which focus power on a few whom have no real checks placed on them quickly can become horrifying under their influence if they get themselves into those positions. Stalin is an individual of that type, any hope the soviet union had of becoming a worker's paradise was destroyed when he did what people of his type do.

 

[tonberry]

No government is not a tenant of libertarianism. Input and recompute.

For some, no but for others, namely anarcho-capitalist, it’s absolutly is.

My problem with libertarianism is that it’s either inconsistent or too vaguely defined. On one hand you got those who beleive that taxes and governement is evil but are fine with having an army, police, justice system and public infrastructure paid by the state (the average minarchist). This is the inconsistent part. Either taxes are bad and need to be abolished or they aren’t and can be used to fund public services according to what democratic elected leaders deem necessary. After all, if governement is so bad, why would you let it control the army?

Then we have people who actually advocate a total abolishment of the state on the basis that it is evil. That’s consistent but I’ve never seen a clear explanation on how things would work in that world. Who would control police and justice? What would happen if we got invaded? How a privatly ownded system of roads would not end in chaos? "We’ll cross the bridge when we get there" is not an acceptable answer to me. If we are going down that road, we better have a clear picture of what is ahead.

Finally, here is a link to a page that explain the problems of libertarianism better than I ever could :

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

 

[Tahuti]

That's one of the main problems I have with libertarianism (as it's often practiced in the U.S., at least). It's not pragmatic/realistic enough.

From this perspective, Conservatism is arguably the "best" ideology. Conservatives (in the political sense, not in the mother's-wombs-are-state-property variety, though they sometimes overlap) like to argue in political possibilities rather than theoretical possibilities. In this sense, I do tend to agree with political conservatism myself.

My problem with libertarianism is that it’s either inconsistent or too vaguely defined. On one hand you got those who beleive that taxes and governement is evil but are fine with having an army, police, justice system and public infrastructure paid by the state (the average minarchist). This is the inconsistent part. Either taxes are bad and need to be abolished or they aren’t and can be used to fund public services according to what democratic elected leaders deem necessary. After all, if governement is so bad, why would you let it control the army?

Well, I don't think Libertarians like Ron Paul oppose all taxes, just taxes they consider unnecessary (the Federal Income tax for example). It's hard to come by Libertarians who do not oppose state infrastructure but do oppose taxation. Unless Objectivists count as Libertarians, of course.

Then we have people who actually advocate a total abolishment of the state on the basis that it is evil. That’s consistent but I’ve never seen a clear explanation on how things would work in that world. Who would control police and justice? What would happen if we got invaded? How a privatly ownded system of roads would not end in chaos? "We’ll cross the bridge when we get there" is not an acceptable answer to me. If we are going down that road, we better have a clear picture of what is ahead.

Most anarchist libertarians are deontologists: If a state is evil to begin with, isn't simply the act of abolishing evil worth it? I find deontologism hopelessly naïve myself, but in order to debunk this form of anarcho-capitalism, it is necessary to debunk deontologism.

Also, more utilitarian minded anarcho-capitalists will say that the market already proved its merit elsewhere. In some ways, this is quite an attractive line of reasoning (like Communism, Libertarianism is very 'neat' ideology, in that can offer explanations for pretty much any political phenomena), but even if it were proven true, it would be a politically explosive thing to say the least, which is where we come back to the points raised by Quintillus.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

It's a noble goal, but we need to grow up a whole lot before it can be achieved.

 

[Eukaryote]

So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

It's a noble goal, but we need to grow up a whole lot before it can be achieved.

Is that meant to be a statement on the similarities between Communism and Libertarianism?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nope, that's just meant to be answering the question as best as I could.

 

[Hygro]

The same thing that is wrong with Communism: It's incompatible with human nature. People will do whatever they can get away with to increase their own wealth and power, and under a Llibertarian system they can get away with too much.

It's funny because if your answer were true, Libertarianism would be the perfect self regulating system.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's funny because if your answer were true, Libertarianism would be the perfect self regulating system.

How so ?

 

[Hygro]

Because if everyone was a self maximizing power-money seeking individual, then the underpinning socio political economic theory math would actually work as intended and it would equilibrate in a self-checked place of maximal freedoms and welfare.

 

[Patroklos]

The absence of government does not imply the absence of corporations. They make too much economic sense to just spontaneously vanish.
.

Again, where are you getting this no government thing from?

For some, no but for others, namely anarcho-capitalist, it’s absolutly is.

Then to post in the anarchy-capitalism thread, this one is about libertarians.

 

[tonberry]

Well, I don't think Libertarians like Ron Paul oppose all taxes, just taxes they consider unnecessary (the Federal Income tax for example). It's hard to come by Libertarians who do not oppose state infrastructure but do oppose taxation. Unless Objectivists count as Libertarians, of course.

When libertarians use a pragmatic argument in favor of privatisation of some part of the governement and cut taxes accordingly, then we can have a debate and I may agree with them on occasion.

However, when they used this kind of argument:

"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

then I have a problem (the initiation of force is obviously referring to taxation). This quote is from Ron Paul btw. I found it on brainyquote.com. It's not sourced however so I can't be sure it's really by him but I did heard him say similar things very often during the republican primaries. If someone hold the view exprimed in the quote, then he must be in favor of abolishing all of governement and be able to explain to me how things would work without it. Otherwise, stick with the "market is better" argument and we'll have that debate.

 

[tonberry]

Then to post in the anarchy-capitalism thread, this one is about libertarians.

Anarchy-capitalism IS a libertarian political philosophy.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Because if everyone was a self maximizing power-money seeking individual, then the underpinning socio political economic theory math would actually work as intended and it would equilibrate in a self-checked place of maximal freedoms and welfare.

What do you mean 'work' ? Everyone would avoid paying for externalities or any kind of responsibility.
Oh, the company that produces toxic toasters or exploding cars would soon go out of business, but before it disappears thousands of people will have died and the shareholders would just move their money to another company.

Not to mention the inevitable concentration of wealth and power.