GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[SimpleDon]

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

Actually libertarians do believe that, that the power should be with the people and not the government and where democracy matters, at the local level, not the federal level. A democracy of 300 million is not very good.

So you are more of an Articles of Confederation or Confederate States of America type guy?

Or are the state governments too unresponsive and undemocratic for you?

 

[untermensche]

The check on the majority is a first class educational system free of religious interference.

And what if the majority don't want that?

What if the majority does, and is thwarted by a minority? You know, the current situation.

Which is worse?

 

[EricK]

And what if the majority don't want that?

What if the majority does, and is thwarted by a minority? You know, the current situation.

Which is worse?

What is the majority view, in the US (which I presume is what you are talking about), of what a first class education consists of? I wouldn't be at all surprised if religious interference were a fundamental part of that. Probably evolution would be off the curriculum.

But that is really immaterial. The principle - that we should go with what the majority wants - is only good if the majority want good things. If the majority wants bad things, then we should go with the minority who want good things, shouldn't we?

I don't know if you are in favour of the death penalty or not, but in many parts of the world the majority of the population will support it - is that a good reason to have it?

 

[untermensche]

What is the majority view, in the US (which I presume is what you are talking about), of what a first class education consists of? I wouldn't be at all surprised if religious interference were a fundamental part of that. Probably evolution would be off the curriculum.

I don't agree with you.

I think it is a minority that wants Evolutionary Theory replaced with religious fables.

Right now this troublesome minority is able to do great harm.

But that is really immaterial. The principle - that we should go with what the majority wants - is only good if the majority want good things. If the majority wants bad things, then we should go with the minority who want good things, shouldn't we?

I don't know if you are in favour of the death penalty or not, but in many parts of the world the majority of the population will support it - is that a good reason to have it?

You have expressed your fears.

I don't fear the majority.

The majority has never had real control anywhere.

How could it possibly do worse than control by the minority?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A minority can be deposed by the majority. When the majority is wrong, what is the recourse?

 

[untermensche]

A minority can be deposed by the majority. When the majority is wrong, what is the recourse?

A minority can only be deposed if the majority has the power to do it.

There is presently no recourse from the minority of wealth that runs the US. It has had so much power for so long it now even has a Supreme Court of it's choosing.

 

[SimpleDon]

Was deregulation of the financial markets, or more precisely, the failure to regulate the financial markets by the Bush II administration part of our continuum of libertarianness?

Regulations can be written to the benefit of the rich and powerful to remove liability from their actions. Or they can be written to restrain them. OR they can be absent. Over on talk.origins there is a kook named Ray Martinez who thinks that all Muslims are Atheists because they aren't Christians.

A response that doesn't answer the question. Was the effective deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush II administration part of the march to the adoption of the libertarian philosophy? Or to put the question in your terms was the absence of regulation over the financial markets part of the libertarian philosophy?

It seems to be a simple question.

And yes, there are good regulations and there are bad ones.

Your point about the gentleman at talk origins escapes me. You have previously told me that libertarians can't be blamed for the actions of the Bush administration because there weren't any real libertarians in it. Is that what you are trying to say here?

-----------------------

Late addition, I just saw it.

Krugman's column today is on this subject of the libertarian fantasy. In fact, that is the title of the article.

In closing he says,

But libertarian visions of an unregulated economy do play a significant role in political debate, so it’s important to understand that these visions are mirages. Of course some government interventions are unnecessary and unwise. But the idea that we have a vastly bigger and more intrusive government than we need is a foolish fantasy.

This would apply to my response to Jason above. While libertarians are few in numbers the libertarian fantasy of excessive government is a widespread one. What is the responsibility of libertarians for the damage that their fantasies cause? Why are we to ignore the failures of the fantasies and why are you willing to ignore them?

 

[EricK]

I don't agree with you.

I think it is a minority that wants Evolutionary Theory replaced with religious fables.

Right now this troublesome minority is able to do great harm.

But that is really immaterial. The principle - that we should go with what the majority wants - is only good if the majority want good things. If the majority wants bad things, then we should go with the minority who want good things, shouldn't we?

I don't know if you are in favour of the death penalty or not, but in many parts of the world the majority of the population will support it - is that a good reason to have it?

You have expressed your fears.

I don't fear the majority.

Is a legitimate concern the same as a fear?

There are two general approaches to power - an optimistic one and a pessimistic one. The optimistic one says "It's good that this person or group has power because they can do so much good". The pessimistic one says "It is bad that this person or group has power because they could do so much harm. This even applies to situations where the power is that of self-determination: Is it good or bad when people are allowed to make their own choices as to what to eat, or whether to take drugs.

Pessimists, like me, are wary of all situations where power could be used to cause harm (albeit less concerned in the cases of self-determination where the harm is only or mainly to oneself). And it doesn't really matter if it is the majority exerting that power or a minority.

Is the principle that all schools should teach a curriculum laid down by government a good one? If you believe that the government will, and always will, act in what you think are the best interests of the people, then you will probably think it a good idea. If you are worried that this government, or some future one, will not do that - either because they want to act in the best interests of some faction or because their ideas of what the best interests of the people are is severely misguided - then you might legitimately be very concerned about giving them that power.

The majority has never had real control anywhere.

How could it possibly do worse than control by the minority?

While it is true that things can always get better, it is also true that things can always be worse. And in general, there is much greater scope to make things worse than there is to make things better. I'm not sure the majority are particularly good at differentiating between changes that will make things better, and the far greater number of changes that would make things worse. Of course it is also true that a random minority will not be particularly good at it.

 

[SimpleDon]

Short answers to other questions raised in the thread.

Yes, democracy like capitalism is flawed. That is why the most important thing that a democratic government does is not to just guarantee property rights, it is to guarantee all human rights. So that the minority who are right can present their case to the majority to convince them that the minority are right.

The libertarians and the free market enthusiasts in general are presenting a radical change in our economy from what the evolution of our current economy has taught us is important. This means that the burden is on them to prove their case and that their burden to do this is heavy. They haven't come anywhere close to advancing serious arguments why we should change.

Of course, the goals of the libertarian philosophy are attractive, why would you have unattractive goals in your fantasy? Yes, we should let private enterprise handle what they can do the best. Yes, we should be finding a way to handle disputes other than going to war. Yes, we should be striving for the greatest degree of personal freedom possible.

The failure of the libertarian philosophy is in how they propose to go about reaching those goals. If anything we are now asking private enterprise to do more than what it is best at doing, for example, it is terrible at providing health care. And the libertarian so-called solution for war, to involve the entire world in mutually beneficial trade, is not working too well so far, it doesn't seem to be able to overcome religious differences for example. And the rub in unlimited personal freedom is when the freedom of one individual interferes with the freedom of another.

Krugman in his column today pointed out another right idea, wrong way to do it libertarian meme. Yes, we should be getting rid of bad regulations, no, relying on torts, lawsuits and court decisions, to replace most regulation is not a very good way to do it.

As part of you libertarians trying to convince us of your better way, your inability to name examples of a large number of bad regulations is remarkably not very convincing. As is your inability to explain why so many of our attempts to deregulate the economy has ended in disaster, that is, the savings and loan scandal, the commodity market manipulations and the Great Financial Crisis and Recession of 2008, among others.

 

[untermensche]

Is the principle that all schools should teach a curriculum laid down by government a good one?

The idea of democratic control is that the majority has the power to experiment. You don't lock yourself into any system and you allow any system implemented to evolve.

We have had minority control over decisions like this for too long. I think we can safely say the minority has not been making good decisions for the majority.

While it is true that things can always get better, it is also true that things can always be worse...

It would be naive to expect every decision made by the majority to make things better. But the majority can also serve as a barometer. If things get worse the majority will feel it and then has the power to respond.

Right now we have a minority making decisions that they don't feel.

There is the economy of the majority. Going to work, raising families, etc. And there is the economy of the minority in control. Worldwide investments and speculations. It happens all the time that things that hurt the majority are very helpful to the minority. Moving jobs overseas is mostly good for the minority. High unemployment is good for the minority.

 

[SimpleDon]

I don't agree with you.

I think it is a minority that wants Evolutionary Theory replaced with religious fables.

Right now this troublesome minority is able to do great harm.

You have expressed your fears.

I don't fear the majority.

Is a legitimate concern the same as a fear?

There are two general approaches to power - an optimistic one and a pessimistic one. The optimistic one says "It's good that this person or group has power because they can do so much good". The pessimistic one says "It is bad that this person or group has power because they could do so much harm. This even applies to situations where the power is that of self-determination: Is it good or bad when people are allowed to make their own choices as to what to eat, or whether to take drugs.

Pessimists, like me, are wary of all situations where power could be used to cause harm (albeit less concerned in the cases of self-determination where the harm is only or mainly to oneself). And it doesn't really matter if it is the majority exerting that power or a minority.

Is the principle that all schools should teach a curriculum laid down by government a good one? If you believe that the government will, and always will, act in what you think are the best interests of the people, then you will probably think it a good idea. If you are worried that this government, or some future one, will not do that - either because they want to act in the best interests of some faction or because their ideas of what the best interests of the people are is severely misguided - then you might legitimately be very concerned about giving them that power.

The majority has never had real control anywhere.

How could it possibly do worse than control by the minority?

While it is true that things can always get better, it is also true that things can always be worse. And in general, there is much greater scope to make things worse than there is to make things better. I'm not sure the majority are particularly good at differentiating between changes that will make things better, and the far greater number of changes that would make things worse. Of course it is also true that a random minority will not be particularly good at it.

There is no question that you are absolutely right about one thing, you are a pessimist.

So what is your solution to the oppression of the not very smart majority?

If anything at the very least here in the US we are controlled by large numbers of seriously committed minorities pushing both good and bad ideas. The libertarians are an example of that. They have good intentions but really bad ways of trying to accomplish them. The theories that they rely on to prove their vision actually disprove their methods. The empirical record doesn't support them. And yet they have made serious and damaging inroads in the thinking of the majority based on the attractiveness of their goals and the simple, easy to understand methodology, just let God the free market do it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A minority can be deposed by the majority. When the majority is wrong, what is the recourse?

A minority can only be deposed if the majority has the power to do it.

There is presently no recourse from the minority of wealth that runs the US. It has had so much power for so long it now even has a Supreme Court of it's choosing.

That doesn't answer the question at all.

What recourse is there if the Majority (not the minority) is wrong?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Regulations can be written to the benefit of the rich and powerful to remove liability from their actions. Or they can be written to restrain them. OR they can be absent. Over on talk.origins there is a kook named Ray Martinez who thinks that all Muslims are Atheists because they aren't Christians.

A response that doesn't answer the question. Was the effective deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush II administration part of the march to the adoption of the libertarian philosophy? Or to put the question in your terms was the absence of regulation over the financial markets part of the libertarian philosophy?

It seems to be a simple question.

And yes, there are good regulations and there are bad ones.

Your point about the gentleman at talk origins escapes me. You have previously told me that libertarians can't be blamed for the actions of the Bush administration because there weren't any real libertarians in it. Is that what you are trying to say here?

You've almost understood the point.

I see two competing theories of regulation, a Republican theory and a Democrat theory. I also see Democrats saying that the Republican theory is deregulation instead of a competing regulation. Much like how Ray Martinez says that Muslims are Atheists. I do not see a deregulation philosophy in the Bush administration, I see a malregulation philosophy in the Bush administration. Any regulation that protects the major players from responsibility for their actions is a malregulation, not a deregulation.

Late addition, I just saw it.

Krugman's column today is on this subject of the libertarian fantasy. In fact, that is the title of the article.

In closing he says,

But libertarian visions of an unregulated economy do play a significant role in political debate, so it’s important to understand that these visions are mirages. Of course some government interventions are unnecessary and unwise. But the idea that we have a vastly bigger and more intrusive government than we need is a foolish fantasy.

This would apply to my response to Jason above. While libertarians are few in numbers the libertarian fantasy of excessive government is a widespread one. What is the responsibility of libertarians for the damage that their fantasies cause? Why are we to ignore the failures of the fantasies and why are you willing to ignore them?

Krugman is a perfect example of the Ray Martinez fallacy.

 

[untermensche]

What recourse is there if the Majority (not the minority) is wrong?

As I said, if the majority causes harm then it will feel the harm and can adjust.

The problem is when the system is controlled by a minority that passes on harm it is immune from to the majority. The current system.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What recourse is there if the Majority (not the minority) is wrong?

As I said, if the majority causes harm then it will feel the harm and can adjust.

The problem is when the system is controlled by a minority that passes on harm it is immune from to the majority. The current system.

So if the harm the majority causes is "strip this minority of all their rights" the majority will feel that harm. I see.

 

[untermensche]

As I said, if the majority causes harm then it will feel the harm and can adjust.

The problem is when the system is controlled by a minority that passes on harm it is immune from to the majority. The current system.

So if the harm the majority causes is "strip this minority of all their rights" the majority will feel that harm. I see.

The idea of democracy is also tied to the idea of human rights.

Principles like the freedom of speech and religion and all the freedoms tied up into the Bill of Rights are also part of a democracy.

Right now we have a minority trying to take away things like the right to have an abortion and the right of homosexuals to marry. Giving a minority power is no great protection of rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are basically saying we need even bigger thugs to keep smaller thugs in check. What is your plan to keep the bigger thugs in check?

I really don't think untermensch is in favor of bigger thugs, at least not in the sense that you seem to be implying. He seems to be suggesting anarchocommunism (not sure I have the term right), which would be virtually without state at all. No big thugs allowed. Significantly less state presence than your own libertarianism would probably prefer. I could have him wrong, but that appears to be his position.

Aside from the economic aspect (community owned and operated versus capitalist owner-labor relationship), you two probably agree on more than you disagree on.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called democracy.

But not this phoney democracy we have now where candidates are required to raise millions before they can serve and the government is directed by big business as a result.

The way to keep the government in check is to increase democratic control over it.

You know, there's nothing in these statements I disagree with. In fact, I agree quite strongly with all of it. I don't think I land at the same end point as you, but the principles and the problems that I respond to are the same.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. Read the philosophy of the time. They all assume a self sufficient man living without societal constraints. Locke or Rousseau. They don't say that man should live like that NOW, but they take it as their philosophical basis. They postulate that our society developed from such roots, when in fact it didn't, then they take and further develop the idea. Libertarianism is an intellectual successor to this movement. The fact that they don't advocate that people should be self sufficient, that doesn't mean that their ideas don't derive from that idea. (And frankly, I am constantly hearing them boast about how self sufficient they are, and am extremely skeptical of your claim never to have heard anything of the like.)


Libertarians are their philosophical successors.

I have confusion...

I don't know what you're trying to say.

If you read the Libertarian literature

Well that's where you went wrong right there! I don't read political literature of any flavor; it either makes me angry or puts me to sleep... or both and then I have angry dreams!

(as opposed to self-defining Libertarians on da interwebz), man in his default state is presumed to be a lone homesteader rather than a social animal that evolved from other social animals. Hence social conventions of property, resource pooling etc, up to and including democratic states are presumed to be interventions requiring justification. Hence all the positive vs negative freedoms guff. In fact, Libertarianism would be an intervention requiring justification, which it spectacularly fails to provide. Pre-Darwinian political philosophies, eg Locke's, can be excused. 21st century Libertarianism can't.

(I think Sarpedon said it better..)

I'm going to good-naturedly poke fun at you for a second, however, and point out that I said "I don't know anyone" in the present tense. To which you said "Bullshit" implying that some of them do in the present tense... then you said "They don't say that man should live like that NOW" agreeing that none exist in the present tense, in contradiction to your bullshit comment... then went on about the historic legacy of something or other...

I find humor in there. I will add the caveat that my sense of humor is a bit off center.

 

[Emily Lake]

The majority is the sane vote. The minorities at the fringes ... are what we should fear.

Forgive the editing, but I have a point to make here. By your logic, black people would never have gotten the right to vote, because the majority of whites who did not want them to vote would by definition be the sane ones, and the black people who wanted equal rights would be the ones to fear. Similarly, gay people will never get the right to marry and get equal rights, because they are the minority, and the majority will exert its will as the "sane" vote.

As Jason Harvestdancer asked, how will you protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority without a state?

 

[Emily Lake]

We have had minority control over decisions like this for too long. I think we can safely say the minority has not been making good decisions for the majority.

Just for clarity, which minority do you believe has had control?

- - - Updated - - -

What recourse is there if the Majority (not the minority) is wrong?

As I said, if the majority causes harm then it will feel the harm and can adjust.

Not if it is causing harm to a minority; not if it is exploiting immigrants or discriminating against homosexuals or oppressing black people. Then the majority doesn't feel any of the harm at all.

- - - Updated - - -

So if the harm the majority causes is "strip this minority of all their rights" the majority will feel that harm. I see.

The idea of democracy is also tied to the idea of human rights.

Principles like the freedom of speech and religion and all the freedoms tied up into the Bill of Rights are also part of a democracy.

How will those rights be enforced? Who will ensure that those rights aren't abused?