In your opinion, why hasn't libertarianism come to pass?

[Lumpy]

Not so much (yet another) debate about it as a poll of what opinions Dopers have on the subject. For purposes of discussion I'm using "libertarianism" as a stand-in term to mean a civilized society without coercive goverment, without trying to debate whether that should be called "anarchism" or something else.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Not so much (yet another) debate about it as a poll of what opinions Dopers have on the subject. For purposes of discussion I'm using "libertarianism" as a stand-in term to mean a civilized society without coercive goverment, without trying to debate whether that should be called "anarchism" or something else.

Huh?

This is just too ridiculous to respond to. You may want to read up on what libertarianism is actually all about.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Huh?

This is just too ridiculous to respond to. You may want to read up on what libertarianism is actually all about.

Then let's call what I described "Lumpyism", without falling into the perpetual trap of debating what a political term really means.

[Beware of Doug]

Libertarianism a) couldn't work, but more importantly, b) almost nobody really believes in it. Whenever it enters the national discourse, it is invariably as a sock puppet for crypto-authoritarian conservatism.

[Der Trihs]

It can't work; it would pretty much immediately either dissolve into chaos or neofeudualism. The latter in my opinion being the real attraction of libertarianism to many of its proponents; they don't mind society degenerating into an arrangement of lords and serfs because they are absolutely convinced that they'll get to be the lords.

[Capt Kirk]

Where is John Galt?

[Rand Rover]

How about everyone in this thread that has used the term "libertarianism" (including he OP) provide a definition of the term (or link to one and endorse it). Otherwise this is just so much meaninglessness. The OP seems to think libertarianism is tantamount to anarchism, which is just ridiculous on several levels (mostly because anarchism is a black and white thing).

[Shagnasty]

I have to be at least the second person to call bullshit on this false poll. None of the choices match libertarianism at all. I think the OP is making the common mistake of confusing libertarianism with anarchism. The two share a couple of superficial features but they come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Moderate libertarians like myself believe in strong government but it is very limited in scope. Property rights reign in the libertarian world so you always need police, law and order, and the ability to defend whole states. There is absolutely nothing in the libertarian philosophy that is against anything in this poll. In fact, we all for all for it much more so than some other political philosophies.

The OP doesn't get a pass because he used the term libertarianism incorrectly and said it could mean something like anarchism instead. It shows blatant ignorance of the political thought processes that form each of these movements.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It can't work; it would pretty much immediately either dissolve into chaos or neofeudualism. The latter in my opinion being the real attraction of libertarianism to many of its proponents; they don't mind society degenerating into an arrangement of lords and serfs because they are absolutely convinced that they'll get to be the lords.

Similar things can be said of communism or just about any other leftist movement as well and that is almost always the way it plays out in practice. It is just the human condition unfortunately. My attraction to libertarianism is that I freely admit that I don't care much about what happens to the overwhelming majority of the people in the world nor do I want their help. I just want to be free to live my life with minimal interference and live or die according to the resources I have.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

I have to be at least the second person to call bullshit on this false poll. None of the choices match libertarianism at all. I think the OP is making the common mistake of confusing libertarianism with anarchism. The two share a couple of superficial features but they come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Moderate libertarians like myself believe in strong government but it is very limited in scope. Property rights reign in the libertarian world so you always need police, law and order, and the ability to defend whole states. There is absolutely nothing in the libertarian philosophy that is against anything in this poll. In fact, we all for all for it much more so than some other political philosophies.

The OP doesn't get a pass because he used the term libertarianism incorrectly and said it could mean something like anarchism instead. It shows blatant ignorance of the political thought processes that form each of these movements.

I avoided using the term "anarchism" because that has historically meant collectivism and the abolition of private property. Frankly your definition of libertarianism sounds a lot like what Beware of Doug called "a sock puppet for crypto-authoritarian conservatism". Let me put it this way: if you're familiar with the science fiction writer L. Neil Smith, what label would you put on the Gallatin society featured in his works?

And btw: the only way your response could have been more insulting would have been to say "Lumpy should be banned from the board for being a stupid-ass shithead". Keep it up and I will ask the Moderators for a judgement.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

Similar things can be said of communism or just about any other leftist movement as well and that is almost always the way it plays out in practice.

Hardly. It's true of Communism, which is one reason why libertarianism is sometimes compared to it. But it isn't true for "leftism" in general; the great majority of industrialized nations are by American standards "leftist". America is an extremist nation, not a middle of the road one.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I avoided using the term "anarchism" because that has historically meant collectivism and the abolition of private property. Frankly your definition of libertarianism sounds a lot like what Beware of Doug called "a sock puppet for crypto-authoritarian conservatism". Let me put it this way: if you're familiar with the science fiction writer L. Neil Smith, what label would you put on the Gallatin society featured in his works?

The "Pollyanna" faction of libertarianism, who genuinely think that it will result in a nicer, kinder, more just world. As opposed to the Social Darwinist faction, the plutocrat faction, and the "Spartan Way"* militaristic faction.

*My personal name for them; they tend to think liberals should all be killed and have strong militaristic fantasies; fans of books like Freehold and The Weapon.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

And btw: the only way your response could have been more insulting would have been to say "Lumpy should be banned from the board for being a stupid-ass shithead". Keep it up and I will ask the Moderators for a judgement.

I don't have a problem with you personally. I do have a problem with polls that are completely misconstructed and blaze ignorance so brightly that you can see it from space. Ask the moderator for a judgment if you want but also remember the slogan of this board.

If this poll is really about "Lumpyism" rather than any established political philosophy, why don't you define that better for us so we know how to continue?

[supery00n]

Libertarianism has failed to pass most people don't like making decisions, and being accountable for them. Lots of people like making decisions (being in charge), but don't like the accountability part as much. Same thing with people not minding being accountable for something that someone else has decided (following orders, finishing tasks, Stanford prison experiment in which the scientist tells the experiment subject to press the button, and the subject has no problem being "responsible" for carrying out the task assigned).

[Wesley Clark]

In part because political power is gratifying. If you have political power then you have wealth, fame and influence. So if there is no government you are going to have people who want (for selfish reasons) to create one.

Libertarians only make up about 10-15% of the electorate. So you really can't have a democratically elected libertarian government either.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by supery00n

Libertarianism has failed to pass most people don't like making decisions, and being accountable for them.

Libertarianism isn't about being accountable for your actions; it's about making sure no one can hold you to account for your actions. Under libertarianism the rich and powerful would be able to crush and exploit and torment the rest of the population as they pleased, the common people would have no legal recourse, and if they tried anything extra-legal that's when the government would come crashing down. Under libertarianism the primary domestic job of the government is making sure the common people don't rise up against their masters.

[supery00n]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Libertarianism isn't about being accountable for your actions; it's about making sure no one can hold you to account for your actions. Under libertarianism the rich and powerful would be able to crush and exploit and torment the rest of the population as they pleased, the common people would have no legal recourse, and if they tried anything extra-legal that's when the government would come crashing down. Under libertarianism the primary domestic job of the government is making sure the common people don't rise up against their masters.

I think there's an enlightened libertarianism that's philosophical and utopian, as opposed to the libertarian who just wants the freedom to do whatever he wants to do, to hell with other people. I totally understand your view that even the enlightened form of libertarianism simply won't work in the real world because of human nature, and will thus lead to misery, let alone the "I got mine **** you" libertarianism.

As for how libertarianism might work in the real world, let me state a brief example, and then a counterquestion.

For example, Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs isn't necessarily the guy you'd want to have a beer with or a lunch with. He's a perfectionist and he has high standards that he applies to his life and his goals. This transfers over to Jobs' relationships with other people, including his employees. Are they exploited? They're working at Apple because they want to be there and be a part of something amazing. If I showed up at a board meeting and said that we have to replace Jobs because he exploits people in China, or is insensitive to employees, I'll be laughed out of the room - and for a good reason. In the areas of life where capitalism is allowed to be freest, the leaders that rise to the top are the ones that we as a society look up to. Why is that? Because you can look at them and say, this person can stand on his record and his performance and not prevaricate. It's not because of connections, family wealth, but something in the guy that just drives him to realize a vision and do something big.

We don't talk about computer industry and electronics reform. Yet computers are complex machines, and they emit electromagnetic radiation. How do we know that these computers aren't dangerous to our health and the corporate executives are screwing us over? Why aren't we mad at Apple? At Amazon? At ebay, Microsoft? Thomas Edison is rich and powerful as was Henry Ford.

And the sectors of the economy in which these people were active in were the freest sectors. If libertarianism is going to lead to exploitation, versus where we are now, shouldn't the areas of the market that are more free be rife with more exploitation and areas of the market that are more regulated have less exploitation, since the former is closer to the libertarian situation?


Now I don't want to hear anything about how deregulation caused this or deregulation caused that. The effects of true libertarianism are most clearly seen and isolated from other variables in industries that couldn't be regulated by the government in the first place because they were created and took off before the government could really do anything about it. So the question I ask is: If you accept that the computer industry was a pretty free market, and if all other industries were free to a similar extent as was/is the computer industry, then the economy as a whole would be at least SOMEWHAT closer to being "libertarian" than it is now, where the non-tech industries such as education, health, housing, etc. tend to be more heavily regulated than the lightly regulated tech industries, then WHY is it that the technology/computer sector isn't marked in its degree of exploitation?

Why aren't the common people rising up against the Fortune 500 CEOS in the computer/software/consumer electronics/tech industry, where so much wealth and so many fortunes have been made, and rich and powerful people are commonplace?

[MacSpon]

How about: Everyone thinks it would be fine for them, but nobody trusts anyone else to be able to handle it responsibly?

[silenus]

Libertarianism hasn't caught on because most people aren't 16 any more. The rest of us grew up.

[grude]

Originally Posted by supery00n

I think there's an enlightened libertarianism that's philosophical and utopian, as opposed to the libertarian who just wants the freedom to do whatever he wants to do, to hell with other people.

The freedom most libertarians I know are concerned with is the freedom to ingest plants and chemicals, have sex with whoever they want, sell sex or buy it, be able to drink a sugar water soft drink and greasy burger, allow smoking in their bar or ban it.

I'm not sure I have ever run into a libertarian who wants to be the lord of serfs, I keep seeing people here talking about these authoritarians in Libs clothing.

[Chronos]

Follow the line of reasoning long enough, and it all gets to be tautological. In other words, it has come to pass.

You have the freedom to defend yourself against roaming bands of thugs. The government says you can't? Well, they're just an extremely large band of thugs. Good luck defending yourself against them, and if you can't, that's your problem. You have the freedom to try, but nobody ever guaranteed you'd succeed.

[Little Nemo]

The problem with libertarianism is that it requires everyone to have essentially the same beliefs. The likelihood of that happening can be judged from the fact that libertarians can't even agree on what libertarianism is.

Broadly speaking, the main tenant of libertarianism is that government should not overrule any individual's liberty. The sole purpose of the government is to maintain order and enforce the basic rights that everyone agrees on. The ideal is that the government should be invisible and you can do whatever you want as long as you don't force somebody else. So it's not anarchy because the system does have a government behind it.

The problem is that people don't all agree on the definitions of essential concepts like liberty, order, basic rights, and force. And that leads to disagreements over what the government should be doing.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

How about everyone in this thread that has used the term "libertarianism" (including he OP) provide a definition of the term (or link to one and endorse it). Otherwise this is just so much meaninglessness. The OP seems to think libertarianism is tantamount to anarchism, which is just ridiculous on several levels (mostly because anarchism is a black and white thing).

No, we all understand the definition we are using and agree with it. You're the one who doesn't, so you're the one who has to define it. You claim you are here to fight ignorance, so fight it if you think you see it.

I'm going to continue to call you on it every time you engage in shaming. You know why.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by supery00n

Why aren't the common people rising up against the Fortune 500 CEOS in the computer/software/consumer electronics/tech industry, where so much wealth and so many fortunes have been made, and rich and powerful people are commonplace?

You are out of touch. Quite a lot of us hate Steve Jobs. As well as Mark Zuckerburg. Bill Gates gets by because he's a philanthropist. Pretty much everyone else gets a pass because no one knows who they are.

The failure of libertarianism is not that people will rise up and fight against the man--it takes a hell of a lot to gt them to do that. The failure is that those who are doing the exploiting have it in their best interest to limit the freedom of others. The only way to beat that is with an even stronger government.

The idea of high individual freedom and a small government just aren't compatible. A democratic government exists to ensure freedom.

[BobLibDem]

As usual Der Trihs is pretty much spot on. The advocates of libertarianism all make the assumption that they'll be better off, that liberal governments only suck their hard-earned money away to support leeches. There's are reasons that there never has and never will be a libertarian nation- it's not only entirely impractical, it's completely intellectually and morally bankrupt.

[Capt Kirk]

Who is John Galt?

[C K Dexter Haven]

My ex-brother-in-law was libertarian, is a professor at a major university (not in poly sci or econ), and has pretensions at intellect. We had some discussions early on, but then I stopped because his basic underlying premises was that everyone is rational and intelligent and knows their own best interests. I think the entire philosophy collapses on those three points.

In a small enlightened environment (perhaps, say, if a university were to be able to completely govern itself with no outside intervention)... well, maybe it would work. But in the real world, it's idealistic to the point of being stupid.

[Hal Briston]

Originally Posted by supery00n

For example, Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs isn't necessarily the guy you'd want to have a beer with or a lunch with. He's a perfectionist and he has high standards that he applies to his life and his goals.

It'd probably be a lousy lunchtime conversation as well.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Hal Briston

It'd probably be a lousy lunchtime conversation as well.

The table would have to be large enough for beer and a ouija board.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Who is John Galt?

He is the main character in a book that Libertarians have based their religion on. Kind of like Scientology, but less believable or workable in the real world.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

I have to be at least the second person to call bullshit on this false poll. None of the choices match libertarianism at all. I think the OP is making the common mistake of confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

Well, let's give him credit for not offering "Somalia" as one of the choices.

Yeah, I'll 3rd that.

But the reason libertarianism won't work in a full-blown form is that it relies on the assumption that people value freedom above all else. They don't. Or, at least they don't as soon as some creature comfort is threatened. People like a balance of freedom and security, and when they feel they don't have enough of one of those, then they want the pendulum to swing towards the other.

[YogSosoth]

I voted "Impossible" and "Other".

People need government, people need control. If people are not controlled by something, someone will spring up somewhere to do that. There is no way we can have a functional civilization with a almost non-existent government beyond a certain population. I don't know what that population is, but I wouldn't really call anything smaller a civilization

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by BigT

No, we all understand the definition we are using and agree with it.

So what is that definition? And what is your evidence that everyone above agrees with that definition?

I'm going to continue to call you on it every time you engage in shaming. You know why.

I do know why. It's because you haven't understood anything I've ever said on the subject of morality.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

his basic underlying premises was that everyone is rational and intelligent and knows their own best interests.

Why do you think that is the basic underlying premise of libertarianism?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

He is the main character in a book that Libertarians have based their religion on. Kind of like Scientology, but less believable or workable in the real world.

A quote I like on that:

Originally Posted by John Rogers

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

A quote I like on that:

Oh that explains Grover Norquist

That piece of wooden shite is staring at me from my bookshelf, I mean she couldn't even write a decent sex scene, how that chunk of trash has become the Bible of some is beyond me.

Why is John Galt?

CAPT

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

He is the main character in a book that Libertarians have based their religion on. Kind of like Scientology, but less believable or workable in the real world.

(woosh)

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

. . . Whenever it enters the national discourse, it is invariably as a sock puppet for crypto-authoritarian conservatism.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

. . . the real attraction of libertarianism to many of its proponents; they don't mind society degenerating into an arrangement of lords and serfs because they are absolutely convinced that they'll get to be the lords.

This is one of the cool things (although frustrating!) about TSDMB: I rarely need to post, because someone else will almost always have already said exactly what I wanted to say!

This is the "other" opinion allowed for on the poll, and this is why I voted for "other." Libertarianism is actually a very stringent form of government, masquerading as its opposite. It shares this quality of self-denial with "Scientific Creationism."

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

This is the "other" opinion allowed for on the poll, and this is why I voted for "other." Libertarianism is actually a very stringent form of government, masquerading as its opposite. It shares this quality of self-denial with "Scientific Creationism."

True libertarians don't masquerade as anything. It is an extremely selfish and fatalistic philosophy at the government level and admittedly so. It is also not unscientific like any form of creationism is. There is nothing scientific or unscientific about it. It is just a political preference about how we want to be treated and overall societal consequences are not a big concern. It would be great if everyone did well under libertarianism and thrived but that is not the point because libertarians are more focused on individuals rather than whole societies as long as individual freedoms are not being abridged.

It is about letting everyone have the maximum amount of freedom and allow everyone to thrive or fail on their own while maintaining law and order. It is a little socially Darwinist at the government level in that way and unapologetically so. However, that doesn't mean that libertarians are cold-hearted. Families, charities, and private organizations are supposed to help those in need individually without massive government bureaucracies to spread resources around inefficiently.

Libertarianism is very simple as a philosophy. You are born, you build what you can among yourself and your loved ones, and then you die. Personal liberty and property rights reign supreme. Although it sounds sounds simple, it is a foreign concept to most people.

Libertarians are very socially liberal. Gay marriage? What does that have to do with me? Nothing whatsoever so it confuses us about why anyone is even talking about it. The same thing goes for almost all personal issues that don't directly affect anyone else. Libertarians are often considered conservatives in a way but they are the direct opposite of the socially conservative/authoritarian branch.

Libertarians don't want a Mad Maxx free-for-all either. There is a strong government but limited in function. To that say that such a style would never work, the U.S. in its original form is a close approximation to what modern libertarians would like minus the slavery. Like I said, I am moderate libertarian and not an idealist. We just hope to aim for a government that moves closer to the libertarian ideal rather than an authoritarian one. All leftist forms of government are authoritarian by their very design.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Where is John Galt?

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Who is John Galt?

You can know one or the other, but not both at the same time.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

There is a strong government but limited in function. To that say that such a style would never work, the U.S. in its original form is a close approximation to what modern libertarians would like minus the slavery.

But that little point illustrates the fundamental problem I mentioned above. Libertarianism only works when everyone agrees on what the rules should be.

If the United States had been founded as a libertarian republic, you'd have had half the country insisted that fundamental libertarian principles required the immediate abolition of slavery - no way was libertarianism compatible with people being held in slavery. And the other half of the country would be insisting that fundamental libertarian principles required the full and perpetual support of slavery - no way was libertarianism compatible with the government interfering with the right to own property. And both groups would be completely sincere in their belief that they were the ones upholding libertarianism and their opponents were betraying everything libertarianism stood for.

We can all sit back and now and say it's obvious which side was right - but it wasn't obvious back then. And lest we think we've progressed beyond that kind of problem, imagine instead it was a group of people half of whom insist that the government has to uphold the principle of protecting children from being murdered and the other half of whom insist that the government has to uphold the principle that women are free to make their own choices about abortion.

A working government has a solution to problems like this - majority rule. Everybody argues their point of view and then there's a vote. And everyone has to live with what the majority says, even if they don't agree with that majority view. It's not perfect but it works.

But libertarians can't accept this idea. They say that the individual shouldn't have to buckle under just because the majority says so. A person should be free to do whatever they want as long as they live within fundamental principles. Which just brings us right back to the problem of figuring out what those fundamental principles are.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

True libertarians don't masquerade as anything.

Just like True Scotsmen.

[AHunter3]

I'm an anarchist. Most people who describe themselves as libertarians have a different perspective and a different set of beliefs and expectations. It's really NOT fair to dump them in with us, neither to them nor to us.

One short and reasonable answer to why libertarian "hasn't come to pass" is that, along with a decently large batch of other ideas for alternative ways of organizing human interaction, it hasn't been given much of a try. In fact we've done damn little intentional experimentation to find out what organizing principles are capable of being utilized in actual practice.

Do I myself see potential land mines that would block the implementation of libertarianism? Yeah. Libertarians — those I've met, those whose writings I have read — tend to be against authoritarian government (something I, as an anarchist, can certainly relate to) but they tend to refer to and discuss money (wealth, private property) as if it were a self-explanatory and natural phenomenon as opposed to a structured behavior that is, itself, pretty solidly rooted in authoritarian government. (To be sure, there are forms of private property that I think really are self-explanatory and natural, such as your possession of something that you do, in fact, hold in your own hand. But one's ownership of 3 acres of land is an abstraction and a social contractual thing, and currency of any sort even yet more so).

[The Second Stone]

How about if the libertarians announce they are going to set up shop somewhere and show us how well it works. Pick a town and all move there, or start the town.

At least the communists actually tried and failed. Libertarians want to run the whole country on their pet theories that have never been tried in a developed nation, or anywhere.

It's an unproven fantasy based on assumptions that people think rationally and act in their own best interests and work hard. There are some people who work hard. Most don't. There are some people who think rationally, but very, very few. There are people who act in their own best interests, divided up by short term or long term interests, but again, not most.

It isn't enough to simply say "it's too bad about all the people who don't think right, act right and work hard" they can be left behind to do whatever (die). You can't abandon the coercion of government to get as many people to behave appropriately simply to satisfy the fantasies of a few people who call themselves libertarians. The functions of government are simply too important to indulge an unproven fantasy for the sake of the peace of mind of libertarians.

If the libertarians set up first a commune (sic), then a town, a city, county, state and show us all how successful it can be, then I'll have enough information to conclude that they aren't just too lazy to consider the reality of human nature and actually do something. The "invisible hand" doesn't actually do any work. People do. And people are not rational.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

One short and reasonable answer to why libertarian "hasn't come to pass" is that, along with a decently large batch of other ideas for alternative ways of organizing human interaction, it hasn't been given much of a try. In fact we've done damn little intentional experimentation to find out what organizing principles are capable of being utilized in actual practice.

2,500 years ago Aristotle collected hundreds of summaries on city state constitutions and these things have been studied off and on ever since. Perhaps some libertarian can point out a good example of a libertarian state or states that we can examine to see if they will work for our needs. But until we see some examples and study them, if given the choice between listening to teenage potheads discuss music while stoned, or libertarians discussing their fantasies, I'll go with the stoners.

[gunnergoz]

What I know about "classical" libertarianism I learned in college (40+ years ago) from a couple of books espousing a world where individuals could own the streets and highways, everyone would pay everyone else for using their property and government existed only to set up an army to defend the country, more or less. It was really idealistic and seemed fairly impractical then, though I do recall being very intrigued by it for a while - perhaps because it was both idealistic and impractical. I even voted that way in one election. Then I graduated, got a job and learned about the real world, about real people and their motives and realized that libertarianism (as I'd read about it) was pie-in-the-sky stuff just like communism, except supposedly more rational. Now Libertarianism seems to reflect a lot more confusing set of concepts, at least as far as its proponents present it.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Just like True Scotsmen.

I understand something now that I didn't before: the reason these threads on libertarianism alway degenerate into definition wars is that defenders of libertarianism hold what Der Trihs derided as the "Pollyanna" school of libertarianism; in other words, detractors insist that the positive ideal of libertarianism is a priori impossible, and therefore their negative view of libertarianism is what libertarianism would inevitably HAVE to be. At least I now understand where the opposition is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But that little point illustrates the fundamental problem I mentioned above. Libertarianism only works when everyone agrees on what the rules should be.

If the United States had been founded as a libertarian republic, you'd have had half the country insisted that fundamental libertarian principles required the immediate abolition of slavery - no way was libertarianism compatible with people being held in slavery. And the other half of the country would be insisting that fundamental libertarian principles required the full and perpetual support of slavery - no way was libertarianism compatible with the government interfering with the right to own property. And both groups would be completely sincere in their belief that they were the ones upholding libertarianism and their opponents were betraying everything libertarianism stood for.

I suppose the opponents of slavery would have had to simply give the "property" guns, and let the slave owners defend their "rights" as best they could.

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Libertarians — those I've met, those whose writings I have read — tend to be against authoritarian government (something I, as an anarchist, can certainly relate to) but they tend to refer to and discuss money (wealth, private property) as if it were a self-explanatory and natural phenomenon as opposed to a structured behavior that is, itself, pretty solidly rooted in authoritarian government. (To be sure, there are forms of private property that I think really are self-explanatory and natural, such as your possession of something that you do, in fact, hold in your own hand. But one's ownership of 3 acres of land is an abstraction and a social contractual thing, and currency of any sort even yet more so).

And now I understand anarchism a little better. It's debatable whether the abolition of government would inevitably mean the end of most private property, but if you suppose it does, then anarchism makes more sense.

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

How about if the libertarians announce they are going to set up shop somewhere and show us how well it works. Pick a town and all move there, or start the town.

It's been in the news recently that a few small towns here in MN are facing the prospect of losing police protection, since they don't have their own police departments and the counties they're in are demanding more money to be patrolled by the county sheriff's department. There have been a few bull sessions about actually seeing if a town could go without police. We'll see.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

He is the main character in a book that Libertarians have based their religion on. Kind of like Scientology, but less believable or workable in the real world.

I think you just whooshed yourself.

"Who is John Galt?" is a repearted line from said book (Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for those who don't know). It's usage is roughly synomous with "such is life", "why is the sky blue?" or "que sera, sera". "I don't know the answer to your question. You might as well ask who the ellusive John Galt is."


Also, even though they share similar tenets, Rand's "Objectivism" is a different philosophy from Libertarianism. At least she thought so. Much in the same way Dave Mathews doesn't consider his band to be a "jam band" or My Chemical Romance balks at being labeled as "emo".


From Wikipedia, there are apparently different and inconsistent definitions on what Libertarianism is. But in the US, the consensus seems to be it is people who are economically conservative (free markets, balanced budgets) and socially liberal. In a more general sense, I suppose it represents a minimalist government that protects property rights, keeps people from killing each other, handles day to day safety and infrastructure maintenance but otherwise leaves people alone to do whatever they want.


I suppose the reason it hasn't ever come to pass is that people only like free markets when they profit from them and they only like personal liberty so long as the personal liberty of others doesn't annoy the shit out of them. This inevetably leads people to make demands from their government which then governs by addressing the needs of whoever makes the most noise.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I suppose the opponents of slavery would have had to simply give the "property" guns, and let the slave owners defend their "rights" as best they could.

In which case, they'd be interfering with other people's property. Essentially, it's no different than telling a guy who owns a wooded piece of property that he can't build a house because there's an endangered species living in it. He stills owns the property but you're interfering with use of his property. Arming somebody's slaves would be doing the same thing.

You can argue that opposing slavery would have a higher moral priority than property rights. (John Brown famously made that argument.) But some people would say the same thing about preserving endangered species. As I've been saying, there's not a consensus on what's right and wrong - people have different opinions of what's right.

[dngnb8]

The basic jist of Liberarian is less Government. How do you apply for a job whose basic logic is the job shouldnt exist?

Its a contradiction in terms. I all for less Government, I am not for no Government.

[amanset]

It can't work as so many different people have their own idea what it is. They'd never agree.