So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Cutlass]

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.

Power and information are both asymmetric.

 

[Tahuti]

"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."

He didn't say taxes by itself were evil. And he cannot say such, since he has reputation of being fiercely patriotic to America (so he can't be opposed to American statehood, let alone statehood by itself). It are quotes like this that have made Ron Paul arguably one of the most successful Libertarian politicians in the USA: He knows how to play politically correct, and get a big-tent of followers, all within a Libertarian framework. No doubt Anarcho-Capitalists may find his rethoric appealing.

Should Ron Paul ever get his way in full, the way he has expressed himself, the more radical Libertarians with undoubtedly be disappointed at him.

They are multiple flavors of Libertarianism, all with different perspectives. There are undoubtedly softcore Libertarians for whom the 'taxation is necessary' card won't work because they fundamentally agree. They are just less outspoken than the more radical ones.

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.

Libertarians of all stripes tend to believe companies try to avoid this from happening in the first place.

For instance, a surgeon can maim you. Libertarians argue, that in the absence of regulation, you may still sue the surgeon for negligence (breach of contract and all) if he does and that this possibility basically prevents most surgeons from going over the line anyhow and in a much more effective way than government regulation ever can. Besides, they will say that regulation will disproportionately affect small businesses and it will often contain a lot of that has been simply lobbied for by interest groups. Which aren't exactly illegitimate concerns for those who consider themselves Leftist either.

 

[Mise]

'cept that that negligence is a government regulation

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I am human and so are most of my friends.



I use it mostly as a term for selfishness + shortsightedness. Even if 90% of all people behaved in a responsible and altruistic way, the remaining 10% would be enough to cause serious damage.

Communism doesn't require altruism.

At any rate, the fact that you live in and observe others in a hierarchical society that fetishizes commodities and worships selfishness is not sufficient proof to determine concretely what human nature "is." At best, you are describing capitalism's effect on human nature, a statement with which no one would argue.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

The implication being that slavery was a reasonable compromise until 1861, and only then became an injustice? If compromise is the best we can hope for, and to scorn compromise is always and inevitably the despotism of monsters, I can see no other way of looking at it.

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

Nobody said anything about a perfect outcome.

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

But, again, if it is not beneficial?

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.

But, surely, that's an argument against the concentration of power itself, and not simply for its concentration in the hands of the state? Perhaps the state offers more opportunities for popular accountability than private entities, but as the example of Stalin itself shows, it simply can't be assumed that those will function effectively.

 

[Cutlass]

The implication being that slavery was a reasonable compromise until 1861, and only then became an injustice? If compromise is the best we can hope for, and to scorn compromise is always and inevitably the despotism of monsters, I can see no other way of looking at it.

Had there not been a government, there would still have been slavery. And there would still be slavery today. And there would still be slavery in 2161.

Is the fact that it is not perfect really justification for refusing to accept something better than any of the alternatives?

Nobody said anything about a perfect outcome.

Then "least bad" outcome.

But, again, if it is not beneficial?

And in what manner would you fundamentally reorder the nature of the universe to accomplish that?

 

[Traitorfish]

Had there not been a government, there would still have been slavery. And there would still be slavery today. And there would still be slavery in 2161.

Is the fact that it is not perfect really justification for refusing to accept something better than any of the alternatives?

You're dodging the question. (You keep doing that.) What I'm asking is, if in 1860 the continuation of the institution of slavery represented the democratically-determined consensus, the "best we could hope for", was there a moral obligation to cooperate with a government that guaranteed that continuation? And was there a moral prohibition on opposing and undermining the institution of slavery through extra-legal means?

Essentially, what I'm asking is: when did slavery become unjust?

Then "least bad" outcome.

So what you meant to say was, "Humans are involved: There is no such thing as a least bad outcome"? That seems incorrect by definition.

And in what manner would you fundamentally reorder the nature of the universe to accomplish that?

You think it part of the "fundamental order of nature" that the pursuit of power is always beneficial?

 

[Cutlass]

You're dodging the question. (You keep doing that.) What I'm asking is, if in 1860 the continuation of the institution of slavery represented the democratically-determined consensus, the "best we could hope for", was there a moral obligation to cooperate with a government that guaranteed that continuation? And was there a moral prohibition on opposing and undermining the institution of slavery through extra-legal means?

Essentially, what I'm asking is: when did slavery become unjust?

Slavery was always unjust. But in 1861 we did not have inclusive government. Very few blacks or Indians could vote, so far as I know no women could.

Slavery was not just, but the institutions to remove it did not exist. Not until there was a resort to force.

So what you meant to say was, "Humans are involved: There is no such thing as a least bad outcome"? That seems incorrect by definition.

The least bad outcomes is usually, but not in all instances, when the maximum portion of the population is involved in many of the key decisions that affect other people. The most bad outcomes is usually when the smallest part of the population is involved on making the key decisions that affect other people.

You think it part of the "fundamental order of nature" that the pursuit of power is always beneficial?

I could work hard every day and have little. Or I could force you and a bunch of other people to work hard every day and have a lot. Which requires less of my effort? Which delivers to me a greater reward?

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

The biggest problem with it is that the people who are advocating it really don't know what it is that they are advocating, or why. But a major related problem is that some of them really do know what they are after, and why, and those things are really bad for the rest of us.

Liberty is about maximizing the freedom of each person to make as many choices, and as broad of a range of choices, that effect their own lives as possible. Consistent with those people not harming other people or taking away the liberty of others. Liberty does not mean there is no government. Because the reality is that without government, there is no liberty for the overwhelming majority of people. There is a reason Somalia is so frequently brought up in discussions of libertarianism. You have a land without, to all intents and purposes, a government. You also have a hellhole where it is kill or be killed, be predator or be prey. There is no liberty to be had there, outside the "liberty" to beat, kill, rob, and rape, others.

There is no liberty to be left alone to do your thing and run your business and raise your family in Somalia. Instead, they have no government.

If you consider the Harm Principle and the Non-aggression principle as starting points, legitimate behavior for liberty excludes those behaviors that bring harm to others. But how do you enforce that? Some people simply make the, ridiculous, argument that that without government people won't act in ways that bring harm to others.

Which brings us back to Somalia.

In the real world people act in ways that harm, or at least risk harm, to others all the damned time. And this is particularly true in economic dealings. Without a government to keep a lid on those behaviors, those people who are the victims of others have no liberty. So without government instead of getting the liberty of all, you only have the liberty of the few, and that specifically at the cost of the loss of liberty of the many.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

As a left-libertarian, my greatest reserves about identifying with the libertarian movement in the United States, which is not of the left, is the power of monopolies. I'm also concerned about environmental degradation. Both stem from my healthy respect for the abusive force of economic power, a concern right-libertarians don't seem to share. I'm sold on the untenability of planned economies and the principle of non-coercion, but unbridled economic power is a danger.

There is no such thing as unbridled economic power. When Shell continued doing business in (then Fascist) South Africa, their sales were just. Recently, British Petroleum's sales were hurt after their environmetal neglect.

For me I think its a bit naive. I agree with it on some issues, but the really strong libertarians who think that you can just remove regulations and the free market will control things are being far too big of idealists for my tastes. The early 20th century shows businesses will get straightup horrifying to make a dollar if allowed to run unopposed.

Yes, some did get "straightup horrifying". Like ITT, which supported a repressive foreign goverment.

This.

(I'm assuming we're talking about hardcore libertarianism)

Also, hardcore libertarianism is scope insensitive (http://lesswrong.com/lw/hw/scope_insensitivity/). The battlecry of the hardcore libertarian is to say "we shouldn't raise taxes on one millionaire in order to lower taxes on 1,000 middle class people, because that would be unfair to the millionaire." Unfair? Who cares if it's unfair? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Your final 2 sentences scare the crap out of me.

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. The taxes-on-millionaires example is a good one, although that applies to the Tea Party as well.

Different, but still along the go-all-the-way-even-if-it's-impractical line, is the War on Drugs. Libertarians often advocate legalizing all drugs, saying that will be better and it will get rid of the shadiest drugs (i.e. of unknown potency). While for some drugs legalization and taxation may actually work out better than being outlawed, a lot of libertarians seem to think it's a good idea to legalized cocaine, heroin, and similar drugs as well. Which kind of relates to Cutlass's argument - I don't think that, given human nature, legalizing cocaine, heroin, et. al. will result in a decrease of violence.

Give me a libertarian party that is moderate on drugs and taxation, and I might find it quite compelling. I already like the civil liberties and most of the social liberty aspects of the Libertarians.

How can legalizing coke etc not result in a decrease of violence? Yes, criminals don't turn into do-gooders if they make less profit on drugs, but at least they'll have less money to spend on weapons (and less incentive to use them).

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.

I beg to differ. Living in a so-called "welfare state" (=big goverment) I notice people don't help other because "that's the goverment's job".

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.

Excellent post. Now, imagine Stalin lived in a country without government, or very limited government. Would the outcome have been better or worse?

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

And some people take a pragmatic approach, saying that government is bad in principle, but a neccessary evil in some case. Such as military defense, you can't protect some citizens from foreign invasion and others not, so you need a commonly paid military (same goes for police and road system to some extend).

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.

Not true. In a libertarian world, (almost) everything would be private property. So if your factory produces toxic waste which you dump on my territory, I'll sue you.

Concerning the concentration of wealth, you'd still only get wealth by producing goods and services. And if that makes you wealthy, good for you. Maybe if the government didn't steal you wealth, you could share some of it with others, like noble people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do.

 

[Cutlass]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Do you have an actual objection to what I posted?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I find it amusing how some will rant incessantly about the oppression of government bureaucracy, but refuse to admit/understand that corporate bureaucracies can be as or, more likely, more oppressive if untethered from all regulation.

A key difference is the ease of which either bureaucracy can have its practices identified and policed.

Typical governments function very much like inefficient firms, and necessarily lack competition.

Government is necessary, for reasons pointed out near the beginning of this thread (I'm in no hurry to move to Somalia). Where its issues crop up is when it begins to take on roles that are not absolutely necessary for the government to control as opposed to any other body...and its ability to increasingly take on more of those unchecked (who can check it though? US model of checks and balances only slowed the process, and not a great deal on a historic scale).

considering corporations are a legal entity granted by government - is not a completely unjustified line of reasoning.

It is justifiable to claim that conglomerates and other organizational choices of corporations were shaped by regulation, however it's not justifiable to claim that corporations wouldn't exist absent of other forces. Their emergence rose as a response to demand and a historically impossible ability (until recent times) to serve that demand. I suppose in *true* anarchy the inability to protect private property would oust them or force them to essentially become a pseudo government-like (in terms of protecting property) force though.

How does one craft a sustainable government that does not increasingly grow in size and scope until it breaks in some capacity? Monarchs die, and democracies tend towards a policy of "buying votes" (IE giving entitlements to a majority of people at the expense of a minority in order to win elections, which is a logical, incentive-driven choice that WILL happen...but the motivation to win is not consistent with doing what is in a nation's long-term best interests).

 

[Hygro]

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.

The neoclassical models "work" because they rely on assuming everyone is self-maximizing in a neoclassically economic way. But since as people do not conform to being economically self-maximizing by any meaningful degree--because we value and act in ways not covered by the discipline--the models don't actually work and the system it purports becomes inviable. Indeed it leads to the abuses you mention, and more.

I think we are saying almost the same thing, but there's a possible key difference. In your analysis, libertarianism (and communism) don't work because they are too congruent with "human nature" aka being antisocial in a self-maximizing. I suggest the same problems emerge because it goes against the crux of people, that we are ultimately social and loving creatures and so are not well suited to libertarian-capitalism's abuses.

Another way of saying it: it's not because it enables us to follow our human nature, but rewards those who against it, failing to encourage all of us to conform to our system--because it's too alien to our instincts, "human nature" or cultural or otherwise--but is instead enough of a drag that we aren't our best selves and some folk even do bad things for personal gain in the economic sphere.

Power and information are both asymmetric.

Within the aforementioned confines, those differences would still be sorted to lead to welfare maximizing outcomes via that system. You and I both know that's not true, and that asymmetry causes bad outcomes and that government can intervene for the better.

 

[Mise]

Actually hygro I think neoclassical models predict and explain why libertarianism would suck the big one on their own: there'd be loads and loads of poor people living crappy lives. Even if you accept that, in an ideal world, neoclassical economics leads to some "optimal" state economically - a global maximum of the collective utility functions of everyone in that society - this would not necessarily be a socially optimal or even desirable state. Neoclassical economics maximises people's utility functions, but the globally optimal solution for this problem may not necessarily be a nice place to live. I contend that this is the flaw in libertarianism: even if it works, it would still suck.

Rawls's veil of ignorance /original position stuff is just a much better way of thinking about what an ideal society should look like, what rules we should create to get there, and how we should decide on what rules we should create to get there.

 

[Hygro]

Actually hygro I think neoclassical models predict and explain why libertarianism would suck the big one on their own: there'd be loads and loads of poor people living crappy lives. Even if you accept that, in an ideal world, neoclassical economics leads to some "optimal" state economically - a global maximum of the collective utility functions of everyone in that society - this would not necessarily be a socially optimal or even desirable state. Neoclassical economics maximises people's utility functions, but the globally optimal solution for this problem may not necessarily be a nice place to live. I contend that this is the flaw in libertarianism: even if it works, it would still suck.

Rawls's veil of ignorance /original position stuff is just a much better way of thinking about what an ideal society should look like, what rules we should create to get there, and how we should decide on what rules we should create to get there.

Neoclassical economics requires a libertarian-ideal person to work effectively, but yes you are correct that neoclassical economics can be used to show why its own system would suck. Actually it can't show that because it can't make the value judgments you did. But if it could, as its authors occasionally do, it could make your point. That's the funny thing about neoclassical economics: it doesn't work and even if it did, it shows you why you wouldn't want it to.

 

[Traitorfish]

Slavery was always unjust. But in 1861 we did not have inclusive government. Very few blacks or Indians could vote, so far as I know no women could.

Slavery was not just, but the institutions to remove it did not exist. Not until there was a resort to force.

Who gets to decide if a government is "inclusive"?

The least bad outcomes is usually, but not in all instances, when the maximum portion of the population is involved in many of the key decisions that affect other people. The most bad outcomes is usually when the smallest part of the population is involved on making the key decisions that affect other people.

Sounds like you're an anarchist after all.

I could work hard every day and have little. Or I could force you and a bunch of other people to work hard every day and have a lot. Which requires less of my effort? Which delivers to me a greater reward?

For most of human history, people weren't forcing each to work. They had neither the means nor the motivation. So what makes you think this is somehow hard-coded into the universe?

 

[Cutlass]

Who gets to decide if a government is "inclusive"?

Well, does it or does it not meet the actual definition of the term?

Sounds like you're an anarchist after all.

I'm a liberal. I recognize the problems, but don't pretend that they are going to just go away all by themselves.

For most of human history, people weren't forcing each to work. They had neither the means nor the motivation. So what makes you think this is somehow hard-coded into the universe?

Citation needed

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, does it or does it not meet the actual definition of the term?

Who gets to decide the definition of the term? I would not regard any hierarchical, centralised mode of government as "inclusive"; am I right?

I'm a liberal. I recognize the problems, but don't pretend that they are going to just go away all by themselves.

Anarchists are not historically known for thinking that problems solve themselves. Hence all the trade unions and blowing up Tsars and whatnot.

Citation needed

Well, not really. Exploitative social relations suppose a degree of social and material complexity that simple doesn't occur in human history until ten thousand years ago at a minimum, and even then it seems to take a good while longer for them to become effectively generalised.

 

[Cutlass]

Who gets to decide the definition of the term? I would not regard any hierarchical, centralised mode of government as "inclusive"; am I right?

If everyone can vote, than that's inclusive. If no one can, then it's not. Between the two are a range of shades of gray.

Anarchists are not historically known for thinking that problems solve themselves. Hence all the trade unions and blowing up Tsars and whatnot.

So Somalia really is the best you have to offer.

Well, not really. Exploitative social relations suppose a degree of social and material complexity that simple doesn't occur in human history until ten thousand years ago at a minimum, and even then it seems to take a good while longer for them to become effectively generalised.

Well, you don't actually know that, because you know, that's not actually history. That's prehistory. And you don't know how societies behaved. There's evidence of hierarchy and forced inequality 12-15k years ago. Where's the evidence for people living without it? Pre-settlement hunter gathers didn't leave evidence. But then we have the animal kingdom, where a dominant individual and subordinates is common in animals that live in groups. So I really don't see how you can say that it was at all commonplace in pre-history for humans without dominance. And, certainly, once history started to be recorded in some form that we can read now, there isn't any substantial evidence of people living as you suggest.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If everyone can vote, than that's inclusive.

That's odd, coming from someone who rails against corporate power.

 

[kramerfan86]

But, surely, that's an argument against the concentration of power itself, and not simply for its concentration in the hands of the state? Perhaps the state offers more opportunities for popular accountability than private entities, but as the example of Stalin itself shows, it simply can't be assumed that those will function effectively.

Thats what I am saying. Libertarianism allows huge amounts of the power to go to unregulated mega-corporations. That's just as bad as all attempts at communism so far which focus large amounts of unchecked power towards the state. All systems involve large volumes of power going somewhere, but IMO those two system focus it at exceptionally small groups of people who are relatively unchecked. Even systems like modern western democracy show problems and corruption from it, but its a bit more checked and thus far hasnt slipped nearly as badly as i think the dreamed libertarian idea would.