GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[coloradoatheist]

The others beat me to it, but Libertarians place human rights and liberty first, democracy second. Democracy is important, but only as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty.

Look at Iraq now, democracy and those groups think it's okay to kill Christians. And democracy isn't what is keeping atheists from being thrown in jail.

 

[untermensche]

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?

You enforce the Bill of Rights.

 

[untermensche]

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

There is the minority with great wealth and from this a minority that has control. Control over what legislation does and does not come before legislatures. Control over all aspects of government, including the courts. Not absolute control but inordinate control.

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.

Where have we seen it? It was a small minority that owned slaves and engaged in the slave trade. A minority that wrote the Jim Crow laws and supported them.

It is when minorities have control we see abuses of other minorities.

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

The majority if given the power would expand human rights.

It is when minorities have control that human rights are curtailed. When great wealth has the power certain rights, like the right to decent healthcare for everyone, is a political impossibility.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is the minority with great wealth and from this a minority that has control. Control over what legislation does and does not come before legislatures. Control over all aspects of government, including the courts. Not absolute control but inordinate control.

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.

Where have we seen it? It was a small minority that owned slaves and engaged in the slave trade. A minority that wrote the Jim Crow laws and supported them.

It is when minorities have control we see abuses of other minorities.

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

The majority if given the power would expand human rights.

It is when minorities have control that human rights are curtailed. When great wealth has the power certain rights, like the right to decent healthcare for everyone, is a political impossibility.

I'm curious where you are getting your gallup results for the belief of slavery prior to 1865. For such a minority belief, Southernors fought fiercly for the right to keep slaves.

 

[untermensche]

I'm curious where you are getting your gallup results for the belief of slavery prior to 1865. For such a minority belief, Southernors fought fiercly for the right to keep slaves.

How many people that fought for the South actually owned slaves or were engaged in the slave trade?

A minority with power can have a monopoly on propaganda and can sway the majority. A slave owning minority with power will instill and foster racism to serve itself.

These are arguments to fear the minority.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

And that's where you're wrong. Democracy is a form, not a function, of government. The form is how it is arranged, the function is what it does.

A democracy is, in simple terms, the people deciding. As opposed to rule by a minority or rule by a single person. What you are describing is not "democracy" but "liberal democracy". Democracy can easily become nothing more than mob rule.

Libertarians sure do like diamond charts, so here's one that can illustrate my point.

Maximum Participation   Mob Rule                   Liberal Democracy
|
|
|
|
Minimum Participation   Dictatorship               Enlightened Monarchy

                        Illiberal ---------------- Liberal

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.

Those are part of the Democratic Republic of the United States, and are not an intrinsic feature of Democracy qua Democracy. That's why many people were skeptical of the neoconservative claims about creating a stable democratic Iraq. Their country is 60% Shia, 20% Sunni, and 20% Kurd. The Shia seemed disinclined to respect the rights of the minority populations in Iraq and the Sunni were quite aware of this.

Your belief that democracy qua democracy is a sufficient panacea does not reflect the reality that the majority may indeed vote to strip the rights of the minority, and it will be the minority that feels the pain of that decision. Your mention of the Bill of Rights is an implicit acknowledgement that there must be checks on the power of the majority.

A minority with power can have a monopoly on propaganda and can sway the majority.

Exactly my point, which is why your statement "enforce the bill of rights" is an acknowledgement that there need to be checks on the power of the majority.

 

[untermensche]

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

And that's where you're wrong. Democracy is a form, not a function, of government. The form is how it is arranged, the function is what it does.

Democratic control is first a philosophy. And it requires several things. Some things do need protection from the whims of the majority. Even though I believe a well educated majority will not have any reason to take them away. So you protect speech and religious practice and other things from potential whims of a majority.

Democracy can easily become nothing more than mob rule.

Show me where functioning democracy became mob rule. What is your evidence?

Those are part of the Democratic Republic of the United States, and are not an intrinsic feature of Democracy qua Democracy...

I disagree. The people who founded the nation thought they were essential for democratic government.

Again, this begins with philosophy. And at the roots is the philosophy to expand the rights and powers and potentials of humanity. It is not a philosophy about the acquisition of material objects and wealth. It is a philosophy about using society through democratically controlled governments to realize the human potential within that society.

So any government based on this philosophy is going to erect protections for minorities.

 

[Wiploc]

I know a lot of GOPers who like to think they are libertarians except when it comes to abortion, women, sex, homosexuality, drugs, the military, geopolitics, personal rights, crime and punishment, corporatism, cronyism, smaller government...etc.

I love this!

 

[Emily Lake]

Some things do need protection from the whims of the majority. Even though I believe a well educated majority will not have any reason to take them away. So you protect speech and religious practice and other things from potential whims of a majority.

How do you do this, if there is no state? How do you do this, if everything is decided by true majority vote?

 

[untermensche]

Some things do need protection from the whims of the majority. Even though I believe a well educated majority will not have any reason to take them away. So you protect speech and religious practice and other things from potential whims of a majority.

How do you do this, if there is no state? How do you do this, if everything is decided by true majority vote?

I am talking about a transition towards a stateless society from where we are now, not something that cannot be more than a vague abstraction to people living today, a stateless society itself.

So in this transition towards increased democratic control, the rights of minorities are protected as they are now, in Constitutions and in the courts.

The American founders moved us a bit towards democratic control. They eliminated the monarchy. But they devised a system to allow the most wealthy to have inordinate control. Some of them explicitly stated that the people who run the country should be the people that own it.

 

[Emily Lake]

How do you do this, if there is no state? How do you do this, if everything is decided by true majority vote?

I am talking about a transition towards a stateless society from where we are now, not something that cannot be more than a vague abstraction to people living today, a stateless society itself.

So in this transition towards increased democratic control, the rights of minorities are protected as they are now, in Constitutions and in the courts.

The American founders moved us a bit towards democratic control. They eliminated the monarchy. But they devised a system to allow the most wealthy to have inordinate control. Some of them explicitly stated that the people who run the country should be the people that own it.

How does that differ from what most libertarians want? To transition to a system with more actual democratic control, more disseminated authority in the hands of the people and the local communities... but retaining the justice system and the constitution? Less centralized power, more civil rights? Aside from the question of the ownership of business, I'm not sure I see that your goals differ from theirs.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about a transition towards a stateless society from where we are now, not something that cannot be more than a vague abstraction to people living today, a stateless society itself.

So in this transition towards increased democratic control, the rights of minorities are protected as they are now, in Constitutions and in the courts.

The American founders moved us a bit towards democratic control. They eliminated the monarchy. But they devised a system to allow the most wealthy to have inordinate control. Some of them explicitly stated that the people who run the country should be the people that own it.

How does that differ from what most libertarians want? To transition to a system with more actual democratic control, more disseminated authority in the hands of the people and the local communities... but retaining the justice system and the constitution? Less centralized power, more civil rights? Aside from the question of the ownership of business, I'm not sure I see that your goals differ from theirs.

There are libertarians and there are Libertarians.

Libertarians with a capital "L" want to eliminate government protections from concentrated private wealth. They may say that they believe unions have the right to exist but they don't support them as one of the few checks on concentrated capital to prevent abuse and theft. They see nothing wrong with rigid top down power systems in economic institutions. They don't believe in increasing democratic control. They talk of "the mob".

They are elitists, not democrats. They are on the side of the rich elites, not the majority.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fair enough. Let's assume that we're talking about libertarians with a little "l" then. Aside from the question of ownership of companies, how do your goals differ from theirs?

 

[untermensche]

Fair enough. Let's assume that we're talking about libertarians with a little "l" then. Aside from the question of ownership of companies, how do your goals differ from theirs?

I think the main goal right now is to introduce democratic control into the workplace.

From that many good things flow. One being a more vibrant economy because workers will have more to spend.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Fair enough. Let's assume that we're talking about libertarians with a little "l" then. Aside from the question of ownership of companies, how do your goals differ from theirs?

I think the main goal right now is to introduce democratic control into the workplace.

From that many good things flow. One being a more vibrant economy because workers will have more to spend.

And this has been discussed elsewhere before. It will be only a temporary boost and then the economy will stall.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fair enough. Let's assume that we're talking about libertarians with a little "l" then. Aside from the question of ownership of companies, how do your goals differ from theirs?

I think the main goal right now is to introduce democratic control into the workplace.

From that many good things flow. One being a more vibrant economy because workers will have more to spend.

If I understand the principles correctly, no libertarian should object to that, provided that you aren't forcing that democratic control to exist. As long as you allow that some people may freely choose not to be owner-workers, then there should be no objection from libertarians.

And although this would be counter to the long-term principles for both you and libertarians... it seems like the way to get here would be to work through the existing government and create legislative and tax incentives that favor worker-owned businesses. Theoretically, it would be a pragmatic, short-term step along the way to your end goal, correct? Even though it would temporarily leverage a larger state hand in the pie.

The challenge of course, is getting our senators and representatives to support that legislation.

 

[Emily Lake]

And this has been discussed elsewhere before. It will be only a temporary boost and then the economy will stall.

I don't know that this would be the case. I think the stall is less likely to be economic in nature, and more likely to be one of human desire and risk-appetite. Assuming an otherwise free economy, and only a partial increase in worker-owned businesses (not forced conversion of all businesses), I don't see any reason why this would result in an economic slow down. I don't have any particular math to back it up, but I would suspect that the vast majority of our small businesses and franchised operations could easily function as worker-owned businesses with virtually no impact to the economy. For large businesses, it would depend substantially on the industry; most retail could probably work just fine.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And this has been discussed elsewhere before. It will be only a temporary boost and then the economy will stall.

I don't know that this would be the case. I think the stall is less likely to be economic in nature, and more likely to be one of human desire and risk-appetite. Assuming an otherwise free economy, and only a partial increase in worker-owned businesses (not forced conversion of all businesses), I don't see any reason why this would result in an economic slow down. I don't have any particular math to back it up, but I would suspect that the vast majority of our small businesses and franchised operations could easily function as worker-owned businesses with virtually no impact to the economy. For large businesses, it would depend substantially on the industry; most retail could probably work just fine.

The issue is that these systems don't grow, shrink, change very quickly. There is a reason we use a a representative government instead of a direct democracy to run our government. The command structure has it's benefits and it's drawbacks, and so does a democratically controlled group.

 

[Emily Lake]

The issue is that these systems don't grow, shrink, change very quickly. There is a reason we use a a representative government instead of a direct democracy to run our government. The command structure has it's benefits and it's drawbacks, and so does a democratically controlled group.

Very small businesses (say 1 to 25 employees) are likely able to gain consensus and respond quickly enough for most needs, with everyone directly involved. That covers a lot of your mom & pops and your fast food franchises and such.

Slightly larger businesses would need to make a choice. Not all businesses are fast paced industries; most retail isn't. For those that are, they would need to either accept that they're going to be slower to respond to market... or they would need to approach it with a workgroup splinter style approach. Just because it's employee-owned doesn't mean it can't still have specialized groups for specified types of decisions.

At the very least, you could have an employee elected board of directors, or the executive positions could be nominated and elected by employee vote. So the decision-making would still be representative, but the ownership and the leadership would still be at the behest of the employees, and perhaps for specified terms.

Nobody says there's only one way to solve this problem. We're speaking hypothetically. Let's design the options that would be most acceptable to as many of us as possible. Even if we never get it off the ground... we can't come up with a potential solution if we never even entertain the possibility that some alternative exists.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still don't personally want to be an owner, because I don't want the income fluctuation. I don't want the risk. That's an entirely different issue than that of response time and decision-making capacity, however. So let's set aside risk appetite for the moment and discuss ways that an organization might be structured to maximize democratic say in a business without jeopardizing response time, and with as little risk of gridlock as possible. We're smart, I bet we can come up with something. More than one something probably.