Can you name an ideology, philosophy, or idea that is impervious to cooption? If not, then does that mean that everything a man might conceive is weak? Maybe the weakness is not in the philosophies, but in the philosophers?
“All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” — Ambrose Bierce
Possibly. The main difference, of course, is that no one has ever tried to establish a government on the basis of libertarianism. Many have tried to do so base on communism, all with **disasterous **results. So, there is no such thing as “true libertarianism” being corrupted-- it has never existed.
On might argue, however, that the US was originally founded on vaguely libertarian-ish ideals*. The federal government was somewhat of a libertarian government, while the states were free to set things up as they wished. One can very easily imagine such a system today. The feds remain basically libertarian, and we could have the whole range of state goverments: socialism in some states and libertarianism in others.
*Of course, the US was mared with many problems common to most gov’ts in the 18th century (slavery, non-univeral suffrage, etc).
I think John has hit the nail on the head with this question.
Libertarians have an unfailing faith in the free market.
Unfortunately, in the age of multi-national mega-corporations, there really is no such thing anymore.
I think Libertarianism would only be viable in an economy dominated by individually-owned businesses and small companies. Libertarian has it that the mass of people would gain the best balance of quality and price of various goods and services through competition between businesses, and I think there is some truth to this, but it only works on a small scale. As the situation stands, if the government took a total hands-off, totally unregulated policy toward business, big companies have enough capital reserves that they could lower prices and operate at a loss until smaller competitors were driven out of business altogether, thus giving themselves a monopoly in the areas where they operate.
Also, I think we’re in a trend that is such that within a generation or two people will be so conditioned to accept poor to nonexistant customer service and shoddy quality goods, at low, low prices that companies that serve the lower-to-middle income groups will not be able to compete on the basis of “it costs a little more, but it’s worth it.” Only companies that cater to high-end customers will stand a chance on that basis, and the mega-corps will eventually be able to gain monopolies or oligopolies in these markets as well.
You misunerstand the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism. Libertarians don’t argue that free markets are good because they produce better material results. They argue that they are better because they are free. That’s all. Most libertarians do believe that free markets produce better results, but that’s a side benefit. Libertarians value freedom as an end in iteself. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand libertarianism.
There’s no “faith” in the free market, because there isn’t any expectation other than freedom itself.
Suppose martians came and solved all our problems? Why would they? It’s as pointless a discussion point. There’s as much chance the Communist Party sweeping the Senate as the Libertarian party ever being taken seriously. Corporations would have no reason to support it. Like all sensible entities they want a stable, regulated environment to work in because it’s predictable, keeps the masses from revolting and raises the cost of market entry, not some lunatic dog eat dog, I’ve got mine anti-utopia. This isn’t the 18th century.
It seems you’ve helped make the point that Pochacco was mistaken in his concern about people in a libertarian society being “pwned by predatory multinationals”. As you say, corporations have no reason to support libertarian government.
Many libertarians are socialist. Libertarianism isn’t an economic philosophy, but a political one. It can accomodate any arbitrary economic system so long as all are volunteers. The “liberty” in “libertarian” is about freedom of consent, not freedom of market.
That isn’t even first base logic. ‘No reason to support’ does not mean ‘won’t take every advantage of the existing situation going once society is no longer able to impose constraints on their rapacious behaviour through collective state action.’
Then perhaps you could pull yourself together, set aside the Pittish ranting, and simply answer the question: what is it about the Libertarian Party platform that American corporations might find attractive?
The ability to wriggle out of paying the consequences of their actions or contributing to the social good as embodied in this steaming pile of crock?
I don’t really care. They wouldn’t support the whole platform in the first place, the current setup suits them fine.
Libertarianism is as much a joke as anarchism and how anybody above the age of 19 takes it seriously is beyond me. Might as well debate angels and pins.
But to have a right to property, an entity must be rights-bearing. What you’ve quoted is one of the things that scares corporations the most: what to do if you want to build a mall and poor Widow Smith cannot be forced to leave her property?
Then why did you take up the argument? That’s the point that I had made.
And yet, here you are.
I didn’t take up the argument. I was just pointing out the obvious. And I’m out of here. People can believe in UFO’s, angels, libertarianism whatever other harmless delusion gets them through the day for all I care.
Libertarianism is a joke that no reasonable person will ever take seriously. But, libertarians are not reasonable people and they do take themselves seriously. And libertarians, unfortunately, dominate the internet. I have never found a single message board that does not have at least one libertarian who goes out of his way to attack Burkean conservatives. Since the GOP takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections I have heard that the internet is the domain of conservatives. But actually it is not. I fear that many conservatives avoid the net because the libertarian distraction makes meaningful conversation next to impossible.
True. From the left of the spectrum it’s how I feel about the Socialist Workers, Galloway and all the other intellectual and moral bankrupts that seem to think it’s still 1847.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of wishful thinking. You might as well believe in fairies for all the real world relevance libertarianism or ‘from each according to his ability etc’ has.
And at least each time you say you don’t believe in them a fairy has the decency to die.
Hey! Maybe it works on Trots and Libertarians too?
I’ll give it a go once I’ve checked the odds for Galloway in the office dead pool. 
I do agree that Libertarians are overrepresented on the 'Net. I’ve found that their main demographic tends to be college educated young white men from the ages of 18-25. Usually born into middle class families, they feel like something is holding them back from true greatness, and often blame the government, as they do not see any relation between their status and government infrastructure.
I do find it odd that **Lib ** is attempting to divorce the movement from any sort of economic theory. that’s not something I’ve seen in the American incarnation, at any rate- it seems as naive as saying that communism is a purely economic movement, and not a political one.
Once you get to a place where you need unanimous consent for the support of any common service, you tend to not have that service, or end up with a bunch of free riders. So we’re facing the reduction of society into small, insular groups- and I don’t think you can sustain a modern civilization that way. Freedom is a virtue, but not the only one…most people recognize that.
And of course, no one has ever explained to me how a Libertarian government would last for more than a generation, even if we had some sort of revolution tomorrow. Unfortunately, like communism, this is one dog that can’t survive under the weight of the flees.
Thanks for bringing this back to a rational discussion among peers. While it is true that most (American) libertarians are also free-marketers, the worldwide representation of libertarian socialism is substantial, and includes many prominent writers and thinkers.
With respect to unanimous consent, the measure of unanimity depends entirely on the set of consentual entities being examined. It stands to reason that the more arbitrary the set, the less unanimous its consent. Thus, a set concocted by drawing a polygon on a map will yield a consensus somewhat in proportion to the care with which the polygon is drawn. The art of Gerrymandering is all about exactly that: drawing polygons that reflect the consensus most likeable to the artist.
Finally, with respect to the free riders, I’d be interested in how you frame that argument. So far, I’ve not seen a version of the alleged problem of the commons that convinces me.
I cannot speak for those who would agree with you, but I am reminded on their behalf of an insightful observation by Daniel Dennett: “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.”
Sorry, I meant to address this separately. The median age of libertarians was about 47 as of 1998. Here are some more demographics that you might find interesting:
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/72demographics.html
Also of interest might be this poll:
Thank you for the cite. Aside from age, it fairly accurately reflects my experiences. I do notice that the second survey was distributed at a convention; I assume the first was as well (though it does not say). I’d still assume that the Internet population of Libertarians is slightly younger than the overall population, if not as young as I first believed.
As for the commons debate, no doubt you’ve heard every objection to be had in your time here, so I doubt I can convince you of anything; but I will try to clarify my own position.
Quite simply, I think that there exist people that will opt out of essential services for short term gain, and that the rest of the community is penalized for their opting out- either by exposure to danger or footing the bill for the unpaid share.
Examples of this: Fire and police protection, road maintenance, and arguably schools, libraries, etc. It’s like immunization- your decision to opt out compromises everyone else. Some services can not afford to have holes in their coverage, and must be sustained, no matter the whims of the moment.
A poor defense, perhaps, but that’s where I am. Now, could you explain how a Libertarian state can exist past a generation? Or do we need a sea-change in how humans see themselves before that happens? I contend that at the first sign of external threat, major physical or fiscal disaster, or tragedy that could have been avoided with greater state influence, the populace will cede more power to the state. We’d end up right where we are now. Would you include a mechanism to prevent this?
I’m sure it’s a fine defense, but either it’s over my head or I’m missing the point. If I opt out of a flu vaccine, how am I compromising those who had the forethought to become immunized? It is I, and not they, who is more likely to suffer from flu, isn’t it?
I’ve always freely conceded that corruption will eventually overtake any government, and have often cited Franz Kafka’s keen observation: “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” I believe that the power of any government will always go to those with the greatest political clout, regardless of how that government is structured. The only safeguard to my own preference that I’ve enunciated here many times is the lack of a legislature, or law-making body. It is no secret that I favor a society of arbitration based on a single law: “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.” For how many generations, if any, it might hold, I can’t say. But I will say that nothing besides the ceaseless vigilance of the governed can ensure the prosperity of any society.