GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[dismal]

Libertarians and Anarchists are essentially the same thing at different ends of the spectrum, like Nazis and Communists.

Both believe the world would be better off without government. The difference is that Libertarians believe that with no government, people will act rationally according to their interests, and the economy will reward everyone according to their talents, while Anarchists maintain that with no government, everyone will rationally cooperate, sharing resources and taking only what they need.

Both beliefs are based on the false notion that people are fundamentally good and rational, and that government is unnecessary.

Correction: libertarians believe in a government that enforces libertarian principles.

 

[SimpleDon]

Since no one questioned my list of obvious contradictions in libertarian thinking by the rules of internet blogging I assume that they are an accepted part of the philosophy, but ones that no one is suppose to be rude enough to point out. It ruins the illusion of libertarian philosophy being in anyway a serious, obtainable, political philosophy.

But I do have one more obvious contradiction that applies to to this forum and its major theme.

We have people here who are quite proud of the fact that they have slipped the bounds of religion and the fantasy that surrounds it. Yet they have unquestionably adopted an equally fantasy based political and economic libertarian philosophy. Look at the similarities, religion depends on one or at most a few books of questionable origins for their authority. No matter how we start out when we discuss libertarian philosophy we always seem to get back to just a few books written by a half insane science fiction writer, Ayn Rand. At least the origins of those books are not in question, everyone involved accepts them as works of fiction.

At its core religion depends on faith, faith that god or gods exist. Faith defined as belief without evidence. Likewise the libertarian philosophy depends on faith, that a self-regulating free market can exist in spite of any evidence supporting it and a whole lot of practical experience that it can't exist. Libertarians must believe that the gold standard is the perfect form of money and that governments are pure evil intent on enslaving us all while corporations in the absence of government will be toothless tigers, completely at mercy of the markets, unable to satisfy their greed.

And most importantly libertarians must take it on pure faith that none of the features of our current economy are a part of it because of the market having freely selected them. That such things as;

• a preference for inflation over deflation
• profit making as a goal rather than the goal of optimizing the use of resources
• sticky prices and wages over prices and wages set by supply and demand
• bank credit, so-called fiat money over the gold standard
• stability over instability
• government regulation over an economic free for all
• laws and regulations were written as a reaction to bad behavior not capriciously to stifle freedom
• laws and regulations as a way for society to remember what works and what doesn't
• public capital for infrastructure, education, externalities, etc. in parallel with private capital

For the libertarian philosophy to be true all of these points and many more have to have been imposed by evil governments, not chosen by the markets themselves as a better way to do things. Because if they were chosen by the markets, and they were, there will be nothing to prevent the markets from choosing them again when it is free.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But I do have one more obvious contradiction that applies to to this forum and its major theme.

We have people here who are quite proud of the fact that they have slipped the bounds of religion and the fantasy that surrounds it. Yet they have unquestionably adopted an equally fantasy based political and economic libertarian philosophy. Look at the similarities, religion depends on one or at most a few books of questionable origins for their authority. No matter how we start out when we discuss libertarian philosophy we always seem to get back to just a few books written by a half insane science fiction writer, Ayn Rand. At least the origins of those books are not in question, everyone involved accepts them as works of fiction.

This is not limited to libertarianism, but is a major player in all politics that look to fundamentally change society. Many of the most prominent ideological-based political systems are in essence a millennial religions. The utopias of Libertarianism, Anarchism, Communism, etc.. are well and vividly prescribed. I wouldn't mind living in any of these in their ideal forms. The problem is that none of these systems will work in their ideal form once they come into contact with actual societies. However, humans have some basic needs. They need food, water, shelter, and because they are social animals: others. They need to belong and know that they are contributing to something greater than themselves. These last two are the qualities that drive religion and politics. Why do people who know about Xenu stay in Scientology? A sense of belonging and purpose.

At its core religion depends on faith, faith that god or gods exist. Faith defined as belief without evidence. Likewise the libertarian philosophy depends on faith, that a self-regulating free market can exist in spite of any evidence supporting it and a whole lot of practical experience that it can't exist. Libertarians must believe that the gold standard is the perfect form of money and that governments are pure evil intent on enslaving us all while corporations in the absence of government will be toothless tigers, completely at mercy of the markets, unable to satisfy their greed.

I don't know about the gold standard. Many libertarians I know are not interested in gold and would not advocate a gold standard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I identify a lot more with what libertarians have to say than what Republicans or Democrats in the USA have to say, and I usually find myself far to the left on most policy issues. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but it often makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is no more a "religion" than the mainstream conservative or liberal ideologies.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I identify a lot more with what libertarians have to say than what Republicans or Democrats in the USA have to say, and I usually find myself far to the left on most policy issues. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but it often makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is no more a "religion" than the mainstream conservative or liberal ideologies.

But do you believe a libertarian society would work? Or would it wind up oppressing the ones it supposedly lifts up?

 

[dismal]

I identify a lot more with what libertarians have to say than what Republicans or Democrats in the USA have to say, and I usually find myself far to the left on most policy issues. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but it often makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is no more a "religion" than the mainstream conservative or liberal ideologies.

But do you believe a libertarian society would work? Or would it wind up oppressing the ones it supposedly lifts up?

Try not to think of "a libertarian society" as a point. There is a spectrum of libertarianness, on which various societies could and do reside. Libertarians are people who generally believe a society more toward the libertarian end of the continuum produces better results than a society more toward the statist end.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I identify a lot more with what libertarians have to say than what Republicans or Democrats in the USA have to say, and I usually find myself far to the left on most policy issues. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but it often makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is no more a "religion" than the mainstream conservative or liberal ideologies.

But do you believe a libertarian society would work? Or would it wind up oppressing the ones it supposedly lifts up?

A purely libertarian society probably wouldn't work very well, no, but nor would a purely capitalist, communist, or democratic society. When you take ideologies to extremes, rarely do good things result. You need balance.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But do you believe a libertarian society would work? Or would it wind up oppressing the ones it supposedly lifts up?

A purely libertarian society probably wouldn't work very well, no, but nor would a purely capitalist, communist, or democratic society. When you take ideologies to extremes, rarely do good things result. You need balance.

Then you are a sensible person and do not believe in the political religion.

 

[SimpleDon]

Libertarians and Anarchists are essentially the same thing at different ends of the spectrum, like Nazis and Communists.

Both believe the world would be better off without government. The difference is that Libertarians believe that with no government, people will act rationally according to their interests, and the economy will reward everyone according to their talents, while Anarchists maintain that with no government, everyone will rationally cooperate, sharing resources and taking only what they need.

Both beliefs are based on the false notion that people are fundamentally good and rational, and that government is unnecessary.

Libertarian philosophy is an anarchist philosophy, the minimum amount of government possible. Libertarians are anarchists, as are Marxists. The final phase of Marxism is that the national government, the dictatorship of the proletariat, would fade away leaving only the local governments, the local communes, therefore communism.

Of course, it was the failure of the dictatorship to fade away that doomed Marxism and communism.

Libertarians, unlike Marxism, don't have a plan for transitioning to the unrestricted free market. It is obvious from their theory that quite a lot will have to change for their vision to come into force. But the best that you can get from them is that the market and society in general will see the advantages of their vision and slowly the market and society will move toward the free market.

This becomes something of a problem though. Seemly no two libertarians can agree on what the final product of the vision will look like and how it will operate. They agree that they will have to a limited government to adjudicate disputes, specifically to enforce contracts and to maintain property rights. But they can't even agree on what constitutes property. They are conflicted over intellectual property, ideas, whether IP is legitimate property and whether their limited government should protect it. We are talking about patents, trademarks and copyrights.

This is not a trivial question. About 40% of the laws and regulations on the books in the US right now concern IP. A like amount of the civil suits are about IP. And most of the real money behind the libertarians comes from corporate sources, money that supports their think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and others as well as supporting the economics departments that are Austrian economics ones, Auburn, George Mason University, the City College of New York, etc. These corporations aren't supporting the libertarians so that they can eventually lose all of their intellectual property. The last estimate of the total value of IP in the US was 5 trillion dollars in 2008, six years ago. That was about 10% of all of the property in the whole country.

What I have found out when I question libertarians for details about what laws and regulations that their limited government will have is that they will have virtually all of the laws and regulations that we have right now. That the opposition to regulations is more against the idea of them rather than the reality of them. That laws and regulations covering IP, remember those corporate dollars, building codes, workplace safety, food and drug purity, child labor laws, anti-slavery and, of course, contract laws and laws establishing real property rights will remain in some undefined form.They are conflicted on environmental laws, workplace rules like work hours, holidays, vacations, etc., with most, not all, against them. The only law that they all seem to be against is the minimum wage.

They also seem to agree that property and resources belong to the first person who claims it. That there is no validity in the idea of property owned by the government that it can in turn sell to whom ever they want. If you are concerned that they want to give all of the US back to the Indians don't be concerned, apparently they have a white man work around that keeps this from happening. I just don't remember what it is right now and have no inclination to look it up. It is a guarantee that it is total bullsh*t, these are libertarians that we are talking about here.

This raises interesting questions involving the environment and pollution. The first claimant principle also applies to a company's ability to pollute the air and water. Rather than regulations limiting the pollution that a facility can release most libertarians seem to agree that production facilities that pollute should write contracts with the people and communities affected by the pollution, with people who moved into the area when the pollution was already being admitted will have to pay the facility to reduce the pollution. Only people who lived in the area before the polluting facility started up will not have to pay.

So in summary they don't know how we will transition to the self-regulating free market and they don't know what it will be like or how it will operate or how it will be different from what we have today. But according to them, cue the starry eyed gaze into a brighter future, it will be wonderful.

If these few explanations have left you with more questions than answers, you are probably not a good candidate to become a libertarian. I have found them to be singly unconcerned by the contradictions and the details of their philosophy, especially the economics side of it. Most seem to be happy that they will finally be able to legally buy drugs and that others are willing to fight their wars. Maybe that says it all.

 

[SimpleDon]

I never understood why libertarians would be considered the political right in the first place. They are more their own thing, no? They are for legalization of drugs, hookers, marriage equality, etc. They are against the military industrial complex. They just also happen to be against gun control, socialized anything (medicine, schools, whatever), and want minimal goverment. Do I have that about right?

You are talking about the culture wars and the pro-corporation agenda of the right, which libertarians disagree with. But the basic thrust of libertarian philosophy is really reactionary, the desire to return to simpler, less troubled times. It is this that puts them firmly on the right, the far right in fact. In fact the current Republican party is largely reactionary too, except that they want to rollback the clock to the 1950's, especially on the social and cultural and social side of things. It is not easy to figure out where the libertarians want to rollback to, but if I had to put a date to it I would say the gilded age, say 1890's, at least for the economy. The gold standard, free banking, no government regulations, when a man could form a monopoly if his balls were big enough. When the poor could starve without all of the fuss that we have now and everyone except the damn Wobblies knew their place. Google it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A "libertarian society" is an interesting concept the way it is used here. Libertarians believe their philosophy is a philosophy of government, and we are careful to point out that it is really nothing more than a philosophy of government. You'll seldom find libertarians discussing a libertarian society.

 

[untermensche]

A "libertarian society" is an interesting concept the way it is used here. Libertarians believe their philosophy is a philosophy of government, and we are careful to point out that it is really nothing more than a philosophy of government. You'll seldom find libertarians discussing a libertarian society.

That's one of the criticism of Libertarian doctrine.

It is blind to the effects it's ideas will have on society.

Particularly the effects of increasing economic disparity and lessening the ability of government to deal with collected capital.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A "libertarian society" is an interesting concept the way it is used here. Libertarians believe their philosophy is a philosophy of government, and we are careful to point out that it is really nothing more than a philosophy of government. You'll seldom find libertarians discussing a libertarian society.

That's one of the criticism of Libertarian doctrine.

It is blind to the effects it's ideas will have on society.

Particularly the effects of increasing economic disparity and lessening the ability of government to deal with collected capital.

Yeah, if the government isn't telling people how to live their lives, they might make the wrong decisions and do things you don't approve of.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A "libertarian society" is an interesting concept the way it is used here. Libertarians believe their philosophy is a philosophy of government, and we are careful to point out that it is really nothing more than a philosophy of government. You'll seldom find libertarians discussing a libertarian society.

Really, because I've discussed this society in depth. From how you would build and maintain roads to what to do with those pesky people who don't own real property.

 

[Sarpedon]

That's because there has never been a libertarian society. It is all based on the 18th century notion of 'man in a state of nature,' which philosophers like Locke supposed humans came from, and used it to inform their political views. The trouble is that humans have never existed in a 'state of nature,' like the one they supposed, where people are completely free, resources are unlimited, and so forth. We have evolved in social groups, with social groups existing before our big brains did. Humans have never lived as self sufficient individuals.

Its all fiction, based on an obsolete supposition of philosophers living three hundred years ago.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nice distortion of Locke's writing, in which the state of nature that comes before the creation of the social contract is actually not at all considered to be the libertarian society.

So, are the group of you discussing additional reasons why Republicans don't want libertarian-minded people to participate? Good.

 

[dismal]

A "libertarian society" is an interesting concept the way it is used here. Libertarians believe their philosophy is a philosophy of government, and we are careful to point out that it is really nothing more than a philosophy of government. You'll seldom find libertarians discussing a libertarian society.

Really, because I've discussed this society in depth. From how you would build and maintain roads to what to do with those pesky people who don't own real property.

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

Ya, but then the libertarian government would go and hide in a magic valley and leave the world to burn down under the incompetent mismanagement of the road-building government.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Really, because I've discussed this society in depth. From how you would build and maintain roads to what to do with those pesky people who don't own real property.

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

Interesting that the person I was discussing this with said that private roads were the way to go.

 

[dismal]

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

Interesting that the person I was discussing this with said that private roads were the way to go.

There are some people that think this. Just like there are some people that think the government should control the means of production. But as I have mentioned there is a continuum of libertarianness. It is not a point.