Libertarian, if you cannot find any faults with Libertarianism, you are not following it as a political theory or philosophy-you are worshipping it as a religion. You seem to apply the same strategies a religionist does when confronted with incomsistancies in her/his religion, finally dismissing with disdain those “unbelievers” who question the specifics of your belief.
Since my last message seems to have been ignored, I just want to reiterate that people should read this essay: : http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/secularfundamentalism.asp
It’s really very good, and there’s plenty of food for thought for people of all political persuasions.
Well, I guess it’s impossible to keep a guy surrounded on a message board…
While Lib has chosen to take the battle elsewhere, I feel it would be remiss of us statists if one of us didn’t address perhaps the most important misperceptions of libertarianism. Because Lib and others present the ideas so eloquently, they could easily be taken as given by those who haven’t been exposed to anthropology or studied American civic history to any degree.
The two most egregious falsehoods of libertarianism were included by Lib in one statement as he described his view of all democratic philosophies of government: “The individual is made into an abstraction, and society is made into a living entity, thus reversing the natural order and creating a sort of antimatter universe in which the few are sacrificed for the sake of the many.” (Bolding added.)
Libertarians would have us believe (and this is partially why Collounsbury referred to them as “Randistas”; it’s a recurring theme of Ayn Rand, inventor of Objectivism) that in the natural scheme, the will of each human individual has supremacy over the will of society in all matters. Further, they contend that all forms of government in which the “will of the people” is represented by a governing authority are effectively totalitarian because they [somehow] negate the authority of each individual over their own actions.
Both the faith of libertarians in the “natural” independence of individuals from society, and the corresponding belief that democracies allow society to subsume the individual are the Big Lies of libertarianism, and could not be more dangerously wrong! I invite —no, I beg— any undecided lurkers to read a few good anthropological examinations of human history to help their understanding of human nature. Good places to start include The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond (scientific approach), and The Lucifer Principle by Howard K. Bloom (social commentary from a non-scientist).
I also urge all Americans who are undecided regarding libertarianism to thoroughly research current US governmental structure; the US government has become quite accessible over the internet. The more appreciation you gain for the actual workings of the government, the more equipped you will be to understand not only the problems with too much government, but also the dangers of too little government.
And I challenge anybody to find widespread countenance in this nation for the subjugation of individuals; indeed, I challenge anyone to find a concept more widespread in this nation than that of equal opportunity for all. As an objectivist Christian reminded us in another current thread, the lifting up of one brother does not equate to the relegation of another.
Until next time.
xeno
I read it Sam, and I did think it was interesting, although I’m not sure it really provided a very good example of an alternative to the sort of “secular fundamentalism” that all belief systems are plagued with. First Efron says:
But her suggestion for getting past that reductive mindset is merely to recommend a vague and unspecific course of “reading”, and then to “connect” with others who already agree with one:
By golly, there’s that same bunch of “a few all-purpose formulas” (libertarian variety) cropping up again. I’d have been more impressed if Efron had actually addressed specific objections to libertarianism, and the importance of connecting with and acknowledging the insights of people who disagree with one. Efron seems to be repudiating the “cultish” mindset more because it’s embarrassing and ineffective than because of a genuine preference for openmindedness.
The article was all about tactics. The point is that many libertarians (including the libertarian party) are ineffective because of their ‘all or nothing’ attitude. And Ayn Rand was the worst offender. She rejected vast groups of people who identified with 90% of what she had to say, simply because they didn’t buy the last 10%. And Libertarians do the same thing.
One of the reasons Communism grew so rapidly was because it embraced anyone who even remotely leaned in that direction. If Communists had refused to help anyone who didn’t buy the whole package, it would not have grown, and would eventually have been marginalized as a fringe belief. But Communists had active outreach programs to labor leaders, environmentalists, socialists, and anyone else who might be even marginally sympathetic to any part of the communist belief system.
As she said in the end, many Libertarians treat their philosophy as a blueprint for an ideal society, and refuse to give an inch on that vision. But it really is a compass - a direction for travel. A libertarian is someone who simply considers the basic principles behind libertarianism when evaluating an individual policy.
The government is like the world’s largest corporation. It is run by individuals. These individuals are rarely, if ever, held personally responsible for the actions of the entity. It can be sued without affecting the banked income of any of the indiviudals which make it up. It can take legal action without any of the individuals paying a cent towards the lawsuit. And it owns public property. It has security guards to proect it from the public when the public doesn’t do what is permitted on this property. And then it charges us for this property, along with the charges for the security of this property.
If a majority of people do not vote (which they don’t) an any level of government, then who is being represented? The minority of people who do vote and are satisfied with the representatives in some way.
Given any interpretations of this, it seems clear that:
[li]The public doesn’t own anything.[/li][li]The public would either prefer to not have a government, or doesn’t care.[/li][li]The individuals who create legislation are the current owners of the property, followed in close second by the people who actively participated in voting these persons in.[/li]
If a majority of people voted for these representatives, or even voted at all, I would think that you may be correct in this interpretation of ownership. As it stands I still disagree.
I really should be clear that I have soft libertarian sympathies, but other sympathies conflict and the reality of market failure and other economic complications lead me to accept state involvement. I do have serious problems with, to borrow the delicious phrase Sam has given us (I can’t connect to the article for some reason so I can’t comment on the contents) “secular fundamentalists”. Ergo, why I am so impatient with Lib., who clearly returns my love.
But unto something more important:
ARL (may I still use this?) now what do I call you? I mean Elover sounds strange. EL? el? ARL aka EL?
I must admit, I am at a loss to figure out a nickname as nice as “arl” was.
EL sure doesn’t work. E lover, eh, either makes me a druggie or an internet geek. Hmm. 'lover is relatively simple, but nothing like three letters, I must admit.
I am at a loss. But there’s no reason arl wouldn’t continue to work, and after all, though it may confuse others, if a comment is addressed to me then why should anyone else really care? 
But Randistas will forever stay close to my heart now hahaha.
I wonder, however, why everyone “likes the ideas but they don’t work in practice.” Instead of promoting that line, I will instead ask this question:
Would you prefer to have a legislative body (in the US) who is more concerned with repealing and clarifying (which would be necessary after repealing) laws or creating new ones? Or, do you feel there is more work to be done in creating more government or has it really gotten too big? Also, for those who want more laws, do you feel that there will be some point where regulation will stop before it reaches the “everything not forbidden is compulsory” point?
It takes a nation of people to follow a few and call them government. What makes that idea (illusion) any stronger than any other?
Actually, I did read the Lucifer Principle. Somewhat interesting book which my sociology professer instantly returned to me after reading the first few chapters. :shrug: I thought it was interesting, though if I remember correctly he was arguing a somewhat complicated matter involving nature’s preference toward women and our unconscious motivations, based in biology, to work to destroy ourselves while ignoring the fact that we are doing so for biological reasons. I may have to reread that one again, though.
Thanks for the other recommendation.
But, if I may digress a bit:
History has shown us that humans have been subjected to rule by a minority for recorded history almost 100% of the time. This rule, in one form or another, has brought us to the world we live in today, where our greatest threat is death by our own means(ie-not a natural disaster) and our only comfort in this is that, were someone to wipe us out, we could wipe them out as well (MAD).
I do not find it suprising that many people picture an idyllic land where force isn’t used at all. Neither Ayn Rand (who somehow got into this conversation, though I missed where or why) nor Libertarians picture this place. Instead they offer a place where force is only used in retaliation. This also does not remove MAD from our lives. Now that it is here I’m not sure how it will ever leave. As the great Sherlock Holmes is so often cited for, once we rule out the impossible whatever remains, however unlikely, must be true, or right, or whatever. We have ruled out totaltarianism, monarchy, pure communism, applied communism, pure or strict socialism, and anarchy. What remains is a mixed state, partially socialist and partially free, and a fully free but arbitrated state, where the problems occur between and are resolved at the level of individuals(personal responsibility). The mixed states all over the world are struggling to find just the right balance as the technology they regulate (among other things) grows faster than they can pass laws, I find the mixed state to be an old-fashioned way of regulating old-fashioned people. It promotes stagnation because that’s the only way it can keep up with growth which, left on its own, surpasses that of the state.
So, IMO, that leaves us with a Libertaria as a goal to work towards. It will take an entire society to make up Libertaria, just like it does anywhere else (else we have a revolution). I don’t think it is entirely outlandish as everyone (opponent-wise) makes it out to be. It will, like all things, take time, effort, and understanding.
Right this instant or ever? Let’s look at what the government did over the course of our history.
Indians were subjugated. Blacks were subjugated. Women were subjugated. Vietnam soldiers were subjugated. Japanese citizens were subjugated. Communists were subjugated. Smokers are subjugated. Drinkers were subjugated. Drug users are subjugated. Gun owners (individually) are subjugated.[sup]*[/sup]
But that’s ok, we can take comfort in the fact that they were voted in to make that legislation (or lack thereof). In this way, I suppose we really can hold our elders accountable for the evils during their time: they voted and created those problems since the government only acts on the will of the people and is not a seperate entity, eh?
*[sub]Not that some of these are necessarily good or bad, that isn’t the point. The point is merely that the wishes of a minority were pushed to the side. In some cases, I think with prohibition especially, the wishes of the majority were also pushed aside.[/sub]
[list=a][]Those are all groups, except for that last one. The point was that individual rights are not, in this country, suppressed in favor of the common good; rather, individual actions are restricted based on the effects they have on society as a whole, a far different (and more natural) concept.[]Uh, smokers, drinkers, drug users and gun owners are “subjugated” by the US government? I’m supposed to take your arguments seriously when you say things like that?[/list=a]
“B” above was a bit harsh, erislover. I do, in fact, take your argument seriously. What I wanted to convey is that hyperbolic distortions of fact tend to distract people away from the more valid parts of your thesis.
Since it was never addressed I wish to point out again that a Libertarian society as it has been proposed in this thread would in fact result in a oligarchy of land owners. Each person who owned land would in effect be a Monarch on their land. They could set any rules (create any laws) they wanted on their land including “contracting” with people to abrogate any “rights” that the Libertarian government had “granted” them via the “one law”.
Everytime I point out that property owners would hold all of the power in a libertarian society someone just says “GIANT SQUID” and fails to answer the point.
The point is that no matter how benevolant the land owner anyone living on their land is doing so only on their sufferance. At any point the land owner could decide to ban yellow clothes on pain of eviction. It’s their land they can do with it what they want.
I have seen no defence of Libertarianism that suggests any way that this basic seperation of society into two classes would be prevented. Since I have seen no defence I propose it as an axiom.
Any Libertarian society will be marked by two classes of individual. The upper class will own land and have the rights stemming from that land. The lower class will not own land and will be subject to the landed upper class.
Any comments?
My only comment degrance is that I, as well as Libertarian, find it hard to believe in a land-based monopoly or oligarchy in the free market. I won’t shrug it off and say it can’t happen, or even that it won’t, merely that I find it unlikely. As it stands, between regulation and eminent domain the government owns all the land, and you obviously don’t have a problem with that, do you?
I continue to understand that privatization of all property will lead to some interesting situations. You consider a monopoly. C insists on market failure (possibly due to an evil monopoly arising). I say that isn’t a foregone conclusion. Being held personally responsible for all this property will cause people who would previously hide behind their corporation, limited liability whatever, or the United States Government, to be personally accountable to a court of law regarding their private property and its use with respect to coercing other people, which seems to be your biggest concern (not that they own stuff, but that they are using it against you).
Why should they be? Why shouldn’t individuals be held responsible ONLY for their own actions?
You mean the government “of the people, by the people and for the people”? If so, it sounds like the people own public property. Call me crazy, but I think that’s why it’s CALLED “public property.”
This is unreasonable? I’d like to know what forbidden actions you’d like to see permitted. The restrictions on the use of public property all seem very reasonable to me. Those restrictions are there to ensure that the property is not damaged. What in the world is wrong with that?
Are you talking about taxes or user fees?
Taxpayers. You don’t have to vote, but you do have to pay taxes, like it or not. People who refuse to pay taxes are just thieves.
Why can’t the one we have now do both? Don’t set up a false dichotomy.
It works.
arl (yes, I think I’ll continue with that for a while), in response to your response to Degrance, I’ll confine myself to pointing out that there is a material difference between the government suffering the wearing of yellow t-shirts and and individual suffering the wearing of yellow t-shirts.
The government is composed of many elected officials. There are checks and balances. Laws must be voted on. One mad bastard can’t just make up any laws that he feels like.
This is emphatically not the case in regards to an individual landowner. Which is somewhat of a problem.
If you don’t see this then simply consider the difference between an absolute monarchy and a democracy. You are, in essence, proposing a system of connected monarchies with “free” movement between them.
pan
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
Well thank you for being again totally irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is not about the current system and I am not interested in the current system. You are PROMOTING a different system. EVERYTIME I bring up a flaw in the system YOU are PROMOTING you answer, “But there is this other problem in the current system.”
Let me state it once and for all.
Attacking the status quo in no way defends your position.
Again attacking the status quo is in no way a defense of your proposal.
Think about it for a minute.
a) All land is owned by someone.
b) Not everyone owns land.
c) If I own land I can make rules that any one on my land must follow.
d) If I do not own land then I must follow the rules made by the land owner whos land I am currently on.
Ergo two classes. Show me any way that logic is in error.
Be specific.
Use the staus quo in your answer and I will scream!
I never said monopoly. I made a simple statement there will be two classes of people. The first class will own the land and write the laws. The second class will not own land and will be subject to the laws of those that do. No one has said anything that in any way contradicts this view.
So you are saying that I can trespass on anybody’s land in Libertaria and run naked through their homes and they are powerless to coerce me into stopping this behavior?
If they can coerce me to stop that behavior then where is the line between the behavior they can coerce me to stop and the behavior they cannot coerce me to stop?
Can they coerce me to engage in behavior if I wish to enter their land?
Can they say that everyone entering their property must eat a breath mint that they provide?
Can a land owner insist that all visitors stand and sing the national anthem of Bobsilvania every morning in order to remain on his property?
Can a land owner insist that I say sir and bow when ever I enter his presence in order to remain on his property?
Where is the line?
If any or all of these things are permitted then the landed are permitted to coerce the landless in Libertaria. Contrariwise the landless have no power to coerce the landed. Ergo Libertaria innately has two classes one with power over the other.
Lib has already admitted in this thread that he feels that land owners have this “legal” power of coercion over the landless in Libertaria. One example he used was that the owner of a road could coerce the driver of what the landowner considered to be a substandard car to not use his road.
This inequality of these two classes is an innate feature of Libertarianism as you folks have defined it. No one has given any explanation of where I am in error here. You just keep saying that you don’t “believe” the points I am making. Well belief doesn’t really enter into it. I have given you hard facts not theories. YOU have defined a system with a built in class system and refuse to admit it.
Rather, the same problem. The same problem, I might add, which cannot be rid of under any system which allows for personal property. What I am merely trying to demonstrate is such. You ask me to get rid of it in Libertaria; I cannot. I cannot get rid of it under any system. I was particularly adamant about this in several posts.
You don’t need “c” and “d” to make two classes, which again demonstrates my problem with just about everything. You throw “c” and “d” in, which are particular to libertaria, and then make a comment on “a” and “b”. Think about it.
And much like government would have a monopoly on power, there would be a monopoly on land ownership. Strictly speaking, you mentioned an oligarchy. However, since you also imply that there is no chance of these land owners selling their land to people, I think we can consider a permanent oligarchy a monopoly of sorts. Certainly within a given region this tycoon would hold a monopoly on land.
Because this is correct. Why would we disagree with it? We’ve said as much ourselves.
No, I am not saying that at all.
Wherever they set it.
If you wish to enter their land, you may consider acfepting the terms of entry that the landowner sets. Legally, you would be bound to do so.
Certainly. They may also have a monopoly on breath mint manufacture, and refuse to sell it to anyone except an elite few.
Wherever the landowner draws it.
If you feel that all landowners will be evil people hell-bent on controlling a populous, then you are absolutely correct. It will be a return to serfdom, with ladies and lords of the manor, all telling us servants what to do so that we may have the pleasure of living in their grace.
on their property, sure. Can’t do much about you if you are on your property, or even my neighbor’s property.
It seems we are both reduced to repeating ourselves. This inequality of class is innate IN ANY SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY. Really.
- I am permitted to buy land, right now, if I have the money for it.
- I am permitted to have as much money as I can possibly earn, provided that I don’t form a destructive monopoly in any sector of the economy.
- I can continue to buy land up and refuse to sell it to anyone.
- I can do this right now.
Tell me, where are these crazy-ass landowners hell-bent on control? This is not a problem with the current system. What you attack Libertaria for is also allowed under the current system. As such, when I bring up the current system, it is to show that the things you worry about are ubiquitous when you imply they are “innate” in Libertaria. Nothing stops an oligarchy of land ownership right now and it isn’t happening, isn’t likely to happen, and I would literally laugh at anyone who suggested it.
As well, so long as my personal property is not open to the public (ie- a restaraunt) I believe I have the power to dictate which clothing must be worn on my property, and refuse anyone else addmittance. And yet, miracle of miracles, we get along ok without it. There are huge quantities of homeless people in many major cities, and yet the suburbs don’t put up electric fences all over the place to keep these “propertyless” people at bay.
In other words, it ain’t gonna happen, I don’t believe it, whatever. If you are in some way dissatisfied with that then I am sorry. All I can do is show you that the same or intensely similar things are possible under the present system, that the present system does not have a “catch” for this(except for eminentn domain, but then we revert back to the government owning everything which seems to be disagreed with around here), and it doesn’t happen here.
This is why we feel it is a giant squid argument. This is why we, or at least I, bring up the current system. To show you the giant squid, breathing and pulsating and frustrating the both of us.
Well, I was thinking, and I see no reason why erl isn’t as catchy or appropriate. 
Certainly I am proposing a system which, in some ways, amounts to what you suggest. The King is answerable only to God; the landowner, however, is answerable to the market, the courts, his own source of income, and so on.
I would like to comment here that I feel that Libertaria is a system to which we will move gradually, after such time as government begins to strangle itself. Otherwise I feel the government will swallow the market and itself in some sort of legislative ororibos (sp? you know, the snake eating its own tail thing) and we will have, in effect, socialism. That is, we will either move towards socialism or move towards libertarianism.
I feel we will move toward libertarianism mainly because, as the education level increases, non-idiotness increases and legislation will probably not have the same effect as simple rational thought. After some time, provided we don’t completely legislate personal responsibility away, we will continue to deregulate and decentralize control over various activities and market activities. I think it will be a long, peaceful revolution which I unfortunately won’t see in my lifetime.
Intelligence is a person’s greatest weapon in the free market.
Degrance, while I believe your observation that Libertaria would produce “landed” and “unlanded” classes is spot on, I think it would be most productive of you to recognize the differences between initiated force and retaliatory force, as defined in libertarian philosophy.
The actions you described would not be considered “coercive” in Libertaria, as they merely place requirements or restrictions for contractual users of another’s property. Libertarians would point out that prospective users of the land have the choice to contract with some other land owner. Indirect coercion through implicit/explicit agreement among the landed class is not considered likely by libertarians (as they believe it will be corrected for by market forces), and in any case is not something they consider immoral (as it is merely an assertion of property rights).
[/quote]
erl. Allow me to take issue with the following statements you’ve made:[ul][li]“Nothing stops an oligarchy of land ownership right now…” Except for those evil concepts of “public property” and “Constitutional rights” missing from Libertaria.[]“This inequality of class is innate IN ANY SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY. Really.” No. NOT REALLY. Inequalities of personal wealth arise from personal property. Democracies restrict the translation of personal buying power into raw political and economic power; Libertaria removes those restrictions.[](paraphrasing Degrance) “…a Democratic, mixed economy society as it has been proposed in this thread would in fact result in a oligarchy of land owners. Each person who owned land would in effect be a Monarch on their land. They could set any rules (create any laws) they wanted on their land including ‘guaranteeing’ people any ‘rights’ that the government had ‘invented’ for them via the ‘Constitution’.” Wow. You should be more careful when you paraphrase. You just told us land owners currently have the awesome power to hold themselves under the authority of the state. That’s kind of our point.“The King is answerable only to God; the landowner, however, is answerable to the market, the courts, his own source of income, and so on.” Oh? If only King John had realized he wasn’t answerable to the market or the courts… might not have bothered with that Magna Carta crap. If only Charles I had known… might not have lost his head. Etcetera.[/ul][/li]Perhaps you should spend less time considering giant squids. I don’t believe critics of libertarianism have any need to resort to outlandish scenarios to show the problems with that philosophy, but I do submit that apologists for any system of government should have at least a basic understanding of how government works.