So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Dachs]

From Framing the Early Middle Ages:

[...] the concept of a public power, that is, a ruling system ideologically separable from the ruled population and from the individual rulers themselves [...]

 

[Traitorfish]

What about slavery in societies where the state functionally does not exist, such as early medieval Europe?

Certainly they existed. They even existed in 19th century North America, as among the Cherokee. But those societies didn't simply lack a state, like there was some big slot where "the state" was supposed to go and they just hadn't gotten around to filling it, they were structured different from top to bottom. They had means of regulating property-relations which were located outside of a state. What Cutlass seems to suppose is that a society like the antebellum South, which depended in every other area of property on state regulation, could suspend the state altogether as it applied to slavery, which simply doesn't seem tenable.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Not really. The Roman government spent massive amounts of money in Rome itself giving away free bread and I believe wine to the plebs to keep them happy/benefit of happening to live in Roman.
The Roman government also embarked on what we today would call public works projects with the aqueducts and roads. While some I believe were built by slave labor, a significant amount of the roads were build by the soldiers. (In large part to keep them employed and out of trouble. When the later Roman Empire lacked the funds to do such actions they were forced to settle troops down who often were perfectly happy to join up with rebels for steady pay.)

That said, Roman society is not a desirable target of emulation today and trying to draw any meaningful parallels between it and modern society is about as silly as pretending pre-modern societies had what we would consider Nationalism.

My point is that in Roman times, rich people would fund new temples, in order to have their names engraved in them so they would live, so to speak, forever (that was before some religious cult proclaimed that the meaning of live is not to live forever, but to die and get to heaven, but that's a whole different story). By no means did I claim that "Roman society is not a desirable target of emulation today" neither did I claim that meaningful parallels can be drawn between Roman society and modern society (although come to think of it, sometimes these parallels do apply, but that's a different discussion as well).

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

It's also critical though that the government regulates various industries, especially the banking sector. I don't suppose you'd want to insert a clause into your country's constitution about banking regulations?

When it comes to te creation of money, I would.

 

[Ajidica]

My point is that in Roman times, rich people would fund new temples, in order to have their names engraved in them so they would live, so to speak, forever (that was before some religious cult proclaimed that the meaning of live is not to live forever, but to die and get to heaven, but that's a whole different story). By no means did I claim that "Roman society is not a desirable target of emulation today" neither did I claim that meaningful parallels can be drawn between Roman society and modern society (although come to think of it, sometimes these parallels do apply, but that's a different discussion as well).

While it was common for wealthy people to endow temples and stuff like that, a nice new temple did little to improve the material condition of the plebs in a city. Indeed, once Christianity became widespread it became popular for wealthy individuals to give significant amounts of money away whenever they went outside to the poor and beggars to a)make a public display of their Christian charity and b)show off how wealthy they were.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

While it was common for wealthy people to endow temples and stuff like that, a nice new temple did little to improve the material condition of the plebs in a city. Indeed, once Christianity became widespread it became popular for wealthy individuals to give significant amounts of money away whenever they went outside to the poor and beggars to a)make a public display of their Christian charity and b)show off how wealthy they were.

Does this mean we both agree that high-income earners tend to give their money to charity if it is not taken from them by the state?

 

[Dachs]

Does this mean we both agree that high-income earners tend to give their money to charity if it is not taken from them by the state?

No. "Tend to give" is not supported either by archaeological or textual evidence for the Romans. And it's not supported by anything at all for more modern settings.

 

[Traitorfish]

Does this mean we both agree that high-income earners tend to give their money to charity if it is not taken from them by the state?

Y'know, when you're use "earn" to mean "owning a bunch of slaves", it seems to deprive the word of meaning.

 

[Tahuti]

Perhaps the real problem with Libertarianism is not as much that it's premises are utterly disproven, but that it generally sucks at marketing and lost intellectual credibility, whether that's deservedly so or not.

 

[Mise]

I'd say its marketing is remarkably good, considering how thoroughly it fails as an ideology.

 

[Tahuti]

I'd say its marketing is remarkably good, considering how thoroughly it fails as an ideology.

There are probably more Neo-Nazis than Libertarians, so if that's true, the guys from Stormfront will make an excellent addition to any corporation's marketing department. I'm willing to bet they won't.

Besides, plenty of ideas considered to be "libertarian" certainly have their merits warranting further investigation, nevertheless. For instance, free banking, may lead to the expected benefit of diversifying financial ecosystems, in which case would insulate banks from the collapse of other banks. The problem is that immediately risks you being branded a "Libertarian" and lose all intellectual credibility in the process. Even though such individual ideas may possibly be highly beneficial from a non-ideological PoV.

 

[Mise]

Are you suggesting that Libertarians are unfairly discriminated against because of their association with terrible ideas?

More seriously, according to wiki:
* "The National Socialist Movement (NSM), with about 400 members in 32 states,[107] is currently the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States."
* "The Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters, ..."

 

[Tahuti]

More seriously, according to wiki:
* "The National Socialist Movement (NSM), with about 400 members in 32 states,[107] is currently the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States."
* "The Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters, ..."

That's the only the US. I'm pretty sure that that if you also count all the Far-right parties in Europe, you'll end up with world-wide more members of any Neo-Nazi organisation than members of any Libertarian party. Unless you count Libertarian rhetoric, which has lately been popular among pretty much everyone that is right-of-center, as Libertarian as well. However, that would make Obama a "socialist". The British National Party certainly has at least a dozenfold more members than the UK Libertarian party.

At an intellectual level, Libertarianism is considered far more respectable than Neo-Nazism. But I'll be surprised to be proven wrong in my thesis that Libertarianism is less an influential political philosophy than Neo-Nazism.

 

[Mise]

Okay, let's ignore the most powerful nation in the world from our discussion. Shall we do this for all future discussions too or is it just this particular discussion that you want to ignore America?

It depends what you count as neo-Nazi. If you're talking specifically about parties that identify as neo-Nazi parties then there are almost certainly far fewer neo-Nazi party members in Europe than there are libertarian party members in Europe. Let's take the UK, since you started off with it. Neo-Nazi Party members in the UK: 0. Libertarian Party members: 500.

It's also nice that you have conveniently left out UKIP, which states in its constitution: "2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party". UKIP currently has 30,000 members and won 23% of the popular vote in the most recent UK elections.

Furthermore, if you are widening it to include parties that do not explicitly identify as neo-Nazi but that neo-Nazis probably vote for and agree with, such as the BNP, PVV, FN, Golden Dawn, etc, then it would be hard to deny that Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders are fantastic at marketing their parties. Nick Griffen sucks at marketing, but there are plenty of examples of far right parties in Europe who are exceptionally skilled at marketing their party as the solution to all our problems, as the party that's not afraid to say what everyone's thinking. I am sure that Marine Le Pen would have made an excellent marketing consultant in another life. Marine Le Pen was a lawyer and Geert Wilders a speech-writer before they entered politics for themselves. Do you think that these two people would be bad at advancing arguments and convincing people of their views, however reprehensible? A lawyer and a speech-writer?

So yes, if we ignore the biggest country in the Western world, and if we ignore the biggest libertarian party in the UK, and if we ignore the outrageously successful marketing of the biggest far right parties in France, NL and Greece, then maybe, just maybe, your point about libertarians suffering from poor marketing might be able to stand. Notwithstanding the fact that you haven't presented any actual positive evidence for that, but rather just said "oh look at the amazing ideas we have! we would be so much more successful if we weren't also associated with truly terrible ideas!"

 

[Traitorfish]

In all fairness, I don't think there's anyone who thinks of UKIP as a "libertarian party" that aren't themselves a member of UKIP.

 

[Mise]

I agree. But (a) they have excellent marketing, and (b) they are not dismissed on libertarian grounds, despite self-identifying as libertarians (they are dismissed for a variety of other reasons, but not by association with libertarian politics).

The Labour Party still count themselves as a democratic Socialist party IIRC.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, but instead of mingling in the lives of millions (and creating a large apparatus filled with corruption and waste) 'my' bunch of locals stick with stopping the pollution.

Not sure where you got "mingling in the lives of millions", but I getcha on the corruption and waste. The problem still is that bringing lawsuit forwards requires extensive resources. This inherently allows a wealth-based bullying.

I'm not arguing against libertarianism; I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. Either justice needs to become vastly more affordable or people become much wealthier. Without that, there's a glaring issue, imo.

 

[Tahuti]

Furthermore, if you are widening it to include parties that do not explicitly identify as neo-Nazi but that neo-Nazis probably vote for and agree with, such as the BNP, PVV, FN, Golden Dawn, etc, then it would be hard to deny that Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders are fantastic at marketing their parties

Most Neo-Nazis wouldn't vote for PVV, nor anymore for either FN I suspect. An actual example of a Dutch neo-Nazi party would be the NVU (Nationale Volksunie), and I'll be surprised if you actually heard from it. Likewise, FN started out as a party comparable to the BNP but has since revised its ideology to be more compatible with mainstream politics. To illustrate, there are several gradations of right-wingness, from left to right: Right-wing Liberal (Thatcher, Churchill), Neoconservative (Bush), National Conservative (Netanyahu, Putin, UKIP loonies, Fidesz loonies), Paleoconservative (Pat Buchanan), Right-wing Populist (Wilders), ultra-nationalist (Nick Griffin) and finally neo-fascist and neo-Nazi, like the Golden Dawn. So, the Golden Dawn is actually a Neo-Nazi party or at least a neo-fascist party, which is similar enough to any outsiders. Seen any Greek Libertarian parties comparable to the US Libertarian party? If you have, they sure as hell have no seats in the Greek parliament, unlike Golden Dawn.

 

[Mise]

So hang on, I still don't see what your point is. You said that libertarians are very poor at marketing their policies, because people dismiss anything that a libertarian says purely because a libertarian has said it. But there are plenty of examples of that not being the case, such as UKIP, who self-identify as libertarian (and its leader goes round claiming he's a libertarian), and who got 23% in the latest set of elections.

You also claimed that, if there are more neo-Nazis than libertarians, then neo-Nazis would make excellent marketing consultants. Well, yes! There are plenty of far right parties who have excellent marketing and are led by people who would make fantastic marketing consultants. The actual neo-Nazi parties that exist in Europe are bloody tiny, and I'd wager their share of the popular vote is easily outstripped by the 23% who voted for UKIP in the UK alone. Golden Dawn is the only plausible exception -- and yet it is hard to deny that they marketed themselves pretty well as the solution to all of Greece's problems during the last elections. Furthermore, I'm sure that actual Nazis, such as Joseph Goebbels, would have made an excellent marketing strategist if he grew up today, despite his Nazi views.

So I still don't know exactly what you're driving at here. It seems like you're just saying "oh woe is the libertarian, for he is forever to be associated with the idiotic ideas of his brothers in arms!"

And besides, "libertarianism" as it is called in the USA is just a rebranding of classical liberalism, which is what is is known as in Europe. Classical liberalism, as you know, is alive and well today, in mainstream Liberal parties in continental Europe such as Germany's FDP. So it is not like libertarianism-as-Americans-call-it lacks representation in mainstream European politics. It's just called something else. It's just you who seems to think that it is under-represented, for some reason...

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Not sure where you got "mingling in the lives of millions", but I getcha on the corruption and waste. The problem still is that bringing lawsuit forwards requires extensive resources. This inherently allows a wealth-based bullying.

I'm not arguing against libertarianism; I'm pointing out what's wrong with it. Either justice needs to become vastly more affordable or people become much wealthier. Without that, there's a glaring issue, imo.

Not sure where I got the "mingling in the lives of millions"?
How about this. The tax rate for the highest tax bracket is 48% in NL. That's only income tax though. Value Added Tax is 21%. Inheritance tax for kids is 10% for the first part (118k) and 20% for the rest. That means that for every euro I earn around 50% goes to the government. Wanna buy a 20k car? Pay 5k import tax. that's illegal according to European rules so they brand it as administration costs (BPM for Dutchies). It also applies to Dutch cars but, hey how convieniant we don't have a car industry. Now how about housing? The state (or rather: municipality) designates where houses can be built and where not, causing real estate prices to sky rocket and youngsters for the most part not be able to buy houses at all. Insofar they do manage, they need to spend every bit of their income to pay for the mortgage, that is, insofar bank rules allow it. Now that bank rules changed (since 2008) many youngster are in debt with elderly well-endowed with their pre-turn-of-the-century mortgages. How about the media? We have 3 state-funded channels fully in support of official party lines (up untill the rise or Fortuyn -of whom I was no supporter btw- anyone slightly right of the centre was branded heartless or rascist,ask Frits Bolkestein if in doubt). When I asked my teacher in (state-funded) primary school if Gorbatshov didn't drive a bigger car then the rest of Russia her blunt answer was no. Is that enough for starters?