GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[SimpleDon]

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.

Libertarian philosophy's appeal is in its simplistic nature, just let the free market loose. It is easy to understand and foolproof as long as you accept that the self-regulating free market can exist. But this, like religions with their angels, devils and gods, requires faith because a self-regulating free market has never existed and every attempt to make our current economy more closely resemble the self-regulating free market has ended in disaster, the most recent example being the Great Financial Crisis and Recession of 2008, which cost the US more wealth in one event than all of the welfare programs in our history have cost us, in total.

It is as if I came to you and said that I have a foolproof way to get rid of the courts, the police and the jails. That there is a theory that there is an eternal life after death, but only for those people who behave in this life. It means that people would not commit crimes any longer for fear that they would miss out on eternal life. The only thing that is required for the system to work would be that everyone believes in it.

What argument can you have against it? Especially with a believer.

It is is this aspect of libertarian philosophy that resembles a religion. It requires an absolute faith that the self-regulating free market can exist. If you except this, and apparently you do, there is no way that I can talk you out of this faith in something that has never been seen, something that can't even be supported by any progression of theory starting from what we see in the economy that we have right now.

I would be really happy if there was an eternal life after death. I have a fatal disease and face my own mortality every day. But it hasn't come anywhere close to me kneeling in a church to a god that I know doesn't and can't exise Likewise it would be wonderful if there was a clockwork mechanism perpetual motion economic machine that could provide for all of us while promoting social justice too.

So tell me, what tenets of conservative or liberal faith in the US do you consider to be less likely than the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that can prevent the worse behavior of greedy men through the simple mechanism of prices set by supply and demand down to the marginal cost of the last product produced?

The one thing that has to be true to fall for believe in libertarian economics. Or is it just the appeal of legal recreational drugs?

And what has convinced you that the free market can exist? Is it because a lot of other people believe it?

Then why don't you believe that faith in an eternal life after death can prevent crime?

 

[Emily Lake]

But I don't WANT to be an owner. I don't want the risk. I don't want to worry about the risks associated with having a stake in revenue. I just want a steady paycheck, and to do a simple job, and go home without having to make any big decisions. Why would you deny my that freedom?

You wouldn't be forced to anything more than you already do.

But you would have the opportunity to have more control of your overall life.

I'm satisfied with the control I have right now... But I freely admit that I have significantly more agency than many others do. I'm in a narrow field, and even within that field I have a specialized skill set. I'm not easily replaced, so I have high negotiating power. Demand for my skills is not negligible, supply is limited.

Part of worker control also means that viable jobs won't be sent overseas simply so nonworking investors can make more.

Maybe. But it might also mean that all of your worker-owners would see that they make more money by moving those jobs anyway. You never know. People aren't 100% rational. What do you think your worker-owners will vote to do when the reality requires that they either cut everyone's salaries by 40% or they lay off 40% of the employees? What if a 40% pay cut puts everyone below the poverty line and in an untenable position?

- - - Updated - - -

What does the term "too big to fail" mean to you?

Means the government and the corporation are so intertwined that they can't make a rational choice to excise necrotic tissue.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But I don't WANT to be an owner. I don't want the risk. I don't want to worry about the risks associated with having a stake in revenue. I just want a steady paycheck, and to do a simple job, and go home without having to make any big decisions. Why would you deny my that freedom?

You wouldn't be forced to anything more than you already do.

But you would have the opportunity to have more control of your overall life.

Part of worker control also means that viable jobs won't be sent overseas simply so nonworking investors can make more.

And you can go do that right now. Go set up your own hot dog stand outside of Home Depot, or guess what set it up where you want. You won't have anybody telling you that you need to be in by 8am or you can take 365 days of vacation or surf any website you want. You can even start your own hot dog co-op and have everybody vote.

 

[untermensche]

Means the government and the corporation are so intertwined that they can't make a rational choice to excise necrotic tissue.

That's a unique definition.

Mine would be a corporation that can blackmail a government and demand immediate attention.

I think you are right about the deep connections between the government and corporations, but that doesn't also mean there are some corporations that get special protections from the government based only on their size and the potential effect of their collapse, not because of a political connection.

 

[untermensche]

You wouldn't be forced to anything more than you already do.

But you would have the opportunity to have more control of your overall life.

Part of worker control also means that viable jobs won't be sent overseas simply so nonworking investors can make more.

And you can go do that right now. Go set up your own hot dog stand outside of Home Depot, or guess what set it up where you want. You won't have anybody telling you that you need to be in by 8am or you can take 365 days of vacation or surf any website you want. You can even start your own hot dog co-op and have everybody vote.

It's happening.

But minus violent revolution the transition will be slow. Capitalism is a violent system and an amoral system that doesn't care about things like the rights of workers. And presently we have many bought and paid for corporate Justices on the Supreme Court.

 

[Emily Lake]

Means the government and the corporation are so intertwined that they can't make a rational choice to excise necrotic tissue.

That's a unique definition.

Mine would be a corporation that can blackmail a government and demand immediate attention.

I certainly don't disagree with your definition!

I think you are right about the deep connections between the government and corporations, but that doesn't also mean there are some corporations that get special protections from the government based only on their size and the potential effect of their collapse, not because of a political connection.

I think the two are not necessarily separable. Although it may be possible, I strongly suspect that there's a bit of a critical mass to companies, that cannot be exceeded without some tacit government support. I don't think they can grow that large without government "backing" in the form of preferential and favorable legislation. So I don't think the political connection can be so easily dismissed.

But minus violent revolution the transition will be slow. Capitalism is a violent system and an amoral system that doesn't care about things like the rights of workers. And presently we have many bought and paid for corporate Justices on the Supreme Court.

The problem with violent revolution is that it's... well... violent.

I agree that captalism is amoral; so is socialism and communism and anarchism for that matter. All such structures are amoral. The only morality are those imposed by the people existing within that structure. The structure itself possesses no reasoning faculties, and thus has no inherent sense of right or wrong.

I disagree that capitalism is violent. There is nothing inherently violent about capitalism, no more than there is anything inherently violent about communism or anarchism.

As for the Supreme Court... remember my earlier complaint about corporations being in bed with government? I consider the judicial branch to be part of government

 

[untermensche]

I think you are right about the deep connections between the government and corporations, but that doesn't also mean there are some corporations that get special protections from the government based only on their size and the potential effect of their collapse, not because of a political connection.

I think the two are not necessarily separable. Although it may be possible, I strongly suspect that there's a bit of a critical mass to companies, that cannot be exceeded without some tacit government support. I don't think they can grow that large without government "backing" in the form of preferential and favorable legislation. So I don't think the political connection can be so easily dismissed.

It's not dismissed.

But other situations exist besides the deep connection between government and corporations, the so-called "revolving door".

Huge corporations are able to do many things without the help of the government.

I agree that captalism is amoral; so is socialism and communism and anarchism for that matter. All such structures are amoral. The only morality are those imposed by the people existing within that structure. The structure itself possesses no reasoning faculties, and thus has no inherent sense of right or wrong.

A system can have a moral foundation or it can have no moral foundation.

There is no moral foundation to capitalism. That is why when it arrives you have all these sweat shops with abuses like child labor, long hours without breaks, miserable pay, and unsafe working conditions. There was no morality governing the system.

When the unions arose and began to demand decent conditions they were attacked and killed. Again because there was no moral foundation.

But Anarchism has as it's foundation moral principles. At it's foundation is the principle that all power has to justify itself. It is more than just an economic system. The economic system flows from moral foundations. That is why democratic worker owned and controlled economic institutions are supported.

I disagree that capitalism is violent. There is nothing inherently violent about capitalism, no more than there is anything inherently violent about communism or anarchism.

Mainly I mean that American capitalism is especially violent.

All one has to look at is how the capitalists responded to unions to see this inherent nature.

But a lot of American violence in service to capitalists occurs overseas.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

That's what we have now. Libertarians aren't advocates of the status quo.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

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?

 

[untermensche]

What is your plan to keep the bigger thugs in check?

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.

 

[TacticalLoco]

For years I've been advocating that the last few libertarians still in the GOP move on and out of a party that doesn't want them.

The good news is that the Democrats are willing to move sharply to the right in order to woo these new voters.

Because many of their ideas actually appeal to the lefties!

 

[Canard DuJour]

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 (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..)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What is your plan to keep the bigger thugs in check?

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.

Without restraints of some kind, democracy is nothing more than the majority beating up the weird kid. You see it on elementary school playgrounds.

What is your plan to keep democracy in check?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Without restraints of some kind, democracy is nothing more than the majority beating up the weird kid. You see it on elementary school playgrounds.

What is your plan to keep democracy in check?

There are people who fear the majority.

And there are people like me and Jefferson who don't.

The majority is the sane vote. The minorities at the fringes, that now decide elections because the system is bent that way, are what we should fear.

How is it this tiny insane fringe called the Tea Party can wield so much power?

They have backing from billionaires, not a vote of approval from the majority.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The majority is the sane vote.

Tell that to Socrates. Majority rule is not a panacea. There are times when the majority is wrong. If there are no checks on the rule of the majority it is nothing more than mob rule and there is no redress except treason. This is what you advocate?

 

[untermensche]

The majority is the sane vote.

Tell that to Socrates. Majority rule is not a panacea. There are times when the majority is wrong. If there are no checks on the rule of the majority it is nothing more than mob rule and there is no redress except treason. This is what you advocate?

If you have to go all the way back to Socrates and what may or may not have happened to him, you are making my point.

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

 

[EricK]

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

And what if the majority don't want that?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Tell that to Socrates. Majority rule is not a panacea. There are times when the majority is wrong. If there are no checks on the rule of the majority it is nothing more than mob rule and there is no redress except treason. This is what you advocate?

If you have to go all the way back to Socrates and what may or may not have happened to him, you are making my point.

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

Remember, democratic rule hasn't been around during all of human history. A very horrific and recent example of majority abuse would be the Rwandan Genocide.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

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?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

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.

 

[SimpleDon]

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

That is the libertarian belief. Power should be checked. And that power is government.

This is one more of the problems with the libertarian philosophy. They are largely trying to solve problems that we don't have. We are not suffering under a totalitarian government that offers us no recourse. A government that controls the means of production either directly by ownership or indirectly by regulation. That is what Ayn Rand was ineffectively ranting against. That what Hayek's Road to Sedition was leading to. Neither were talking about the liberal, in the classic sense, Western Democracies with a government/private enterprise mixed economy,

As a case in point a vast majority of libertarians complain about the so-called problem of the government through the central bank creating inflation by printing too much money. This is ridiculous. No central bank creates money to cause inflation. No central bank has ever "printed money" to cause inflation.

And because of this fake, non-existent problem the vast majority of libertarian want to take away the central banks’ ability to set interest rates, ironically the main way that we have controlled inflation successfully for the last sixty years or so.

A majority of libertarians including many here go so far as to prove that inflation is caused by central banks by redefining the word "inflation" to mean increases in the money supply instead of its widely accepted meaning in economics as a general economy wide increase in prices.

Many libertarians go so far as to suggest that this non-problem justifies returning to the gold standard for money, a move that would be a certain disaster for the economy. Instead of the money supply growing in reaction to demand like it does in the current system of bank credit money creation, the money supply under a gold standard would be artificially constrained producing certain deflation. We would be trading the highly unlikely possibility of a rogue government intentionally producing run away inflation for the certainty of the hardest thing for a capitalistic economy to cope with, deflation.

And for those who claim that most libertarians don't favor a return to the gold standard be aware that at the urging of the libertarian representatives on the platform committee the Republican party endorsed a economy destroying return to the gold standard in the Republican's 2012 election platform. This is another very good reason that the Republicans bare not very appreciative of libertarian support.