So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Cutlass]

Libertarianism =/= Anarchy.

No, it doesn't. But unfortunately the most extreme of the libertarians are often advocating something nearly indistinguishable from anarchy.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, it doesn't. But unfortunately the most extreme of the libertarians are often advocating something nearly indistinguishable from anarchy.

Except for all the stuff about property and wage-labour and such, which is not insignificant.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Ayn Rand's perfect society lacked a governing body, though. She kind of went into it with the assumption people would respect each other's property, which is pretty funny.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I was under the impression that Ayn Rand hated anarchists even more than she hated most libertarians who refused to accept her worldview in toto.

Right-Anarchists do often claim that Galt's Gulch was an anarchist society, but they are wrong.

It was clearly a Geoist Monarchy, a somewhat benevolent dictatorship where a single landlord (Midas Mulligan) extracted land rents from all inhabitants and used the funds to build the infrastructure he deemed useful.

There is no reason why the landlord/government had to be a single individual. In reality a more democratic single tax community would likely run better.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ayn Rand's perfect society lacked a governing body, though. She kind of went into it with the assumption people would respect each other's property, which is pretty funny.

It had a de facto governing body in Galt's sole control over the community's power supply. Just because Rand didn't think that governments needed things like accountability or transparency doesn't mean that she wasn't in favour of them. Just look at her stance on Israel.

 

[Glububble]

Somalia jokes aside, what I don't get about libertarians is why they think they are like Galt. Most libertarians I've met are convinced that they are exceptional humans who achieved everything themselves and without whom society would wither and die. That's an extremely toxic philosophy. Besides, no man is an island. What about roads, electricity, protection from fire and crime, social support, medical expertise, restricted borders, education, infrastructure... etc all of which have been supplied by others, sometimes free of charge. Despite this, libertarians think they are god's gift to society and owe nothing to anyone and should not give back to the community. By ignoring positive externalities and the role of society in forming humans, libertarianism is an inherently flawed ideology.

 

[Tahuti]

By ignoring positive externalities and the role of society in forming humans, libertarianism is an inherently flawed ideology.

Ideologies are by definition flawed because they want to remake society purely on ideas that may not necessarily reflect the world as it is. It doesn't take into account varied interests between social and ethnic groups, and the fact people eventually have irrational ends, despite being fairly rational in getting there. That is a problem of Libertarianism as well, and a problem Libertarianism has in common with Communism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ideologies are by definition flawed because they want to remake society purely on ideas that may not necessarily reflect the world as it is.

That is not what that word means.

 

[Tahuti]

That is not what that word means.

Yes it is. It doesn't make any sense to not see it that way as ideologies are fundamentally modernist inventions intended to replace the void left by religion due to secularization. Now, I'm not opposed to modernism or secularization, but I do oppose certain excesses of these trends, including ideology. Ideologies have in common that they seek to craft societies into a certain vision that never can possibly become reality, as ideological analyses already impose a certain "narrative" that is supposedly universal. However, nothing is ever universal.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That sounds like your definition. My experience is not that ideologies are inherently idealistic, especially analyses of society. My experience, is, however, that extremely arrogant and myopic people like to take the Ferris Bueller position and pretend that they are immune to ideology and totally neutral in all aspects.

Although I suppose you could take that classic postmodern cop-out and simply claim that my view that neutrality is impossible is simply another example of my ideological idealism. But if you said that then I would think you were an idiot.

 

[Tahuti]

That sounds like your definition. My experience is not that ideologies are inherently idealistic, especially analyses of society. My experience, is, however, that extremely arrogant and myopic people like to take the Ferris Bueller position and pretend that they are immune to ideology and totally neutral in all aspects.

Well, obviously, some ideological bias is almost inevitable, even if you try to iron ideology out as much as possible, which I believe is something we should try, despite the inherent absurdity of this - as it is bound to fail. Certain ideological analyses will - to a small extent - rhyme with the experiences people actually have or at least appear that way, which makes it impossible to be non-ideological. The Peoples Republic of China and the United States of America for example, have residual pieces of their founding ideology still existing in their political identity, despite having become largely non-ideological.

As soon as we are exposed to ideology, it is indeed impossible to be fully non-ideological. However, ideologies are inherently flawed because it also works the other way: It is impossible to be ideologically pure.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ideologies are by definition flawed because they want to remake society purely on ideas that may not necessarily reflect the world as it is. It doesn't take into account varied interests between social and ethnic groups, and the fact people eventually have irrational ends, despite being fairly rational in getting there. That is a problem of Libertarianism as well, and a problem Libertarianism has in common with Communism.

But most of all, it's a problem with tepid, pseudo-naturalist liberalism.

 

[Tahuti]

But most of all, it's a problem with tepid, pseudo-naturalist liberalism.

Liberalism can either be a state of things in society, as in we have liberal sexual norms, we are a liberal church, we use this liberally, and the ideology that is a by-product of the Enlightenment. Libertarianism is the result of the last category, more specifically, the British Enlightenment, which stresses property rights and stuff Libertarians find awesome.

The French Enlightenment is much more influential, as that spawned Modern Liberalism, and indirectly Left-Anarchism, Marxism. If you reacting to Marxism as being influenced by it, Fascism and Nazism can be counted as descendents from French Enlightenment thought as well. Anyway, my point is that pretty much every ideology has descended from the Enlightenment one way or the other.