CDZ Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws

[Oddball]

Ah, the stale old "flawed human nature" argument...As though such flaws automatically become suspended when someone becomes a politician, bureaucrat, or one of their lackeys.

 

[grbb]

No. Humans are greedy and selfish. I am thinking of advocating libertarianism by counting on voters' greed. We should just push libertarianism to the point that it maximizes voters' interest. No need for the principle that aggression is wrong. It is true. But how wrong? Small amount of aggression, like tax, imposed by voters that have to compete with voters in another country is a really manageable problem.

Libertarians are awesome if we an somehow enforce NAP. We want something. Pay for it. I am willing to pay a lot of land tax if I can move to a country that's free and secure.

There is no such country yet. Most countries are busy wasting money locking up victimless criminal and taxing income.

 

[flacaltenn]

Find a cinema governed by the free market. In a sense, none are. In a sense, all are.

Each cinema has owners that govern the cinema. That owner can decide what movie to show and that you can't bring your popcorn to the cinema.

However, the cinema themselves are governed by the market. If the owner decides to raise the ticket price you go to another cinema. If the owners murder customers, government get involved.

Your making a LOT of these circular arguments.. The second sentence above is ALL that you need to say about it because there is a market for MANY KINDS of cinemas and they will fail if they don't design the right attraction for their audiences.

But in the first sentence, you're TRYING DESPERATELY, thruout this entire thread to prove some assertion that business and corporations are a SUBSTITUTE for government -- so you falsely equate "popcorn law" with governance.

These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And you can't have COMPETITION between the "governing bodies" you imagine in your "govt by owners, business, corporations".. That's NOT COMPATIBLE IN ANY WAY with "free markets" and competition.. And will NEVER be a substitute for civil and criminal law and enforcement..

Ford will let you drive without a helmet, But State Farm Insurance REQUIRES you to wear a helmet. Who is the ultimate LEGAL authority? This is pretty insane...

 

[Picaro]

No. Humans are greedy and selfish. I am thinking of advocating libertarianism by counting on voters' greed. We should just push libertarianism to the point that it maximizes voters' interest. No need for the principle that aggression is wrong. It is true. But how wrong? Small amount of aggression, like tax, imposed by voters that have to compete with voters in another country is a really manageable problem.

Libertarians are awesome if we an somehow enforce NAP. We want something. Pay for it. I am willing to pay a lot of land tax if I can move to a country that's free and secure.

There is no such country yet. Most countries are busy wasting money locking up victimless criminal and taxing income.

A reading of Kevin Phillip's Wealth and Democracy will make much of American history clearer to you and correct some of your erroneous beliefs about it, too. 'Libertarianism' isn't a real thing, it's whatever they want to claim it is at the moment; they demand 'everybody else' try and nail jello to a wall as they jump around playing semantic games, and contradicting themselves to boot. If you want real 'libertarianism', thus pretending we don't already have it now, with 'free markets' determining who gets elected to office, who gets judicial appointments, etc., then just call for open auctions of any public office; the same group of financial backers will win all those as well. 'Libertarianism' is a farce.

The primary owner of the Party now are Kochs; they rely on government and 'eminent domain' to avoid paying market prices for land to run their pipelines on, and other fun stuff government does to keep 'the little people' out of their way, like every other big corporation does.Their family fortune also came from helping Joseph Stalin out with his oil industry, which is also hilarious, but I doubt they know why, since Red China is now Wall Street's New Best Friend Forever, thanks to it's labor racketeering police state providing them with cheap labor and few pollution controls,at least until recently.

 

[grbb]

I thought eminem domains means people pay market price or even more.

 

[Picaro]

I thought eminem domains means people pay market price or even more.

Nope. It's designed to keep prices low, but as we all know few businesses like 'free markets', and it's mostly rich businessmen who get representation in government at all levels. Great Britain built its rail network completely privately and it did fine; American railroad owners thought they should get their land free, and so do pipeline and utility owners.. The 'compromise' is they can run whatever they want through your front yard for some chump change and screw you if you don't like it.

 

[grbb]

Find a cinema governed by the free market. In a sense, none are. In a sense, all are.

Each cinema has owners that govern the cinema. That owner can decide what movie to show and that you can't bring your popcorn to the cinema.

However, the cinema themselves are governed by the market. If the owner decides to raise the ticket price you go to another cinema. If the owners murder customers, government get involved.

Your making a LOT of these circular arguments.. The second sentence above is ALL that you need to say about it because there is a market for MANY KINDS of cinemas and they will fail if they don't design the right attraction for their audiences.

But in the first sentence, you're TRYING DESPERATELY, thruout this entire thread to prove some assertion that business and corporations are a SUBSTITUTE for government -- so you falsely equate "popcorn law" with governance.

These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And you can't have COMPETITION between the "governing bodies" you imagine in your "govt by owners, business, corporations".. That's NOT COMPATIBLE IN ANY WAY with "free markets" and competition.. And will NEVER be a substitute for civil and criminal law and enforcement..

Ford will let you drive without a helmet, But State Farm Insurance REQUIRES you to wear a helmet. Who is the ultimate LEGAL authority? This is pretty insane...

You miss the point. I think that's actually one of the problems with libertarianism. You separate things into private vs public. That's too much semantics. You should handle things in comprehensive ways.

Imagine small cities competing for tax payers. Those small cities are effectively private. They're like malls and online shops. So are small countries. Imagine large corporations like VOC. Those are effectively government. VOC commited genocide against people of Banda for violating their spice monopoly.

I want something like VOC but small and humane. I want something like libertarianism but not outgunned like Minerva Reef. I want something like democracy where people get rewarded for voting right. I want something like feudal states where the feudal lords are corporations whose share are owned by the population.

 

[grbb]

The biggest problem of libertarianism is best phrased this: "You and what army?"

Libertarians will always be outgunned. They are very good at properly aligning people to productivity. However, when you think coercion and lie are out of the game, you just act like they're not part of reality. You have nothing to do with them and you don't understand them.

If Israel is libertarian, that country is doomed. You can't have full libertarianism. What we have is good enough. How do we make it better. That's what I am getting at.

This is a sample of libertarianism that may actually work in real world. The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income distribute UBI and then tell them that you get more UBI if we are more prosperous and those that are not productive have less children.

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine small cities competing for tax payers. Those small cities are effectively private. They're like malls and online shops.

How is a small city a "private enterprise"? The only business cooperation going on in a small city is the Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau.. And the ELECTED GOVT of that city, which decides on zoning, laws, taxes, licenses, etc...

How is this "governing by CONSENT of the governed"?? It's not.. What you're proposing is NOT LIBERTARIAN, it's anarchy by business/corporations/cartels/monopolies...

 

[FA_Q2]

“Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws”

Actualy not.

Libertarianism is comprehensively flawed – naïve, sophomoric, and reactionary.

Its simplistic, wrongheaded dogma seeks to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with – a past far from ideal for Americans not white, male, and Christian.

There is no ‘going back’; the United States, along with other Western democracies, is a developed, first-world, industrialized nation where necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies are perfectly appropriate and warranted.

Are you able to post without resorting to a straw man and ad hominem? That is all this tripe is.

 

[FA_Q2]

'Libertarianism' has a sort of Wally N Beaver Cleaver vibe to it; it mostly appeals to middle class suburban types with little experience in human nature or true competition that isn't structured by rules and clear outcomes.

This article is one of the better short essays on it. The title 'Marxism of the Right' is particularly appropriate as well.

Marxism of the Right

"There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

... and more at the link.

Marxists aren't the only propagandists who have read and applied Antonio Gramsci's methods to political language. Gee, who could be against 'Freedom N Stuff' ,dude? .... Just call everybody a 'statist' when ever you're stumped, out of slogans, and have no real answers.

How cute. Naming calling is now the preferred tool of political debate. Libertarianism does NOT "aspire, covertly or overtly, to reduce social life to economics".. This is a FUNDAMENTAL lie.. Because you could not find any other party or political value who adamantly DEFENDS social and personal Civil Liberties and choices.

The 1st NATIONAL presidential candidate we offered in the 70s was an openly gay man.. We DID NOT do that to make a payment to a constituency as the Dems do today.. We did THAT -- BECAUSE he was the most qualified.. In the FREAKING 70s dude. And we paid for that move for DECADES being called "queer lovers".. Just like our CONSISTENT stand on non-intervention in the Middle East got us called "traitor doves" or our long term support of decriminalizing marijuana got us a label of "potheads"...

ALL OF THOSE are NOW -- basic Amer. public sentiment.. We're just decades ahead of "public consensus"...

As for SOCIAL liberty and ECONOMIC liberty -- they CAN NOT BE separated. You have no liberty if govt and populist TRUE Marxist movements put a claim on your TIME and labor that you do to serve others. Which is why our version of the ACLU -- the Institute for Justice -- focuses on disenfranchised Main Street entreprenuers fighting government licensing cartels, or emminent domain abuse, or asset forfeiture.. Not cases that interest the ACLU...We see no reason why African HairBraiders NEED 220 hours of "cosmetic college" to get a licence. Or why multi-$Mill "taxicab medallions" should even "be a thing".. And we're the ONLY group working on ending that renewed govt Domestic Spying program that was ended in the 70s because the govt ABUSED it. And they are now ABUSING IT AGAIN...

We're pro-choice on basically EVERYTHING SOCIAL... I cant "out-choice" ANY progressive or conservative on ANY issue.. That's not "Marxism" man.. Your evidence is weak ad homs.

You use the term "we" many, many times here.

I was rather under the impression that conforming to a collectivist mind sat was something that libertarians opposed.

A collective mindset is not the same thing as sharing some basic fundamental values. Further, that we points to an actual association of people. You know, the actual group supporting the causes he was referring to earlier. How else would you refer to a specific group.

 

[FA_Q2]

The major flaw in libertarianism, as I see it, is that it does not protect people from exploitation as it is unconcerned with addressing the inequalities of power dynamics.

Might makes right should not be the basis of a political ideology.

If you are talking in a pure sense then sure. But there is no such thing as ideological purity in politics that has any hope of achieving any kind of success. Almost all libertarians accept that there is a need for a government to address those inequalities of power. Most of us just want to see a government built on the ideal of freedom rather than collectivism (left) or enforced morality (right).


And grib - you REALLY need to learn to write in paragraphs, your posts are assaulting to the eyes to the point that I wont bother to read them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Libertarianism is a Great Ideology but it Has Flaws

All ideologies have flaws because humans are flawed.

Humans are greedy, spiteful, jealous, envious, hateful, angry, lazy, vain, evil creatures.

Given those traits/faults, the best/fair way for humans to interact is by means of the FREE MARKET. The biggest problem with the free market is human ignorance or misunderstanding. A free market is not an entity. It's not a device. It's not a product or mechanism. It is not really a "system" either.

It is neither a problem nor a solution. It cannot fail or succeed.

A free market is peaceful human activity. Nothing more.

When one says that the free market failed, what they really mean is HUMANS FAILED.

So, when one "loses faith" in the free market, what they really have done is lost faith in humanity. They have lost respect for the rights of humans. Humans, to those who do not trust the free market, must be oppressed and controlled, and human liberty takes a back seat to a grossly-naive but false hope of security.

These security seeking opponents of liberty believe they have noble intentions, but they are every bit tyrants in every sense of the word. Of course tyrants believe they are doing what is best. Of course they have the best intentions in mind. No tyrant ever believed his/her actions were wrong/evil.

The goals are different. Values are incongruent. There is no compromise when some people value security over rights. They will always try to force others to surrender liberty. There will never be peace.

Libertarianism (it is really liberalism)(everybody please quit hijacking our label) values individual liberty above all else. A liberal's (libertarian) approach to problem-solving and solutions starts and ends with the maximum preservation of individual liberty. No government action should deprive individual liberty unless all other potential alternatives are exhausted, because doing so is an act of war/violence.

We generally live in a non-violent state of existence because humans have decided to cooperate or compete under a truce. Unlike pretty much all other animals in nature, we all agree to stop trying to kill each other and take each other's property/food, etc. We trade with each other for our own individual benefit, which results in a mutual benefit. Again, this is a truce. This arrangement will only prevent violence as long as it is beneficial to all.

By declaring that the foundation of peaceful human existence (the free market) has failed, the real declaration is one of war. Some are not benefiting because they are not capable and they want to resort to taking from others or controlling/limiting the success of others.

It is an act of violence and war.

What happens in nature when a tiger takes down a huge prey animal while other predators are starving? He earned it. He did the work to get the kill. He was a better hunter. He deserves to eat his all of his kill right?

Only if he can successfully defend his kill with violence. All other predators will try to fight the tiger to take his hard-earned kill. That is the essence of war.

Humans are only different because we have developed the ability to reason. We (as a species) learned thousands of years ago that we do better when we don't have to constantly fight each other for resources. Early in human existence, we learned and understood the concept of supply and demand. Caveman Hunter makes 10 kills and can't eat all of the meat. He has something other humans want. They could all fight over the meat, but some may get seriously injured or killed in the process. But, they figured out that they could get some of Hunter's meat if they trade for something he wants or needs.

BOOM! FREE MARKET

It is peaceful human exchange.

When all the other cavemen are starving and Hunter has not been successful enough to have surplus, what failed?

Did the free market fail?

No.

Humans failed.

Hunter failed to meet the demand of the other cavemen, and the other cavemen failed to secure contingencies in the event Hunter has no surplus, moves away, or dies on a hunt.

The free market demands that all people be smart and careful. Greed is balanced by fear. Careful decision making and planning is rewarded by success. Carelessness is punished by failure.

There is no flaw in free markets that is distinct from human flaws.

Then, we have fraud or deceit. That is nothing more than individuals breaking the truce. That is simply an act of war.

In the caveman example, the starving cavemen persuade Hunter to trade some of his meat for berries they gathered, knowing that the berries they brought him are inedible. Hunter fails to inspect and sample the berries before making the trade. They managed to take Hunter's meat without fighting him for it, but that only acted to delay the violence.

Current human existence has managed to insulate us from that violence, but it is still there. Commit fraud and you will likely be arrested, prosecuted, and punished as a non-violent resolution, but resist arrest and watch what happens.

When humans see the free market as their own peaceful exchange with other humans, they stop blaming the free market and place the blame where it belongs.

Of course, taking the means of production away from individuals is also and end to the truce or violence. That is a further discussion.

There are only two states of human interaction:
1. peaceful free market exchange (peace)
2. war

Anything less that free market exchange may seem peaceful, but it is still war. The violence simple has not started yet.

I will choose peace as long as others choose peace.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

'Libertarianism' isn't a real thing, it's whatever they want to claim it is at the moment; they demand 'everybody else' try and nail jello to a wall as they jump around playing semantic games, and contradicting themselves to boot

That's not actually the topic of this thread, but it's so vindicative and wrong that it deserves a proper thrashing and burial..

That quote is nothing but jello with unidentified bits of flotsam in it written by someone AFRAID to discuss political theory and philosophy with people like libertarians who have very SIMPLE and clear convictions and beliefs about the role of government and such important concepts as social and economic liberty and freedoms.

There is the libertarian CATO society which is more oft quoted by the media than most of traditional "liberal/conservative" think tanks. There is the Libertarian Party with a DETAILED platform and position papers, there is the libertarian Institute for Justice which is a Civil Liberties organization that defends ALL of the Constitution and Bill of Rights --- not just the parts that the more liberal ACLU likes to defend. And Reason Magazine and Reason Foundation which is the largest growing web presence political journal in the nation.. MANY MORE libertarian orgs and think tanks and media sources exist...

So -- it's not for lack of specifics that the moron who wrote that quote avoids any rational discussion of libertarianism.. It's all animous and political flack huckersterism...

The primary owner of the Party now are Kochs; they rely on government and 'eminent domain' to avoid paying market prices for land to run their pipelines on, and other fun stuff government does to keep 'the little people' out of their way, like every other big corporation does.

The Koch bros did play a role in the formation of the Libertarian party.. They no longer are primary supporters. But the Koch bros have done more for charity and private funding of the arts, the medical research field, and even are primary sponsors of the most popular science show (NOVA) on Public Television.. Entire wing of Kennedy Center built by them.. 11 Medical research facilities built by them.. DARLINGS of NYCity high life UNTIL they switched their political funding to the Repub party in the 90s....

And to show how MISINFORMED YOU ARE about the tenets of libertarianism, your statement about eminent domain is PATENTLY WRONG...

Pennsylvania Pipeline Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

Pipeline companies create an essential part of America’s energy infrastructure, but their power is supposed to be limited. As documented below, however, the power of pipeline companies to take people’s private property is anything but limited: It is a power that is systematically abused by pipeline companies across the nation.

Worse yet, the courts—rather than holding these companies accountable—are merely rubber stamping whatever the pipeline companies demand rather than restricting their powers to those Congress has given them.

So -- not only are Libertarian organizations the ONLY RESORT for Civil Liberties and Economic freedom left in the political landscape -- the IJustice REPRESENTS the victims of eminent domain every chance they get.. Including the famous KELO case that went to the SupCt a couple decades ago.

Seems like you're TOTALLY misinformed on this topic, but INSIST on attacking and defaming.. Why is that? What are you afraid of learning?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Father of the Tea Party...

 

[Natural Citizen]

2024.....Pack a lunch. There's a new breed. Same as the old breed.

 

[grbb]

Okay fine. Maybe I am not a purist libertarian. I am a practical one. I think tax should be lower and welfare is bad. I do not think welfare should be 0. I also do not think tax is robbery.

Libertarians care so much about private vs public distinction.

I think instead of having private parties doing everything we should look at something more fundamental.

1. Profit incentive
2. Competition.

What's important is whether things are done by organizations with profit incentive and competition.

Imagine if we all live forever and don't have children. The truth is we die and produce children but say we live forever for the sake of argument.

Imagine if voters got UBI. Will drugs be legalized? I would say yes. Why? Because those voters get more UBI if drugs are taxed. You see how "for profit" government is more libertarian than normal democratic government?

The fact that we die and have children will add complication. Some guys will get more UBI to his family by simply producing more children. But that's complexity that can be fixed latter.

What about nuclear power plant? It's actually much saver than other energy sources. A city or village that allows it will collect licensing fee. A businessman can create nuclear power plant and sell electricity far away. The citizen that live near the power plant will receive money to compensate for the risk. Now, notice that the risk is actually very small. However, most people fear nuclear powre plant. Here, the smarter more realistic citizen get rewarded for taking risks others are too affraid to take. Those who disagree can live somewhere else.

Oh ya government is not pure evil. Trust me you don't want to deal with Kim Jong Un yourself. If to deal with Kim Jong Un you need a nation and the nation have voters and those voters demand welfare, It's just a reasonable deal.

Instead of aiming for pure libertarianism, I think libertarian should make their country more libertarian through democratic and legal means. There are many low hanging fruits. After that, you can achieve other things. Libertarianism isn't all or nothing. There are many spectrum. Get the low hanging fruit first.

Sample? Free contraception and free abortion. That'll greatly reduces welfare. Take it

 

[grbb]

Free market, in general have a few edges over our democracy. All these works "in general" and not all the time. I am aware of market failure.

1. Profit incentive. Under free market you make more money if you do the right thing. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs produces what the market want and got rich.
2. Competition. You can't just raise price to make more money. You got competition.
3. You are rewarded for being correct. If you think stock price will go up, and it really goes up, you are profited.
4. You are rewarded for being correct when everyone else is wrong. Thinking that the stock will go up when everyone else already agree pays little. The price is low. But being correct when everyone else is wrong gives huge fortune. Casandra of Troy would have made a fortune under capitalism.
5. If you govern your company well, the only way you will lose shares of that company is if you sell the share at high costs. You do not need to worry that you lose shares of your business because other share holders breed more children or because immigrants are coming to your business' teritory.
6. Each shareholders receive benefits that's equal and depend only one the amount of shares. Hence, shareholders do not vote against each other's interests. Shareholders vote for common interests.


What we need is to infuse a system like that in our democracy.