What is Libertarianism?

[bigfield]

Another one from Boaz:


http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

How did libertarians intuit these particular rights but not other rights? Simply saying that something is 'intuitively right' is not a sound argument.

There's also the problem of property. Boaz says libertarians believe individuals have a right to be secure in their property, but he doesn't explain how a thing becomes someone's property, how individuals can recognize that a piece of property belongs to someone else, or what happens when 2 or more people lay claim to the same bit of property.

What happens if 10 people claim a tree or a rock outcropping as their property? Who gets to be secure and who doesn't? Without some kind of government authority empowered to grant titles and such, I guess they just fight it out.

I presume they would use a system similar to that which is used in our existing legal systems. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily preclude government entirely.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, what is Libertarianism?

Before I begin to describe what it is, I must note this: it is a political belief. I shouldn't need to state the obvious, but I have to, because of all the ninnies who try to insist that it somehow is a life philosophy and make an unwarranted fallacious extension into describing it as a personal moral ethical belief. They then go on to say that it means that libertarians are personally selfish and refuse to ever cooperate with anyone. It is similar, but far sillier, than the creationist belief that accepting the reality of evolution leads to a belief in Social Darwinism.

Yet it is basically only libertarianism that gets this rather absurd fallacy applied to it. Nobody ever says "you believe in a social safety net yet you are not out robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" or "you believe in drug prohibition yet you are not out busing meth labs." This standard is never applied to conservoprogressives yet it is always applied to libertarians.

It is not a theory of morality, except insofar as theories of morality interact with theories of government. It is really only a theory of government, what the government should do and should not do. Perhaps people are confusing it with Objectivism, because while the politics of Objectivism are indeed libertarian Objectivism is not libertarian for the simple reason that libertarianism has nothing to say about Epistemology, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, and Morality outside of theory of government.

So many words to say so little.

Okay, let me elaborate.

What we've learned is:

1) Libertarianism is a political belief.
2) Libertarianism is not a life philosophy.
3) Few political philosophies have the absurd fallacies that libertarianism has applied to it.
4) Libertarinaism is not a theory of morality, except when it is.
5) Libertarinaism is a theory of government, specifically it's function.
6) Objectivism is not libertarianism.

The bold are the positive statements that tell us what libertarianism is, but they are vague enough that they can be applied to any political theory. Hence very little has been said to distinguish libertarianism from merchantilism, communitarianism, and all the other forms of political philosophy.

So if you could please continue on.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It is not a theory of morality, except insofar as theories of morality interact with theories of government. It is really only a theory of government, what the government should do and should not do.

Well then, unless it's all about gov't not using too much ink and toilet paper, it is indeed a theory of morality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't Libertarianism about a more aggressive restriction as to when Government should be allowed to intervene in the lives of the people it governs? Unfortunately for Libertarians, that whole "when" part is all over the place from libertarian to libertarian, hence the Ron Paul Exclusion Principle.

At best Libertarianism is a single minded principle which can be admired, "Have the Government be as uninvolved in the daily lives of people as possible." Libertarianism typically falls into two categories, money and social.

With money, the problem Libertarianism has is that it fails in understanding human beings and some Libertarians have these grandiose utopian dreams where everything can be handled in a fantasy world where mankind can be trusted to make it all work out themselves. The Libertarian version of the Tooth Fairy, known as the "Free Market", would see to the fair and equitable dealings between all of mankind. Gene Roddenberry wasn't as optimistic!

The social Libertarians that believe that the social lives of humans shouldn't be interfered with by Government. These people are known as radical communists by those on the right.

 

[arkirk]

Isn't Libertarianism about a more aggressive restriction as to when Government should be allowed to intervene in the lives of the people it governs? Unfortunately for Libertarians, that whole "when" part is all over the place from libertarian to libertarian, hence the Ron Paul Exclusion Principle.

At best Libertarianism is a single minded principle which can be admired, "Have the Government be as uninvolved in the daily lives of people as possible." Libertarianism typically falls into two categories, money and social.

With money, the problem Libertarianism has is that it fails in understanding human beings and some Libertarians have these grandiose utopian dreams where everything can be handled in a fantasy world where mankind can be trusted to make it all work out themselves. The Libertarian version of the Tooth Fairy, known as the "Free Market", would see to the fair and equitable dealings between all of mankind. Gene Roddenberry wasn't as optimistic!

The social Libertarians that believe that the social lives of humans shouldn't be interfered with by Government. These people are known as radical communists by those on the right.

or...Is the liberation they seek simply liberation from the complexities of a reality they do no understand? That is how it looks to me. These libertarian groups all have a leader that acts a bit like the old tribal leaders, spouting cornball old timey wisdom in a day and age that actually requires responsibility and considerable understanding.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So many words to say so little.

Okay, let me elaborate.

What we've learned is:

1) Libertarianism is a political belief.
2) Libertarianism is not a life philosophy.
3) Few political philosophies have the absurd fallacies that libertarianism has applied to it.
4) Libertarinaism is not a theory of morality, except when it is.
5) Libertarinaism is a theory of government, specifically it's function.
6) Objectivism is not libertarianism.

The bold are the positive statements that tell us what libertarianism is, but they are vague enough that they can be applied to any political theory. Hence very little has been said to distinguish libertarianism from merchantilism, communitarianism, and all the other forms of political philosophy.

So if you could please continue on.

If I may clarify point six - Objectivist political beliefs are indeed libertarian, but there is more to Objectivism than just politics.

And you're right, I haven't even described what the political beliefs of libertarianism are, or what is the underlying philosophy of those beliefs.

But I had to include this preface to "what is libertarian" because of all the idiots who say thinks about libertarians having no generosity, community spirit, the ability to work together, the ability to interact with other people, etc.

As for describing libertarianism itself, it seems that my prefatory post reawakened all those who would rather battle strawmen to death than actually find out what it is they are actually opposing.

 

[untermensche]

If I may clarify point six - Objectivist political beliefs are indeed libertarian, but there is more to Objectivism than just politics.

And you're right, I haven't even described what the political beliefs of libertarianism are, or what is the underlying philosophy of those beliefs.

But I had to include this preface to "what is libertarian" because of all the idiots who say thinks about libertarians having no generosity, community spirit, the ability to work together, the ability to interact with other people, etc.

As for describing libertarianism itself, it seems that my prefatory post reawakened all those who would rather battle strawmen to death than actually find out what it is they are actually opposing.

You keep writing "libertarianism" with a small "L".

Libertarianism with a small "L" is simply an undefined belief in increasing human liberty.

But Libertarianism with a capital "L" actually tries to define what liberties should be increased and why. It is a structured belief system, and in the US it does flow from the work of Ayn Rand and others of her ilk.

 

[arkirk]

It is not a theory of morality, except insofar as theories of morality interact with theories of government. It is really only a theory of government, what the government should do and should not do.

Well then, unless it's all about gov't not using too much ink and toilet paper, it is indeed a theory of morality.

Librarianism is a kind of gushy emotional reaction to the fact that people are going to have to cooperate with each other in environmental and moral matters. Some of this cooperation is going to require sacrifice of some personal freedom. That is something a libertarian really places a lot of stock in...freedom. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were practitioners of PERSONAL FREEDOM. The common form of libertarianism we seem to be seeing is about the same level of abandon on the basis of the practitioners' ignorance and gullibility.

 

[untermensche]

What we need most in this thread is a reference to at least ONE Libertarian writer, so people can find out for themselves what it is all about.

Who are the great thinkers of Libertarianism?

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment. Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve coercive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.

Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights, such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. Others, notably libertarian socialists, seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management. An additional line of division is between minarchists and anarchists. Minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state.

What is libertarianism?

Who are libertarians?

What libertarian beliefs do libertarians hold?


I don't think wearing seatbelts in a car should be mandated by the law. Is that a libertarian belief? How many more libertarian beliefs do I need before I am a libertarian?

I think it's hilarious how libertarians can be so incredibly rigid on freedoms and deregulation except when it comes to property rights. I can't see any logic to that. BTW "libertarian socialists" are just called anarchists. This is the only thing that sets anarchists apart from libertarians, and anarchists are left and libertarian right.

At least anarchism has a logical internal structure. Libertarians just seem to be for injustice for the hell of it. Because unfairness is fun or something. I don't get it. I've read up on natural rights and it baffles me how anybody finds it persuasive.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism has many prominent writers and thinkers.

They don't all think alike but at least if somebody asks, What is Anarchism?, you can point them to sources they can read and get a better idea.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anarchism has many prominent writers and thinkers.

They don't all think alike but at least if somebody asks, What is Anarchism?, you can point them to sources they can read and get a better idea.

Well... I'd argue that every system we've heard of has prominent thinkers. That's why we've heard of them. So any political system it's possible to have a coherent discussion about is on systems with prominent thinkers.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism has many prominent writers and thinkers.

They don't all think alike but at least if somebody asks, What is Anarchism?, you can point them to sources they can read and get a better idea.

Well... I'd argue that every system we've heard of has prominent thinkers. That's why we've heard of them. So any political system it's possible to have a coherent discussion about is on systems with prominent thinkers.

How else do you think you can learn about a system?

You have to read the works by the people who wrote about it.

My point was, in this thread, where is the list of prominent thinkers?

That would be one of the first things I would provide if asked, What is Anarchism? A discussion could continue as well, but I would provide that at least.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well... I'd argue that every system we've heard of has prominent thinkers. That's why we've heard of them. So any political system it's possible to have a coherent discussion about is on systems with prominent thinkers.

How else do you think you can learn about a system?

You have to read the works by the people who wrote about it.

My point was, in this thread, where is the list of prominent thinkers?

That would be one of the first things I would provide if asked, What is Anarchism? A discussion could continue as well, but I would provide that at least.

Aha... ok. I get it. Yes, I agree.

 

[bilby]

What we need most in this thread is a reference to at least ONE Libertarian writer, so people can find out for themselves what it is all about.

Ayn Rand.

Who are the great thinkers of Libertarianism?

Oh, sorry. Rand qualifies as a writer, but if you are looking for a great thinker, then that's a different story.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Okay, let me elaborate.

What we've learned is:

1) Libertarianism is a political belief.
2) Libertarianism is not a life philosophy.
3) Few political philosophies have the absurd fallacies that libertarianism has applied to it.
4) Libertarinaism is not a theory of morality, except when it is.
5) Libertarinaism is a theory of government, specifically it's function.
6) Objectivism is not libertarianism.

The bold are the positive statements that tell us what libertarianism is, but they are vague enough that they can be applied to any political theory. Hence very little has been said to distinguish libertarianism from merchantilism, communitarianism, and all the other forms of political philosophy.

So if you could please continue on.

And you're right, I haven't even described what the political beliefs of libertarianism are, or what is the underlying philosophy of those beliefs.

Thank you for responding. It would be nice if you could. We know that those who adhere to the unstated "philosophy" do so for many stated reasons from broader economic concepts to personal sexual exploitation of children. (a.k.a. from acceptable to the horrific). By getting a good grasp of the political philosophy from your angle, we can rule out the latter. (I am assuming there would be an acceptable age of majority of an individual and some form of responsibility to care and raise children which would include the social-government sphere, but we need not address that here.)

As for describing libertarianism itself, it seems that my prefatory post reawakened all those who would rather battle strawmen to death than actually find out what it is they are actually opposing.

Understood. You have posted at length. Could you continue on about this political philosophy and how it differs from others?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is THAT their philosophy? Not, maybe, a fear that allowing prostitution before solving the problem of trafficking does fuck-all to deal with the risk?

Legalizing prostitution lowers the risk by making it more visible. If you make prostitution illegal, the risk is greater, as any victim is afraid of the police.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is THAT their philosophy? Not, maybe, a fear that allowing prostitution before solving the problem of trafficking does fuck-all to deal with the risk?

Legalizing prostitution lowers the risk by making it more visible. If you make prostitution illegal, the risk is greater, as any victim is afraid of the police.

And despite training that attempts to train police to see prostitutes as victims, police and the justice system view them as criminals.

 

[skepticalbip]

What we need most in this thread is a reference to at least ONE Libertarian writer, so people can find out for themselves what it is all about.

Who are the great thinkers of Libertarianism?

Try John Locke, Voltaire, James Madison, or Thomas Jefferson.

 

[SimpleDon]

Thanks for that, it's much easier to follow than the Wikipedia article.

Two of the key concepts listed by Boaz stood out to me:

Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

Another important institution that developed without central direction is politics. Since prehistoric times, human societies have had politics: in the prehistoric family unit, the patriarch controlled the group; in tribes, one or more elders has control; in chiefdoms, a chief exerts controls with the support of the priesthood; in the modern state, a ruling elite controls the nation with an bureaucracy, a police force and an a military. These political structures all share the same common trait: central authority. Since there has never existed a large society without this apparatus, it is reasonable to conclude that the political apparatus is essential to the existence of such a society.

Jared Diamond suggests that the purpose of this political structure is to prevent conflict within a society. Small groups where each individual is familiar with all others tend to resolve conflict quickly and easily, whereas larger groups where any given individual is a stranger to most others tend to require conflicts to be resolved by some authority that can exert control over all parties. Without this level of control, the larger society would fragment.

It's difficult to ascribe a purpose to 'civil society' as society is an evolved characteristics of humans. And like all evolved characteristics, it imparts some survival benefits on those that 'have it' (or in this case, live in it). More complex societies have tended to be more successful than less-complex societies, in the sense that a person's lineage is more likely to continue long into the future if their descendants live in a complex society. So society's purpose is merely to continue existing, and it has evolved a centralised political structure to fulfill that purpose.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person’s individual plans — which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on — may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

Agree with the evaluation that this is pie-in-the-sky stuff and a gross misunderstanding of human nature and the sources of conflict.

How is it possible to have a society where people do not have conflicts and do not seek to exert control over others? Simply saying that politics is the problems is no different than saying that human nature is the problem.

Exactly, libertarians ignore the fact that through the years we have thoroughly tested these goals against human nature .

I agree with all of the goals in the article. What I disagree with and what I have never had any self-professed libertarian explain to me is why do the libertarians assume that these are goals that anyone would disagree with and why would they think that anyone would work against these goals?

Peace, social harmony, government limited to the minimum possible, the market operating as freely as possible, individual liberty, individual rights, property rights, a just society, social order, the rule of law, and people keeping what they earn without the fear of others living off of them without producing, these are things that no reasonable person should oppose as being worthwhile goals.

Why do libertarians believe the majority of the people in this country aren't making an honest attempt to meet these goals? Why do libertarians believe that we have to change what we are already doing to meet these goals? In other words why do libertarians feel that we are not as close to the perfect libertarian society as it is currently humanly possible to be?

The problem with libertarians is not that I have a problem with their goals, I have a problem with what they tell me has to be done in society to meet these goals. Most of what they propose to do has already been tried and rejected by society as being unworkable and something better has been found in its place.

The most obvious example for me is the gold standard for money. It was tried and it was rejected not by evil governments wanting to debase money but because the collective will of the market found something that worked much better, our current fiat money system. And I have no doubt that the current system will slowly evolve into an even better system in the future.

There are many other examples. The for profit market doesn't work well in an entire range of endeavors, health care, education, infrastructure, adjudication, prisons, mutual defense, for example. And yet most libertarians tell us that the for profit free market is capable of not only doing these things but doing it better than relying on professionalism or government to do them. Once again, nearly all of those endeavors were operated at one time under the for profit model and that the market freely found a better way to do these things.

Their obsession with government regulations is another example. The market has in most cases chosen to have the government regulate certain things to expedite commerce, building codes, weights and measure standards, a standard currency, a patent system, for example. In addition the market has freely chosen to have government regulation to impose externalities into the operation of the market so that the good competitors who wouldn't pollute, who wouldn't employ children, who wouldn't have poisoned their customers, who wouldn't have operated an unsafe workplace, and a thousand more, that these good actors wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage against the bad actors who were willing to do these things.

Their view that governments have written these regulations spontaneously in order to take control of an otherwise perfectly operating free market is laughably cartoonish.* They are describing the government that is capable of original thought, which in my experience they generally aren't, and ignoring the obvious fact that government works to correct problems with the economy and the society, in most cases, long after the problems are obvious to everyone else.

Government moved against monopolies because monopolies were hurting the economy. The government regulates drugs because people were selling useless and even dangerous drugs. The government regulates builders because buildings were collapsing and catching fire unnecessarily. Point made or do I need to go on?

There is also no doubt that we have gone too far in deregulating the financial sector. Witness the financial crisis of 2008. Mr. Boaz lists Adam Smith as an example of a libertarian author. Yet Smith mentioned the invisible hand only once in the middle of a book in which Smith's main purpose was to warn us to have the government regulate the financial sector and the other pieces of the overhead mechanism of capitalism.


* if you are going to complain that this is a strawman please explain what the libertarian position is with examples of regulations that fit the explanation. And yes, I know that companies sometimes capture the government regulation writing mechanism to gain an unfair advantage against their competitors. This happens because the companies that deal with something are the only ones who know enough to write the regulations and the competitors were stupid enough to not get involved in the writing of the regulations. It is a imperfection in writing the regulations, a reason to do better, not a reason that regulations aren't needed.