What is Libertarianism?

[AthenaAwakened]

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

So Libertarianism is undefinable? Well, that certainly explains the confusion.

Seems like.

I'm not sure how a person is supposed to grasp a philosophy as changing and solid and open to interpretation as a face in a cloud.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

So Libertarianism is undefinable? Well, that certainly explains the confusion.

No more undefinable or agreed to by libertarians than the basic principles of the Democrat or Republican parties are agreed to by democrats or republicans. Try to get agreement from democrats, republicans, socialists, marxists, anarchists, etc as to what the philosophy of their chosen governmental form is and you will get as much or more differences than among libertarians.

 

[untermensche]

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

This is fair enough, but it is closer to blind worship of the Constitution than a philosophy.

Keeping an eye on the power of government is important.

But the government has to be able to respond to a changing world. Hamstringing it with unnecessary restrictions is counter-productive.

Even in the first administration this was ignored.

Hamilton got the National Bank started despite no explicit right in the Constitution to do it.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are back to arguing your strawmen. Ask ten democrats and ten republicans to state the principles of their party in one short paragraph and you will get ten different answers from each party.

Yes, non-aggression is one of the principles of libertarians but not a full description. For me, the primary principle is that it is the people who specifically define the limited powers granted to government. The government is denied any power not specifically granted to them (the tenth amendment if you care to read it and think the Bill of Righta is a good idea). This seems to be in opposition to the philosophies of both democrats and republicans who think the government can have any power it chooses to assume and should decide what freedoms (if any) the people should be allowed to exercise. Of course, since you now have two ideas of libertarianism, ask eight more libertarians and you will likely get eight more answers as to the prime principle of libertarianism - just as the dems and repubs have different ideas about their respective parties.

This is fair enough, but it is closer to blind worship of the Constitution than a philosophy.

Not at all. There are things in the Constitution that I dislike. However, the philosophy that government should be limited and controlled by the governed is a philosophy that I think is the best basis for government if the people want to remain free from arbitrary whims of those in power.

Keeping an eye on the power of government is important.

But the government has to be able to respond to a changing world. Hamstringing it with unnecessary restrictions is counter-productive.

Even in the first administration this was ignored.

Hamilton got the National Bank started despite no explicit right in the Constitution to do it.

So you think it isn't workable since some people ignored the principles of the established government.

 

[skepticalbip]

So Libertarianism is undefinable? Well, that certainly explains the confusion.

Seems like.

I'm not sure how a person is supposed to grasp a philosophy as changing and solid and open to interpretation as a face in a cloud.

A person is supposed to grasp the philosophy of libertarianism the same way they grasp the philosophy of the Democrat or Republican parties both of which have wide gulfs of ideas of what their basic philosophies are among both democrats and republicans. However most libertarians will agree that they want the government out of their private lives. Some democrats agree with this and even some republicans do but both of these want the government to control the private lives of those they disagree with.

 

[untermensche]

So you think it isn't workable since some people ignored the principles of the established government.

I say the principles are not as clear as you contend.

And a government that is unable to evolve and respond to changing conditions is not a good government.

The major problem I see today is the government is controlled by a highly wealthy few.

Oligarchy is prone to corruption.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oligarchy is prone to corruption.

Myopic are you? Humans, not just oligarchs, are prone to corruption. That is why the governed need to limit government if they want to retain their freedoms.

Ever hear the old saw, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It is an old saw because it is true.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So you think it isn't workable since some people ignored the principles of the established government.

I say the principles are not as clear as you contend.

And a government that is unable to evolve and respond to changing conditions is not a good government.

The major problem I see today is the government is controlled by a highly wealthy few.

Oligarchy is prone to corruption.

There ya go! Power over and against the people has never been the sole dominion of Gov't but shared among gov't, church, and the aristocracy of the moment. Libertarianism, outside of the US, critiques more institutions of power and the ways those institutions curtail liberty and limit happiness. US libertarians tend to be Johnny One Note on the subject of power and abuse and that note is GOVT! GOVT! and MORE GOVT!

 

[Arctish]

So Libertarianism is undefinable? Well, that certainly explains the confusion.

No more undefinable or agreed to by libertarians than the basic principles of the Democrat or Republican parties are agreed to by democrats or republicans. Try to get agreement from democrats, republicans, socialists, marxists, anarchists, etc as to what the philosophy of their chosen governmental form is and you will get as much or more differences than among libertarians.

There's a difference between what an individual believes and what a political philosophy espouses. If it's not possible to separate out the personal from the impersonal, then there's no point in asking "what is Libertarianism" because the answer will always be "whatever the heck I want it to be".

If Libertarianism is a genuine political philosophy, like Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, and all the other -isms, then it should be possible to define it in terms that don't rely on individual perception, but instead describe overarching principles.

 

[skepticalbip]

No more undefinable or agreed to by libertarians than the basic principles of the Democrat or Republican parties are agreed to by democrats or republicans. Try to get agreement from democrats, republicans, socialists, marxists, anarchists, etc as to what the philosophy of their chosen governmental form is and you will get as much or more differences than among libertarians.

There's a difference between what an individual believes and what a political philosophy espouses. If it's not possible to separate out the personal from the impersonal, then there's no point in asking "what is Libertarianism" because the answer will always be "whatever the heck I want it to be".

If Libertarianism is a genuine political philosophy, like Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, and all the other -isms, then it should be possible to define it in terms that don't rely on individual perception, but instead describe overarching principles.

If you want a definition then there is wikipedia or dictionaries you can look it up. Such definitions are much, much more clear than trying to find a description of the philosophy of the democrat or republican parties since the party platform is based on an actual philosophy of libertarianism rather than political posturing like the two major parties.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We are apparently using the word, "power" differently. For me power is control over others. Control of self without outside coercion is freedom. So, by my usage, denying the government some powers means that those powers go away making the people more free - - the controlling power eliminated.

In the VERY short term, yes. The government that has the power to coerce good behavior from everyone under its administration is, in the immediate aftermath, stripped of that power and everyone everywhere is more free because of it.

30 seconds later, those powerful interests that are no longer being coerced into playing nice with the people they deal with suddenly find themselves in a position of power; THEY are able to coerce people (customers, homeowners, clients, account holders, etc) in ways that the government would never allow them to do before. A small number of extremely powerful collectives gain the ability to massively re-shape the market to their own advantage at the expense of everyone else.

IOW: imagine the U.S. healthcare system before Obamacare, and then imagine if the ENTIRE ECONOMY worked that way. Do you want your bank to be able to slap you with surcharges and service fees if you shop at a grocery store out of your network? Do you want to have your insurance rates hiked because the insurance company doesn't like your lifestyle choices? Do you want your credit card companies to be able to jack up your interest rates because they found out you got a pay raise? There are all kinds of nasty things banks and creditors would love to do to their customers if only they were legal.

1) You did not answer the questions posed.

The post you keep ignoring was in response to your question, “How much is too much power and what kind of power? Power over what?”

So explain why what I see as such government excesses are good and necessary. (ref. post #133)

But see, that really DOESN'T answer the question. You're pointing out a specific set of excesses and a specific CATEGORY of excesses. You don't have to be a libertarian to think that the government is abusing its power and that the American people are being over-policed and under-served by a militarized and confrontational law enforcement regime.

I suspect you wouldn't approve of this situation if it was happening in a libertarian society either; if it was Metacops Incorporated instead of state/municipal police departments, and if the authority they acted under was The Mews at Windsor Heights or the New South Africa burbclave. Abuse of power is abuse of power no matter who is abusing that power. So where EXACTLY do libertarians draw the line between acceptable use and abuse of power?

Seems like.

I'm not sure how a person is supposed to grasp a philosophy as changing and solid and open to interpretation as a face in a cloud.

A person is supposed to grasp the philosophy of libertarianism the same way they grasp the philosophy of the Democrat or Republican parties

Implying that the Democratic or Republican parties actually HAVE a coherent philosophy that they can be said to follow with any degree of consistency.

But you know good and damn well that they don't. They're political parties, not socio-political philosophies. The Democratic Party is a big tent that includes socialists, marxists, self-styled liberals, progressives, environmentalists, humanists, reformers, opportunists, posers, suckups, cowards, pacifists, fiscal conservatives who can't hack it on the social issues, social conservatives who got elected in very liberal districts, Black supremacists, anarchists, defense lobbyists posing as politicians, politicians posing as defense lobbyists and the Clintons. The Republican Party includes teabaggers, homophobes, war hawks, neoliberals, imperialists, individualists, Christian/Catholic fundamentalists, Zionists, Islamic fundamentalists (ironically), White Supremacists, fascists, defense lobbyists posing as politicians, politicians posing as defense lobbyists, and Bushes.

The reason you can't nail down a specific philosophy to either of those parties is because those two parties are host to DOZENS of different philosophies that only see eye to eye on a small number of core issues that vary from year to year. They are political power blocks, not philosophical movements. And some of the components of these parties -- Catholics and Latinos, for example -- swing back and forth between the two parties depending on the major issue of the day.

If you're suggesting that libertarianism is ANYTHING like being a democrat or being a republican, you've basically refuted the existence of libertarianism as a coherent and meaningful philosophy, in which case it can be defined as "really strong believe in hamstringing the government because non-aggression principle." I think that Jason might take issue with that definition though; I know I would.

 

[Arctish]

There's a difference between what an individual believes and what a political philosophy espouses. If it's not possible to separate out the personal from the impersonal, then there's no point in asking "what is Libertarianism" because the answer will always be "whatever the heck I want it to be".

If Libertarianism is a genuine political philosophy, like Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, and all the other -isms, then it should be possible to define it in terms that don't rely on individual perception, but instead describe overarching principles.

If you want a definition then there is wikipedia or dictionaries you can look it up. Such definitions are much, much more clear than trying to find a description of the philosophy of the democrat or republican parties since the party platform is based on an actual philosophy of libertarianism rather than political posturing like the two major parties.

I'm not sure I understand your reply, but it appears you are conflating political parties with types of political systems.

Democracy is a political system. So is Republicanism. But while the Democrat and Republican parties in the US take their names from those philosophies, neither party supports only one and rejects the other. They are all members of the representative democracy established to govern the republic. And what each Democrat or Republican personally believes about the purpose and limits of government doesn't change the nature of the political system their party named itself after.

This thread is an attempt to define the term Libertarianism, not to list everything individual Libertarians believe. I posted a link to a Cato Institute article that laid out what the author believed were the key concepts. Do you agree with the author? Is there another concept you think should be added to his list, or one you think should be removed?

 

[Togo]

We are apparently using the word, "power" differently. For me power is control over others. Control of self without outside coercion is freedom. So, by my usage, denying the government some powers means that those powers go away making the people more free - - the controlling power eliminated.

But the power doesn't 'go away' - it gets transferred to someone else.

A road is kept up and maintained by taxes. If you don't pay those taxes (road tax in this example), a guard comes along and stops you using the road.
After the glorious libertarian revolution, the government doesn't own the road, and can't collect taxes. Instead some local guy owns the road, and keeps it up, and charges you to use it. And if you don't, a guard comes along and stops you using the road.

Similarly, the local police force get maintained by taxes. Abolish or limit the government, and local group will step in to collect money and fulfil the same function. If you're lucky, they're trained, and only collect what they need. If you're not, they're a local street gang, and they'll collect whatever they want.

Similarly, your example of boat regulations. Let's say you have a boat that has a short smokestack, which the government believes is prone to spreading ash, and thus bans from use. You're annoyed because you know that whatever is true of the category of boats in general, your boat is safe and clean. After the glorious libertarian revolution, you triumphantly steam your boat into harbour. Everyone sees your short smokestack, and they've all heard that short stacks are trouble, so they complain to the harbourmaster. He bans your boat from the harbour.

Can you see how, in each case, the power is not eliminated, but instead transferred? Can you think of a single counter-example where power would actually be eliminated?

 

[untermensche]

Oligarchy is prone to corruption.

Myopic are you? Humans, not just oligarchs, are prone to corruption. That is why the governed need to limit government if they want to retain their freedoms.

Ever hear the old saw, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It is an old saw because it is true.

Myopia is not reporting what is seen.

And what is seen today is the corruption from a few members of the 1% with too much control over the government.

The problem is not government itself.

Of course there is no such thing as perfection or the end of human squabbling, but democratic control of the government is preferable to oligarchical control of the government.

Bottom up control is always better than top down. All interests are heard with bottom up control (democratic control).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm surprised that you even had to ask that. Several positions held by libertarians are well known. Our opposition to the drug war is exceedingly well known, so much so that even you must have heard of it.

People on the left have been opposed to the Drug War since the day Reagan started it.

Saying you are opposed to the Drug War is good but it isn't any original or unique position.

Which is why many Democrat politicians are so against any lessening of the drug war. California is a blue state. The voters have passed referendums regarding marijuana. Not just marijuana, but medicinal marijuana. Our political overlords have done everything in their power to prevent those referendums from going into effect.

In a world where labor had many choices these power structures may not represent much of a problem. But in a world where most much choose between one top down dictatorship or another it is a very real problem and real imposition on human freedom.

What do Libertarians make of human created power structures that are used to dominate and exploit others?

That the biggest and baddest of all the human created power structures that are used to dominate and exploit others must be the first target.

What is the Libertarian position on democracy? On democracy in the workplace as opposed to dictatorship? Even if it is free submission to dictatorship as has existed throughout history for survival.

Our position on democracy is simply - it is a form of government. We are much more concerned about what a government does than how it is structured. It is better than other structures, but focusing on the structure means you're not paying enough attention to function. Function first. Is the government protecting our rights or violating our rights. After that question is answered we can quibble about whether or not it should be democracy or some other form.

And yes, not every democracy has a bill of rights, and sometimes the majority does vote to strip the minority of their rights.

 

[untermensche]

People on the left have been opposed to the Drug War since the day Reagan started it.

Saying you are opposed to the Drug War is good but it isn't any original or unique position.

Which is why many Democrat politicians are so against any lessening of the drug war. California is a blue state. The voters have passed referendums regarding marijuana. Not just marijuana, but medicinal marijuana. Our political overlords have done everything in their power to prevent those referendums from going into effect.

When I say "left" only a blind and ignorant man thinks "Democrat".

In a world where labor had many choices these power structures may not represent much of a problem. But in a world where most much choose between one top down dictatorship or another it is a very real problem and real imposition on human freedom.

What do Libertarians make of human created power structures that are used to dominate and exploit others?

That the biggest and baddest of all the human created power structures that are used to dominate and exploit others must be the first target.

The problems with the government are problems of transparency.

It has given itself the power to make all of it's criminal activities "top secret".

But one of the problems with transparency is the problem with the ties of the corporate media to the government.

Really what we face is a two headed monster. The corporate menace in all it's forms and the government that is the scaffolding this corporate menace is supported by.

You have to tackle both problems.

Just restraining government will not do much to the corporate menace that has a stronghold in the world and can move around and work with totalitarian governments, like the Chinese, if it chooses to.

What is the Libertarian position on democracy? On democracy in the workplace as opposed to dictatorship? Even if it is free submission to dictatorship as has existed throughout history for survival.

Our position on democracy is simply - it is a form of government. We are much more concerned about what a government does than how it is structured.....

See, people on the left, real people on the left, not Democrats in office, think of democracy as the cornerstone of human freedom. But they mean a real functioning bottom up democracy. Not the phony top-down democracies that primarily exist in the world.

How exactly does one promote liberty and not also promote democracy? Real functioning bottom-up democracy.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Abuse of power is abuse of power no matter who is abusing that power. So where EXACTLY do libertarians draw the line between acceptable use and abuse of power?

The answer always boils down to property rights. Libertarianism, upon examination, is a radical extension of property rights, which small 'l' libertarians often distinguish as "Propertarianism"

 

[skepticalbip]

Myopic are you? Humans, not just oligarchs, are prone to corruption. That is why the governed need to limit government if they want to retain their freedoms.

Ever hear the old saw, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It is an old saw because it is true.

Myopia is not reporting what is seen.

???? Where did you learn English?

my·op·ic
ˌmīˈäpik/
adjective
nearsighted.
synonyms: nearsighted; shortsighted
"a myopic patient"
lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.
"the government still has a myopic attitude to public spending"
synonyms: unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, small-minded, short-term, shortsighted
"the government's myopic attitude"

Your have a single minded obsession. You can only recognize abusive authoritarian government as an oligarchy. Open your fucking eyes. People, average working class people, can be and are corrupted given power, some much more than others. It is an extremely rare person who isn't corrupted some by power.

Or is it that you don't understand the meaning of the word oligarchy as you don't understand myopic? Do you think that if someone has a position of power it means that they are an oligarch - that it is a synonym for government official?

Bottom up control is always better than top down. All interests are heard with bottom up control (democratic control).

This I agree with depending on what you mean by "democratic control". However, if you mean by "democratic control" a system where majority rules in any and all decisions then I think you are being myopic again. A majority rules in all cases system allows the majority to inflect any oppressive regulations or abuse on the minority they wish. My preference is a system where there is built in protection of the minority from the whims of the majority even if that minority is only one individual.

 

[SimpleDon]

There is obviously a huge amount of inefficiency in the way that we police. We are the largest police state in the world with twice as many policemen per capita than the next largest police state, Germany. I don't know how this flies with the libertarians on the board. They have never discussed it with me in any of the half dozen times that I have mentioned it.

Our only saving grace is that so many of the police in the US are working in the administration of those 17,000 agencies that they aren't noticed. Otherwise we would be able to say that the US also has the most incompetent police in the world. A lot of police and yet a lot of crime.

The overwhelming percentage of those police are there to enforce government regulations not to stop citizens from criminal acts against other citizens. Reduce the number of senseless government regulations and most of those police would have to be let go to move out of police work and into the business of contributing to the economy. How many police and government departments are there in the "war on drugs" out beating the forests looking for marijuana? How many thousands of police are there patrolling our waterways insuring that boaters have registration numbers on their boats (I see several every time I go sailing or fishing)? How many police are involved in rounding up prostitutes? etc. etc.

Where were you when we asked people to list the job killing regulations?

Perhaps you could list a few more of your senseless regulations that are occupying so much of our police's time that they can't be bothered with enforcing criminal law. Or do you believe that entire problem is due to the drug war, prostitution and boating regulations?

Listing more senseless regulations that we have should be easy for you, the US has twice as many police per capita as the next largest police state, Germany. That means that we must have a huge number of senseless regulations more than does Germany!

Germany does have legalized prostitution, but they have extensive regulations to control it. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it takes as many police to enforce the regulations covering legalized prostitution as it did to enforce the laws against prostitution. They only fully legalized it in 2002 so there should be something about it on the Internet. You should be able to show the decrease in the number of German police because of the legalization of prostitution.

For that matter you could prove your point by showing us the drop in the number of police in the states that have legalized marijuana, Washington and Colorado. Once again, I would be surprised if there was any decrease since there is a considerable body of regulations to control legal marijuana. Here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.

I don't doubt that the police in the US are very inefficient, in fact, it is my whole point. I believe that a large reason for it is because we have 17,000 different police agencies in the US whereas most countries have dozens. This means that the US has a large amount of inefficiencies due to overlapping jurisdictions, different laws in the many different jurisdictions, much higher administrative costs running 17,000 different agencies, a much higher incidence of police corruption, uneven standards of training, the large number of jurisdictions using the police as a means to raise revenue, and the inability to concentrate the best police in the higher crime areas.

You believe that this is not true, that the difference is all of the senseless regulations that we have compared to presumably, the relatively senseless regulation free entire rest of the world, like Germany. Countries that don't have laws against marijuana or other recreational drugs, who have legalized prostitution and who don't have laws regulating boating. If your assertion is right there must be a lot of these countries, because every country in the world has less than half of the police per capita than the US has.

The only reason that stands in the way of the US having a much more efficient police force is the irrational fear of what works in every other country in the world, more centralized policing on the national level. And of course, as always, the irrational fear of change.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I say "left" only a blind and ignorant man thinks "Democrat".

How long should I chase your goalposts?

See, people on the left, real people on the left, not Democrats in office, think of democracy as the cornerstone of human freedom. But they mean a real functioning bottom up democracy. Not the phony top-down democracies that primarily exist in the world.

How exactly does one promote liberty and not also promote democracy? Real functioning bottom-up democracy.

Democracy allows the majority to strip the minority of their rights, in a statement I made that you snipped. Democracy can allow atrocities as long as 50%+1 approve of it. That is why we are far less concerned with form and much more concerned with function. We oppose people being oppressed, whether it is the monarch or the mob doing the oppression. Apparently only one of those two concerns you.