In the course of participating in several internet message boards in the last 2 years I have concluded that libertarianism will never contribute much of anything towards solving our socio-economic problems because:
Libertarians are too belligerent in their individualism to cooperate well with others;
Libertarians are too paranoid of government to allow the government to take action that is needed, but which the private sector cannot perform- and
Libertarians are too naïve of human nature to ever believe there are any socio-economic problems to begin with.
Have any other non-libertarians reached similar conclusions?
I think that your list, while a bit incomplete, is pretty much spot on. We’ve had LOTS of debates on libertarianism here, though we’re in a slow cycle right now. I’d hazard a guess that most non-libertarians (like myself) share your conclusions to one extent or another. I’m convinced that it will never work, and represents the worst sort of infantile egotism and greed on the part of its proponents.
However, it must also be said that much of what we hear about the libertarian movement comes through either the American Libertarian Party, or through the ravings of libertarian/anarchist Internet intellectuals. Quite a few of the conservatives here have very intelligent, nuanced arguments supporting some facet or another of libertarian thought. And, of course, many of the liberals here will wholeheartedly support the social aspects of Libertarianism, though decry the economic package that follows it.
I think you should ask the libertarians here for their input rather than non-libertarians to agree with you, but it would certainly be worth understanding what you mean by the word in the first place. I assume you meanUS-type libertarianism rather than European-type libertarianism (neither of which takes sugar on its porridge, as it were). The former see authoritarianism in government taxation, while the latter see authoritarianism in law-of-the-jungle capitalism.
As I’ve said elsewhere, economics in a democracy really just comes down to some kind of balance between efficiency and welfare in pursuit of something called progress. The US Libertarian may argue that efficiency (“progress”) has a byproduct of increasing the welfare of the electorate in the long run. The Euro Libertarian holds that attending to the electorate’s wellbeing (“progress”) has a byproduct of increasing efficiency in the long run. The former may find the inefficiency in the latter’s approach unacceptable, the latter may consider that the former allows an unacceptable level of suffering. Each might label the other “unfair”. Clearly, neither approach has its heart in entirely the wrong place: I’d suggest that whether the same goal is achieved by money called “tax” or money called “private property” is ultimately as arbitrarily distinct as “we did it” is to “you and I did it”.
However, I would certainly agree that elevating property rights uber alles and considering even the democratically mandated taxes you pay to be “your property” is a rather childishly simplistic view which will not, ultimately, make the world a better place: Absence of government can be just as tyrannical as despotism.
Just FYI, we’ve had dozens of debates about libertarian philosophy on this board, and it would behoove you to join the board so you can use the search function* and look at some of those debates first.
If I read your OP correctly, you have not addressed even one aspect of libertarianism, but instead find fault in libertarians, as people. Your third point might touch on the philosophy, but you still phrased it as an attack on the people, rather than the philolsophy.
So, if you want a reasoned debate, it would better to frame the debate about particular aspects of the philosophy, not about the shortcomings of people whom you’ve observed. Unless, of course, you actually want to debate the shortcomings of people who ascribe to that philosophy-- but then you’re just overgeneralizing and engaging in an ad hominem attack.
*unless that policy has changed so that guests can now use the search function
I’ve always felt that the biggest mistake Libertarians make on a philosophical level is their premise that the government is the only problem in society. I agree that the government can and does create problems but it also can and does solve problems. And individuals and organizations and corporations create problems as well. Society works best when these different forces are in balance; each entity is solving the problems it is best suited for and each entity is addressing the problems created by the other entities. In real world terms, in a society without a government you’d just live under the tyranny of some other organization that’s running unchecked by the government.
The biggest mistake Libertarians make in real world terms is that, regardless of how ideal Libertarianism is in a theoretical sense, organized groups work better. Imagine there actually was a Libertarian country, where nobody had to do anything they didn’t consent to. Now imagine that next to this country is a non-Libertarian country run by traditional means. At some point, the traditional country is going to look across the border and decide Libertaria is ripe for the picking. Libertarians claim that they can organize for purposes like common defense, but at best they’d be trying to build an army while the other country is already invading. And inevitably, there’d by arguments about what kind of armed forces to create, who gets to be the generals and who has to be the privates, creating a defense industry from scratch, and some people would just not want to get involved even in the face of invasion. While these issues were being argued over, Libertaria would be overrun.
Even if you assume that the entire world is Libertarian and there are no traditional countries out there, the Libertarian system only works until the first bunch of people decide to form a gang and overpower the individuals around them. Then the gang will become a tribe, the tribe will become a kingdom, and the kingdom will become an empire.
I think that’s probably true of a lot of people, including central planners. After all, a man proposing a central plan is proposing what he likes as opposed to what I like. Or, if it is a committee, the committee is proposing a synthesis of what its members like. If it’s a Republic, it’s propopsing what most of its representatives like. If it’s a Democracy, it’s proposing what the majority of people like. Nobody, libertarian or otherwise, is apt to propose a plan without anything at all that he finds likeable. There’s only one libertarian in Congress that I know of (Ron Paul), and I don’t believe that you would hold up the US Congress as an object lesson in how to get along well with others. Sure, they don’t often come to blows or curse each other out on the floor, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of animosity and belligerence there as well.
I think that that’s a myth about libertarians. In all my dealings with fellow libertarians, not one has ever advocated the elimination of government or government action, in the broad-stroke manner you describe. Nor have I ever read any libertarian writer advocating such. Granted, libertarians would like to see government action be more focused, specifically on the suppression of coercion, but that is a longing for government to do something besides what it is doing, not a paranoia of government.
I’ve not seen any evidence of that. I think that if that were true, libertarians would just advocate anarchy. After all, if everybody were an angel, there’d be no need to get all wrapped up in this coercion business to start with — there would be no coercion to suppress. In fact, it’s always seemed the opposite to me: libertarians are distruftful of people both in and out of government to refrain from bullying others by force or deception; whereas authoritarians seem to believe that government agents are benevolent by default, and have everyone’s best interests at heart.
I don’t have anything against libertarians as people. I just think that, like communism, libertarianism sounds better in theory than in practice. So far, in practice, libertarianism has just been ideological window-dressing for corporatism. (Much as communism served as ideological window-dressing for despotism.) Freeing people from an intrusive government so they can be pwned by predatory multinationals doesn’t seem like much of an improvement.
I don’t think naivity is a trait posessed only by libertarians. I know it’s certainly true that some of the most naive people I’ve met are socialists, not libertarians.
It’s Liberal-centric, mostly under his former name, but certainly should give anyone all the libertarianism discussion they could desire. From this thread.
Nemo: I’m not trying to be snarky in my reply to your post. You are arguing against libertarian premises which simply don’t exist.
The premise you mention in your first sentence is NOT a premise of libertarianism. You are arguing against a strawman.
More strawmen. Libertarians never claim that people don’t work better in groups. And libertarians don’t advocate building a military only after an invasion has started.
I think you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchy.
As I’ve said before, the flaw in libertarian philosophy is that people value freedom above all else. That is the core of libertarian philosophy-- freedom is an end in itself, without need of justification. Most people, however, value security above freedom at least part of the time. I suspect that if a democratically elected libertarian government came to being, it’d be voted out as soon as the first big economic ressession hit.
Giving for the sake of argument that you are correct, how do you explain the virtual dirth of corporate support for the now thirty-year-old Libertarian Party in the US? Why haven’t powerful corporations poured money into the party to get its people elected? Why instead do powerful corporations still support the two authoritarian parties? For me, the answer is simple: a libertarian government would threaten an end to aspects of the status quo that empower corporations, such as corporate welfare, eminent domain, special interest legislation, special interest regulation, cronyism, a complex legal system that favors those with the most political clout, and above all, recognition of corporations as rights-bearing entities. It seems to me that a corporate tycoon would, upon reading the Libertarian Party platform, run for the hills.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that given corporate support, the Libertarian Party could rise above its non-starter status. Then given its platform, for what reason would corporations support it?
Do you mean that corporatists invoke libertarianism when it is conenient to do so (ignoring it when it’s inconvenient) or that libertarians are just corporatists in disguise? If the former, I agree, but that is not an indictement of libertarianism. If the latter, then… cite?
I’ve voted libertarian in the past, but I’m constantly working with others at school, at home, and even in my personal endeavors. I’m more than capable of cooperating with others.
Yeah, the government will always be there to take care of me. If someone is breaking into my house the govt. will be there to stop them from physically harming me or stealing my posessions. Why, if there was ever an emergency due to something like an earthquake or a hurricane you can bet your bottom dollar that there wouldn’t be any delay in getting me food, water, and evacuation if necessary.
False. Just because a libertarian doesn’t believe that the govt. should take care of a particular problem doesn’t mean they refuse to recognize the problem.
Yep, me too. I’m trying to envision a naive paranoid person. Can’ t quite do it.
Regarding the OP, and similar ones I’ve seen regarding other ideologies: libertarians, conservatives, liberals, socialists all contribute to “solving our socio-economic problems.” I’m speaking specifically for the United States, not because I don’t think the same is true elsewhere, I just don’t know. Libertarians and other groups may wish that their views were dominant, but the fact of their existence at least adds their thoughts to the political culture and probably moves politics at least slightly in their direction.
I probably wouldn’t actually like a country in which all of my political views were adopted. Surely I’m wrong about something, and certainly any of my views can benefit from the moderation imposed by the presence of other voices in the mix.
I am going to have to ask the OP for a clarification because this makes no sense.
As a moderate libertarian (yes, there is such a thing), I have no idea where you got this. Libertarians are all for organizations that attempt to solve any types of problems. It could be private charities like the Red Cross (who responded earlier and more effectively than the government immediately after Katrina) to church groups, to businesses, to civic organizations, to private space programs. The difference is that the government is not the best choice to solve these problems in the majority of the situations.
Libertarians outline very clearly that some objectives like national defense and law and order are best taken care of by the government. As a moderate libertarian, I would include also include things like buidling roads and water treatment facilities. Environmental protection can be taken care of by the government too because that is the type of thing that can infringe on other’s rights (a big libertarian no-no). Government should be mainly limited to providing essential infrastructure and serving roles outlined by the Constitution.
I am not sure what aspect of human nature you are referring to here. Socialism and Communism are anti-human nature and that must be coerced by the government. Libertarians believe that people are free to pursue their own interests within certain boundaries. Those interests only people to form individual partnerships that can meet just about any goal imaginable.
I fail to see how letting people pursue their own interests with few restrictions is against human nature. I get the feeling that the OP wouldn’t like more individual freedom so the results may be a little scary to him/her.
You do have a partial point however. It is not that libertarians cannot see socio-economic problems, it is just that we don’t believe that other people, coerced through the government are responsible for fixing them. Everyone has to live their own life. Individual responsibilty rules in Libertaria. That is not to say that their shouldn’t be plently of private charities and other organizations to help those who have fallen on hard times.
Again, look at the effectiveness of private charities vs government response right after Katrina. That was a huge boon for libertarian philosophy. I will take the Red Cross over FEMA any day I am in trouble.
To the OP. Do you even know much about libertarianism? It sounds like you are mixing in all kinds of ideas including anarchy in your OP.
Not if somebody who can throw around megabuck marketing budgets were to decide that it serves their interests.
The obvious conclusion is that libertarianism does not, in fact, serve corporatist interests. Liberal touched on a few reasons why this is the case; I would add that government regulation benefits incumbent Big Business by creating a barrier to entry (existing megacorps can afford to deal with the red tape and have in-house expertise at gaming the system; newcomers can’t and don’t).
The former. I think most libertarians are totally sincere in their beliefs.
I’d say it’s an indictment of libertarianism the same way the despotism of the Soviet Union was an indictment of communism. I think both libertarians and communists would argue that the real-world implementations of their ideologies have been perversions. If only we could have “true” communism or “true” libertarianism (so the argument goes) those evils could be avoided.
I’d argue that the ease with which both ideologies can be co-opted is evidence of a fundamental weakness in both.
Surely I’m wrong about something, and certainly any of my views can benefit from the moderation imposed by the presence of other voices in the mix.