The Religion Of Libertarianism

[Tom Sawyer]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

The theoretical consequences of anarchist philosophies are based on reality.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, lots of them.

Anarchists generally recognize the links between economic and political power. The Libertarian pretends that government is the product of the poor masses, and that economic power should be wielded unchecked.

An Anarchist will generally aim for equality between people. Equality, to a Libertarian, means equality in a narrow sense as people should be treated by government equally lightly, with little government interference to anyone. While this sounds nice, in practice it leads to the rich and powerful wielding their power unchecked, and the poor having no protections.

Libertarians do believe in government. If you read the many discussions we've had on here, you will see that they believe that there should be courts and police. Indeed, lawsuits are their primary recourse for wrongs. Despite that seeming contradiction, their system makes sense if the police and courts could be trusted to be impartial mediators.

And so forth. People often call Libertarians fascists in disguise, just as anarchists are called socialists in disguise. There is some, but not a great deal of truth to both.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchists start their examination of society by looking at power structures. They seek to control the power of individuals to turn others into their tools. They seek to reduce the power of some to live as fat parasites off the labor of others.

How is power arranged? Who has power and how is that power implemented?

The problem for humans has always been power in the wrong hands and power of some over others that is illegitimate and should not exist.

Anarchists believe that in most cases power should be democratically put into motion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What I'm seeing here is two distinct arguments, but they closely relate to each other.

The first is "people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do." The other is "people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do by people like me." The first has the person making the argument that he is inferior, and needs to be led by the superior. The second has the person making the argument that he is superior, and needs to lead the inferior. It is, from a libertarian point of view, a false dichotomy, and it says far more about the people making the argument than it does about libertarianism.

Still, those stuck within that paradigm see libertarians saying "don't tell me what to do" and react with "since they feel they aren't part of the inferior, they must feel they are part of the superior." No, because our interest is in neither being master nor servant. Still, because we "think we are part of the superior" we are deemed arrogant and et cetera.

I don't know what is best for you. Therefore I do not feel any right to rule you. You don't know what is best for me. Therefore I deny your assertion that you can rule me.

Yes, there is a difference between libertarian and anarchist. First of all, which kind of anarchist? I'll assume you mean anarcho-capitalist, because that is the only kind in which the question makes sense.

Libertarians generally are minarchists. The belief is that since nobody really knows what is best for someone else, there should be as little government as possible. A night-watchman state that does little more than go after those criminals who violate the rights of others - rights being non-competitive and non-conflicting by nature. Anarcho-capitalists believe that even that much government is too much. Most critics say "but this will lead to monopoly" and then point to instances of government granted monopolies as evidence (see above where I addressed California's electricity "deregulation" disaster).

Anarcho-communists think that is some weird form of fascist, for reasons they cannot explain. An-caps say an-coms contradict themselves. An-coms say an-caps don't exist.

 

[bilby]

What I'm seeing here is two distinct arguments, but they closely relate to each other.

The first is "people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do." The other is "people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do by people like me." The first has the person making the argument that he is inferior, and needs to be led by the superior. The second has the person making the argument that he is superior, and needs to lead the inferior. It is, from a libertarian point of view, a false dichotomy, and it says far more about the people making the argument than it does about libertarianism.

Still, those stuck within that paradigm see libertarians saying "don't tell me what to do" and react with "since they feel they aren't part of the inferior, they must feel they are part of the superior." No, because our interest is in neither being master nor servant. Still, because we "think we are part of the superior" we are deemed arrogant and et cetera.

I don't know what is best for you. Therefore I do not feel any right to rule you. You don't know what is best for me. Therefore I deny your assertion that you can rule me.

Yes, there is a difference between libertarian and anarchist. First of all, which kind of anarchist? I'll assume you mean anarcho-capitalist, because that is the only kind in which the question makes sense.

Libertarians generally are minarchists. The belief is that since nobody really knows what is best for someone else, there should be as little government as possible. A night-watchman state that does little more than go after those criminals who violate the rights of others - rights being non-competitive and non-conflicting by nature. Anarcho-capitalists believe that even that much government is too much. Most critics say "but this will lead to monopoly" and then point to instances of government granted monopolies as evidence (see above where I addressed California's electricity "deregulation" disaster).

Anarcho-communists think that is some weird form of fascist, for reasons they cannot explain. An-caps say an-coms contradict themselves. An-coms say an-caps don't exist.

What I'm seeing here is you excluding the middle.

"people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do." - the person making the argument says that he is inferior, and needs to be led by the superior.

"people are too stupid to be left alone therefore they need to be told what to do by people like me." - the person making the argument says that he is superior, and needs to lead the inferior.​

Both are, in fact, true.

It all comes down to expertise and situation. Try this:

"people are too stupid to rewire their own homes, therefore they need to hire an electrician." - the person making the argument says that he is not an electrician, and needs to be helped by an electrician.

"people are too stupid to rewire their own homes therefore they need to be told what to do by electricians like me." - the person making the argument says that he is an electrician, and needs to help those who are not electricians.​

No dichotomy - just the recognition that some people are experts at doing some things, and that those people should be the ones doing those things, rather than having unqualified people try to do everything themselves.

You can replace 'electrician' and 'rewire a home' with any set of expert and skill:

"people are too stupid to do heart surgery therefore they need to be told what to do by cardiac surgeons like me." - the person making the argument says that he is a cardiac surgeon, and needs to help those who are not cardiac surgeons.

"people are too stupid to pass laws therefore they need to be told what to do by politicians like me." - the person making the argument says that he is a politician, and needs to help those who are not politicians.​

Of course, you don't just take somebody's word that they are an electrician, cardiac surgeon, or politician; You check out their prices, their credentials, and their record of success or failure at their chosen profession, and you pick the one you think is the best value.

Libertarians who say "don't tell me what to do" are strongly reminiscent of teenagers who are busy wiring the live wire in a plug to the earth terminal, while refusing to accept that they may not be qualified to do the task at hand.

NOBODY is an expert at everything - or even at most things. In each situation, there are people who ARE superior, and those who ARE inferior; And pretending that there are not is FUCKING STUPID. The question of who is superior (and how we can tell) is different in each situation. A cardiac surgeon doesn't say 'The electrician is better than me at wiring a house, so I will let him do the heart transplant', any more than the electrician says 'The cardiac surgeon is better than me at transplanting hearts, so I will let him rewire my house'.

The idea that you can rank people into a single and definitive order from most to least competent that applies to all circumstances* is at the heart of your argument here - and it's a very silly idea indeed. As are the conclusions to which it leads you.







*Including the idea that everyone is equal - which is the special case in which that single and definitive list places everyone in equal first spot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And your "what my argument fails to include" is actually an equivocation.

If I hire an electrician, that makes me the boss even though the electrician is an expert. That is entirely unlike the "tell people what to do" in a political sense, which is how I meant it and you knew that was how I meant it. Yes, it is FUCKING STUPID to confuse the two.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And your "what my argument fails to include" is actually an equivocation.

If I hire an electrician, that makes me the boss even though the electrician is an expert. That is entirely unlike the "tell people what to do" in a political sense, which is how I meant it and you knew that was how I meant it. Yes, it is FUCKING STUPID to confuse the two.

It's a foolish boss who ignores his experts. Just sayin'.

 

[bilby]

And your "what my argument fails to include" is actually an equivocation.

If I hire an electrician, that makes me the boss even though the electrician is an expert. That is entirely unlike the "tell people what to do" in a political sense, which is how I meant it and you knew that was how I meant it. Yes, it is FUCKING STUPID to confuse the two.

No, it's not at all unlike 'tell people what to do' in the political sense; Which is why I included a politician as one of my examples.

It would be FUCKING STUPID to imagine that a politician in a representative democracy is any less an expert, or any less an employee, than an electrician is. The only difference is that (like an electrician employed by a corporation), the politician is hired and fired by a collective decision of a group of decision makers, not by a single individual.

But nice try.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I do expect a politician to be less an expert. They are experts at politics, but that's about it.

That's why we should respect their opinion on education, medicine, technology, the internet, employment, transportation, trade, finance, etc. That's because they are less an expert.

Oh, but if we give them a magic title, and if more people put their name in a box than did for their opponent, they acquire the necessary expertise.

There's a huge difference between your example and politics, and ignoring that difference is FUCKING STUPID. It elects a foolish boss who ignores his experts.

 

[bilby]

I do expect a politician to be less an expert. They are experts at politics, but that's about it.

That's their JOB. Why do you think that's any more a problem than an electrician who isn't an expert in education, medicine, technology, the internet, employment, transportation, trade, finance, etc.?

Part of a politician's job is to determine who the experts in those things are; Listen to their opinions, and make informed decisions based on their advice.

Would you rather have an electrician doing that job? If so, why?

Of course, some politicians are not great at their jobs. But that's true of some of ANY profession. And the blame lies, as with any profession, with he people who hired an incompetent.

That is, the public.

That is, the people you were just telling us were the best qualified to do everything.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It's much better to have someone who doesn't know what they're talking about than someone who does know what they're talking about. Duh.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/wa...kward-admission-georgia-gubernatorial-debate/

...
As CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski noted on Twitter, the alarm went off during the live debate just as Libertarian candidate Ted Metz explained that people who work for government agencies he’d close as governor should “get another job.”
...
Mr. Metz, you’ve promised to cut spending by slashing what you call ‘obsolete, inefficient, unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies.'” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s Greg Bluestein asked the candidate. “What specifically would you eliminate and what do you say to Georgians who might depend on their services?” “Get another job,” the Libertarian answered — but the end of his short sentence was drowned out by the fire alarm that sounded remarkably like a game show buzzer.

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

Whyt Libertarians rarely get elected.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Anarchists are against private property. Libertarians are for private property. But libertarians haven't really figured out ways property rights can be defended.

Both are pie in the sky fantasies.

 

[Canard DuJour]

What part of Libertarianism - stopped child labor exploitation? Can you explain better?

The part that, because of the free market, the standard of living was raised to the point where children no longer needed to work the way they had in the days before the standard of living rose, when everyone worked grueling labor on the farm.

That's not actually what happened, though.

Indeed not.

In Britain, child labour in factories, mines and mills increased for nearly a century while conditions worsened, until a sweeping series of gov't interventions - The Factory Acts - the first of which in 1833 mandated :

• no child workers under nine years of age
• employers must have an age certificate for their child workers
• children of 9-13 years to work no more than nine hours a day
• children of 13-18 years to work no more than 12 hours a day
• children are not to work at night
• two hours schooling each day for children

Nothing else worked.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Libertarians are (to quote Kim Stanley Robinson) anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

 

[untermensche]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Anarchists are against private property. Libertarians are for private property. But libertarians haven't really figured out ways property rights can be defended.

Both are pie in the sky fantasies.

Anarchists have no problem with private property.

They like the idea of people owning homes.

They do not like the idea of people making money off renting to people though. Non-profit renting is fine.

They don't like the idea of someone living as a parasite off another because they have property.

The parasitic nature of humans is not encouraged or tolerated by Anarchists.

They actually believe that all humans have the same value.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ycu8Rlu7TBY[/YOUTUBE]

"American libertarians are less a political party and more like a fundamentalist religious group who believe that the free market is their lord and savior. Here's why their platform might sound charmingly weird in theory, but in practice it's harmful."

Awesome. Another fine propaganda piece by Al-Jazeera. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzV8OY0-f30

Disagreed Libertarianism is a religion, but the irony of a government-supported media group based in a country with both a monarchy and an official religion (Islam) is labeling an American political group as a "religion" is amusing.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Libertarians are (to quote Kim Stanley Robinson) anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

Here is a fuller quote from his 1993 book "Green Mars": "Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. No! If you want to make the minimum-state case, you have to argue it from the ground up."

He also wrote these two gems: "You can't get any movement larger than five people without including at least one fucking idiot." and "It was not power that corrupted people, but fools who corrupted power."

The latter two apply to the Republican and Democratic parties as well as any others.

FWIW, the Libertarian party has evolved for the better in the past 25 years since that book was written.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Anarchists are against private property. Libertarians are for private property. But libertarians haven't really figured out ways property rights can be defended.

Both are pie in the sky fantasies.

I think the Libertarians are making a lot more headway on the ideas of property rights, national relations, trade, etc. The larger the party becomes, the more mainstrean it has to become....meaning a lot of the fringe ideas go away.


Here are some LP platform ideas I agree with: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." It then follows that abortion, drugs and self-defense all fall under the maxim of personal choice.

The US Constitution doesn't give Americans their rights. Those rights are unalienable. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government and, to an extent, local and state governments (laws of which must pass a Constitutional test). The LP follows that philosophy whereas the Democratic and Republican parties seek to pass more and more authoritarian rules which restrict personal rights.

 

[untermensche]

Libertarians have a lot of great ideas within the context of current protections.

But minus some protections, some government regulations, some infringement on the autonomy of humans, life will become more intolerable for many and better for only a few.