Libertarianism -- sell me

Great Debates
21

Hi, tdn. I’m a small ‘l’ libertarian type myself. I agree with most of what they have to say, and often vote libertarian. However, I’m not a registered libertarian.

I too, shudder at the sudden shock that would be caused if every policy outlined on the Libertarian party web page was suddenly implemented tomorrow. However, you can rest assured… this just isn’t going to happen any time soon. If the lib’s were to rise to power, they would have thier work cut out for them. The changes would be small and gradual.

Look at it this way:

Instead of a government controlled almost entirely by Republican’s and Democrats, we could have a small amount of power held by Libertarians and the Greens.

Instead of having a Senate that usually looks something like this:

50 Republicans
50 Democrats

We could have one that looks more like this:

45 Republicans
45 Democrats
5 Libertarians
5 Greens

This would first of all more accurately reflect the views of the actual country. A state like Vermont should elect a Green if they want. A state like Montana should elect a Libertarian if it suits their fancy.

In a system that looked like this, the Libertarians wouldn’t be able to dismantle the entire government. They wouldn’t have the votes to do it.

Also, the Greens wouldn’t be able to force us back into the stone age. Same thing, no votes to get anything that big done.

But, both groups would have power. In order to get thier votes the other two main parties would have to give them a seat at the table. The libertarians would be in a position to cut some fat from the budgets and streamline the government. The Greens would be in a position to force some environmental stuff through.

It’s for this reason that I give Libertarians my vote with no worries. I think it would be a great thing for the country if some other groups had some power in our system. (Even ones with whom I disagree, like the socialist Greens)

22

Oh, and I would also for the record like to join the others in laughing at Elvis’ notion that there is a lack of profit motive and effective oversight of politicians.

23

The individual employee, no. The agency, yes. Anyone that has worked for a government-funded agency knows what use-it-or-lose-it budgeting leads to. Does government ever say “we’re big enough, we don’t need to grow any more, and we don’t need more tax revenue?”

And as has been noted, the bureaucrat has correlatingly little motivation for actually helping you, solving your problem, etc.

Please see “United States of America” c. 1700-1900.
tdn, you’re painting with a very broad brush. Yes, there are idiot-fringe Libertarians (James Lileks described them as having “Don’t blame me, I voted for Ayn Rand” bumper stickers), just as there are out-of-it rightists and leftists. And unfortunately, the current Libertarian Party is overly influenced by the extremists; I don’t think that means the entire philosophy is bogus, any more than Pat Buchanan or Al Sharpton invalidate Conservatism or Liberalism in general.

There are people like Liberal ** (formerly known as Libertarian ** … you knew this thread was going to happen after that name change) who are somewhat more “pure,” and then you have people like myself and debaser who will pull levers for candidates of other parties if we like them better, and will discard “purity” if we think the situation calls for it. (FWIW, though, I am registered as Libertarian). IMO, a political philosophy shouldn’t be something where you declare allegience and commit yourself permanently no matter what, but just a guiding set of main principles which you bring to bear on the issues.

I mean, it ain’t as if either of the other parties are committed to any kind of coherent philosophy other than the desire to be re-elected.

24

Thanks for the response, Debaser (and everyone else, too).

Oh, but it’s true. Government departments won’t make a profit on what they do, and they are held directly responsible by the people, not shareholders. This is the theory, at any rate. I realize that in practice the situation is far different.

25

John, I think you’re giving up too easy, “since you don’t think the same thing I do, I’m not going to try to explain.” Of course, I don’t know much of libertarianism (having recently become interesed after 1) I realized I’m one of them Austrian economic types 2) Someone described my way of thinking as “Facist by way of Libertarianism,” so I might be egging you on for no good reason.

26

Er… Where?

I started this thread to increase my knowledge on a topic of which I had little. I was then asked to render my opinion based on what little I knew. It should have been obvious that I was open to correction if I needed it.

You sure you don’t have me confused with someone else?

27

In John’s defense, he was saying that if we have such divergent ideas on the role of government, we’re not going to convince each other about higher concepts based on those ideas. It would be a waste of time.

On the other hand, if we were to try to convince each other why our ideas are right, that would be a different matter. And a different thread.

28

Tdn, in all earnestness and with all due respect, I strongly recommend that you abandon your flirtation with libertarianism and surrender your quest to have it sold to you. Libertarianism is a brutal philosophy. It requires that a man think for himself, solve his own problems, and use his own wits to succeed or fail. It requires that government provide a context of peace and honesty, and allows of government nothing more. It considers a man’s morality to be between him and his God or conscience, while exacting a strict rule of noncoercive ethical conduct between him and his fellow men. It allows men who are peaceful and honest to pursue their own happiness in their own way, even if they are wealthy, or bigotted, or in some other way different from you. It holds that your consent is your property inasmuch as it originates in the mind with which you were born, and secures your right to give or withhold your consent as you see fit. It holds that your labor is your property inasmuch as it originates from the mind and the body with which you were born, and secures your right to acquire property with peaceful and honest trade, free from the coercion of enemies — or not, as you see fit. It recognizes parents as parties to a unary contract with their children, and holds them responsible to provide for their children’s well being. It recognizes no limited liability for corporations and does not shield corporate officers from accountability to their shareholders. It punishes initial force and deception and defends those who would be victims of it. It gives a man no safety net, nothing to rely on except himself, his family, his friends, his neighbors, his fraternities, his house of worship, and his community charities. It does not make your plans for you, nor forbid you to buy Cuban cigars. Leave it behind right now while you can, before it is implemented and you find yourself having a choice.

29

Exactly. We start with different premises, so we naturally come to different conclusions. As long as you base you conclusions on logical arguments arising from your premises, there’s not much I can say. It is not uncommon, though, for people to harbor logical inconsistancies, and yet be unwilling to question their premises. The perfect example is the person who objects to abortion on religious grounds, yet makes exceptions for “rape and incest”.

30

For some years I was a member of the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian educational organization, and a member of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a libertarian think-tank based in the United Kingdom. I received a scholarship from IHS and attended one of its conferences in 1997, and I attended many roundtables at IEA and gave a paper there on print licensing and religion.

I still agree with many principles of libertarianism, and to some extent would consider myself a social libertarian. Nevertheless, I am largely disenchanted with the movement, and no longer either defend it or associate myself with it.

I think it would take an entire day to explain exactly why I am disenchanted with the movement. Let me just say this: We once lived in a pre-regulatory world. Having studied it in great detail, I don’t care to go back there.

31

Can you give us the Rdr’s Dgst version?

32

Lib, I’m not sure if that was a personal attack or if you’re just being obtuse. If it’s a personal attack, just take me to the Pit where I will roundly thrash you with a wet towel. If you are just being obtuse, then can you explain yourself?

33

I once flirted with libertarianism… then I realized that I’m much more a humanitarian, and that the interests of socialized medicare and government oversight are much more important to me than “small government big corporation”

In my viewpoint, there isn’t a political spectrum, or even graph - it is a circle. At some point, the industry running the state or the state running the industry become the same thing, right crosses left, and all hell breaks loose. I think the Libs straddle this point.

Their whole argument, “why is a government bureaucrat any better than a company” can be reversed with the same answers. The main difference is that Libertarians view that the company will be “overseen” by market forces, and most everyone else believes that the collective People (read: representative government) will oversee the bureaucrat. It is elective process vs. selective process.

In the non-Lib world, a store is prevented from selling rancid meat by the government regulations.

In the Lib world, a store is prevented from selling rancid meat because the people won’t buy it, or the income from it stops being profit.

I don’t necessarily believe that the Lib view holds up when it comes to things like education (which would create a HUGE class gap between the Haves and Have Nots). Essentially, I see it as a version of Social Darwinism, which I spit upon.

34

How would you be preventing from being a humanitarian in a libertarian society? Or do you mean that you realized you wanted to force other people to be humanitarian, too?

35

If by “force other people to ibe humanitarian” you mean “use taxes for medical care and education,” then yes, yes I do. On the other hand, this thread is about Libtertarianism, not humanitariansm. Ism.

36

Let me see if I can. I’ll go point-by-point, starting with the specific and ending with the general.

  1. The only freedom most folks in the IHS, and with most libertarians I’ve seen in the States in general, seem to be interested in is the freedom to make more money. The Libertarian Party strikes me most of all as an anti-tax, pro-business party. Not that there’s anything completely wrong with that, but the IHS in particular seemed to treat social, religous, and intellectual freedoms as secondary to economic. To me, they’re the main attraction.

  2. I take issue with Liberal’s argument that freedom from government intervention and “choice” necessarily go hand-in-hand. Factory workers in Victorian England, to take but one example, were blessedly free from governmental intervention, rules or regulation. That didn’t mean they had boundless economic choices, though. “Choice” doesn’t mean a lot when you don’t have a lot of choices. What is the guarantee that, under a libertarian regime, we will have more choices than before? More worryingly, what’s the guarantee that a libertarian regime won’t look more like Victorian England than what we have now? What would be the differing factors that would keep our world from looking like theirs?

  3. There’s an old religious joke that goes like this. (Reader’s Digest portion coming!) A man falls down into a ravine, injuring himself badly. A rescuer comes to the edge of the ravine to save him, but the man waves him away, saying, “God will save me.” Later, a boat comes by, but the man waves it away, saying, “God will save me.” A helicopter flies overhead and lowers a rope, but the man refuses to take it, saying, “God will save me.” Eventually, the man dies of exposure. In heaven, the man faces God. “My Lord, my Lord, why didn’t you save me?” he asks. “I sent you a rescuer, a boat, and a helicopter–what were you waiting for?” God replies.

OK, parable over. It’s a common joke that the god of the libertarian cause is the free market. Funny if you’re studying it, but not so much if you’re the man down in the ravine, a.k.a. a have-not. The libertarians I met were fond of saying that poverty, miseducation, crime, etc., etc. would all be diminished by the economic gains of the free market. Myself, I’ve never seen the “free market” run a soup kitchen or teach a class. Those things have to be done by people. Maybe if the libertarian cause was supportive of charitable donations, and encouraged its followers to do themselves what the government purports to do now, I would be less cynical. As for me, my career right now involves fund-raising for a private university. Every dollar I raise means a dollar for a student that either wouldn’t go to school or would take it from the taxpayers. Libertarians, what are you doing?

  1. The libertarians I met at my conference were…such an unfunny lot. P. J. O’Rourke once said–never vote for a party without a sense of humor. I think that’s a platform we can all get behind.
37

That’s one of the stumbling blocks I have with it. Far be it from me to quote Ross Perot, but the problem with trickle-down economics was that nothing trickled down. It seems to me that in an economy where profit is the sole motivation, very few will be motivated to give anything away.

It’s all well and good to believe that if you just work hard, vast riches will come to you. But that’s not the world I’ve observed. I’ve met many people who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times. Without a hand up, they would not have become the productive citizens that they did. In Lib’s version of brutal Libertaria, some would even have died. That doesn’t sound like any kind of free-market paradise to me.

So I assume I got something wrong there. If a supporter of Lib’ism can explain how that will work I’d be most grateful.

Oh, and you got that joke wrong. The man doesn’t fall down a ravine, he gets trapped on his roof during a flood. :stuck_out_tongue:

38

This is what flipped Libertarianism to “off” on me. Libertarianism… hm, you’re right, easier to say Lib’ism… anyway, Lib’ism does not account for little things like “the people who need help the most are the helpless.”

IPU-forbid that you suffer from a crippling physical or mental disorder or disease in Libertaria. If you’re down, guess what, buddy? You’re out! Family can’t afford to put you through school so you can get a better job? Work harder, slacker! Sole provider for a family of 4 dies in an accident? Tough sh*t, lady, get a job! Company doesn’t like you because you’re black? Well, find another job in Infinity Job Land, where you always have Choice! Gigantic mega-monopoly undercutting prices? You’re free to compete with them, lazy slob!

In Libertaria, people suffering from schizophrenia wander the streets until they get shot by some concerned citizen (Libertarians are also strictly pro-guns, ya know), you don’t have a right to an education, you have a priviledge, children wander the streets because their parents are working all day, companies decide what is right and wrong, monopolies set standards and practices… but if you don’t like it, you’re free to choose between a vast array of monopolies who really and truly care about people.

39

Ah, yes. The years of slavery, child labor and the company store. I’m sorry, what were you talking about?

40

Libertarianism strikes me as essentially saying, “Remove all government duties except those that I actually need.” Which is fine if you want to admit you’re a self-centered bastich who doesn’t give a flip about his fellow man… but why re-invent the Republican Party? :wink: