That’s the first part. The second part is to doubt the conclusions of each. In most cases, such as the ones you mention, the doubt is swift and quiet. However, in the case of national and international issues of major import, the doubt ought to be non-trivial and resolved by an extensive humanist discourse rather than the sequential expert solutions which the current system favours.
OK, thanks. That’s a statement I can live with. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate…
The Libertarian arguments in this thread are by and large religious, self-righteous propaganda. This is too bad, because with decent, rational arguments, I might be convinced. I’m 90% there. I believe (with limitations) in the power of the free market to reciprocally set value. I agree (with very few limitations) that a person’s private behavior should be beyond the bound of democratic control. With possibly a few technical alternations to remove my objections relating to economic exploitation, mostly by accepting a modified system of taxation and placing structural limitations on extremes of wealth, I might well become an adherent of some neo-Libertarian philosophy.
There have actually been some good arguments here, and some arguments that are reasonable but subject to refutation. However the blatant propaganda has drawn my attention; lacking infinite time, I focus on the really egregious errors in thinking.
Libertarianism, at least as I have read its defense here, has a religious and self-righteous nature because it depends on the assumed inherent truth of its fundamental principle: that coercion is always immoral unless it is used to defend oneself or one’s property. Because Libertarians consider its truth beyond question, it is impossible to rationally debate the principle itself.
Time and again, I have seen Libertarians assert the principle as intrinsically correct. The most consistent examples are the references to taxation as “theft” and the assertion that they do not consent to the social agreement as enacted in the body of laws of our society.
To characterize taxation as theft is prima facie incorrect. Theft is the unlawful or felonious (Merriam-Webster) taking of property. Taxation is obviously neither. To give the characterization meaning, it must rest on the assumption as fact of the fundamental premise of Libertarianism.
The assertion of oppression (i.e. unjust compulsion) is also prima facie incorrect. Societies live longer than individual human beings. It is impractical and unreasonable to renegotiate the social contracts as each person reaches majority. But each person in our society has a telling option: that of leaving. This option is open to any adult, absolutely free in the strictest sense of the word; there is not the hint of coercion to keep any adult in our society. Since you are under no compulsion to stay, your continued presence is fully consensual, regardless of the consequences.
You may legitimately argue that you wish the social contract to be changed, but it is simply self-righteous to argue that you are subject to oppression unless your personal morality is implemented by society. Again, the only way this argument has any meaning is to assume as fact the fundamental Libertarian principle, and thus derive the “fact” of the consequent oppression.
As waterj2 points out, Libertarianism “does allow you the freedom to join a group of people and by agreement among each other govern yourself in ways that would otherwise be criminal or coercive.” Not leaving when you are free to do so is equivalent to joining.
The word “propaganda”, while having the denotation of merely “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (Merriam-Webster), has a strong pejorative connotation. The American Heritage Dictionary gives the example, "“the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.” Clearly, repeated fallacious reasoning deserves the pejorative connotations of the word. Obvious and repeated fallacies abound in this thread, thus I term the argument as a whole propagandistic.
First I want to define some of the fallacies. The fallacy of the straw man, argument by absurdity, non-sequitor and equivocation are quite prevalent in these arguments.
The basic Libertarian “straw man/absurdism” fallacy follows the model that “your” political theory requires absurd levels of parasitism or paternalism. Since “your” theory is so absurd, Libertarianism must be correct, no?
A “non-sequitor” fallacy asserts that a consequent follows from a premise with no evidence to support the connection. All sorts of consequents are asserted from following lLbertarian philosophy. If a Libertarian system were in place, this, that or the other would “naturally” occur. No such evidence is offered; indeed it is impossible. Lacking structural guarantees or prohibitions, it would take an actual implementation of the theory or impossibly detailed examination by game theory to prove these assertions. I refer to non-sequitors as “magical thinking.” The underlying thought process I’m inferring is that “if we have this perfectly moral basis, then every good thing must naturally follow, and no evil thing can ever occur,” as if by magic.
The fallacy of “equivocation” means using a piece of the complex meaning of a word to differentiate a philosophy. The use of “freedom”, which Libertarian admits as having an arbitrary definition under Libertarianism, usually follows this fallacy. Since Libertarianism is “free” by definition, any divergence from Libertarian philosophy by definition moves towards “non-freedom” or slavery.
In closing, I think I have offered sufficient evidence that Libertarianism cannot be rationally debated, at least not with its adherents on this board. Actually, I never met a Libertarian who could engage in rational debate (this is not to say there aren’t any, of course). I don’t see that it’s possible to convince Smartass, waterj2, Gilligan, etc. of the presence of the tiniest flaw in Libertarian theory. They are true believers. I’d have no more success in an attempt to convince CalifBoomer of the fallacy of Creationism.
To say that I’m hypocritical and deliberately inflammatory is disingeneous at best. I have merely identified the prevalence of Libertarian propaganda while offering none of my own. If I have committed any fallacy or ad hominem attack besides a few heated remarks, I am in error on that point and will admit it. It is especially ironic to read Smartass’s statement, “If you post half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks, I will respond in kind.” I urge you to read the this thread and figure out for yourselves who started the “half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks.”
Hello everyone,
I would like to clear up the L.( Libertarian or -ism ) context vs system question. The L. context would be in a democratic system with an unchangeable L. theory of government?
( An assumtion based on conversing with Smartass. )
It seems to me that SingleDad has exposed a fundamental flaw in L.
How does L. prevent economic exploitation?
On a practical level, does the L. Party endorse a fair division of property before implementing its ideas in the USA?
( I could guess, but I want to be sure. )
Smartass:
Don’t sweat the governmental disclaimer, I just wanted to avoid confusion.
It is my belief that SD’s thought experiment did show that B&T could reallisticly oppress the community. What am I missing?
Libertarian:
I am not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if not, allow me to give my understanding of this. A thought experiment is a model. By changing the suppositions in it you are, in effect, creating a new model. While the new model may be more to your liking, it does NOT invalidate the 1st model.
I am not certain that you understand freedom.
In this context freedom is neccessarily limited. Your given definition of freedom is “merely the absence of coercion”. If I can not enslave others, then I am being coerced me. Hence, coercion is not absent. So, unless I am free to do everything, then I am not free at all. However, if I enslave others, then they are not free. Complete freedom is therefore not possible in any society. You will never be completely free as long as there are other people out there besides you.
matt mcl:
A few things off topic: I also enjoyed your “cultural differences” post. I would be interested in an exploration into the differences of American and Canadian political philosophies. Since I tend to agree with your point of view, I think that the cultural differences can be overcome. If someone is willing to discard some preconceptions. I would love to learn more about the Canadian system, so I could hone my arguements on how to reform the US system.
I also would like to get in on the next 6 mental faculties discussion. I have a “You Can’t Have Common Sense” argument that I would like to test out. I probably would not be able to understand most of the references in the discussion though. My knowledge of the classics is sadly lacking. I have never read Voltaire, and I am only slightly more familiar with the Greek dispositions that Libertarian was talking about.
Also, how about a translation of the quote in your sig line. Je ne parle pas le Francais ou le Quebecois. I am not even sure that I got that right, its been a long time since high school.
(Dipping a late toe into a hot debate)
Like matt_mcl, I am at a cultural disadvantage in understanding Libertarianism. (Australia is sufficiently like Canada in this respect).
I would like to take up a couple of remarks made by Smartass and Libertarian. I didn’t notice these points addressed in the thread – sorry if they were and I missed it.
- Police power
Libertarian quoted someone (a Libertarian saint?):
‘all people are entitled by God or nature (whichever they believe gave them life — our original property) to be free from the coercion and fraud of others, even if that means using defensive or retaliatory force, or hiring someone else to use those forces for you’.
Smartass wrote:
The key advantage that libertarianism has over every other system I know of is not that it utterly eliminates oppression. It is that it makes oppression more difficult. Every other system puts coercive (read: physical) force in the hands of some number of people to use as they please. Libertarianism eliminates this.
Have I got this right? This is talking about the ideal Libertarian system. Libertarianism accepts that people will sometimes attempt coercion and fraud against others and regards this as violation of the latter’s rights, an offence against the whole of Libertarian society. However, this does not justify having a body representing that society (a police force in this case) with coercive powers of its own in order to prevent such attempts. A police force, or the politicians directing it, would use the power as they pleased and would end up oppressing people themselves. Instead, the victim is entitled to self-help, using whatever assistance s/he can pay or otherwise persuade other people to provide.
If the victim is weaker, stupider, poorer, or just less popular than the aggressor, that is too bad.
If the aggressor is weaker, stupider, etc, and gets lynched for not showing proper respect, that’s too bad too.
Question (if this is indeed what you think): Why can coercive power can be trusted to individuals or groups that are acting in the interests of only some people, and not to a public body that, in a representative democracy, is answerable, even if imperfectly, to all?
- Property
Smartass’s signature quote:
“We will continue to grow and prosper so long as we keep telling people directly that we want them to be free – free to live their lives as they see fit, not as George Bush or Al Gore thinks is best for them – free to raise their children by their own values, not the values of the politicians and bureaucrats – free to keep every dollar they earn, to spend it, save it, give it away as they see fit." Harry Browne
I take it that here the existence of politicians and bureaucrats is accepted—Harry Browne is talking practical politics and urging that the government be minimized rather removed altogether.
Question 1 “… free to keep every dollar they earn…”—What does “earn” mean here?
Abe takes an axe, his muscles and his determination and clears a farm in the wilderness that gives him a living. I take it that he has earned it.
Barry, his son, inherits the farm. Has he earned it?
Cecil, his friend, wins it in a wager. Has he earned it?
Dave, buys it cheap and then finds oil. Dave is rich. Has he earned it?
My point is that acquisition of property is doesn’t have any correlation with virtue, and is only weakly correlated with hard work or ability. Luck plays a very large part – and in any case ability, and perhaps even the character that makes hard work possible, depend on a person’s genetic luck.
Question 2 Why is it so important that a person get to keep all the property all the property s/he acquires, rather than simply enough of it to make his/her freedom meaningful?
(Sorry if it’s hard to read: I haven’t yet worked our formatting. And two more posts appeared while I was writing it.)
Can I try to put words into Singledad’s mouth?
Not being a libertarian, I don’t agree that negative freedom is all that matters and any agreement about the rules of society I might be inclined to make would have to reflect that. The problem here is that libertarians believe that the rules should only be about consent, but insist on the rules being their rules.
A social contract entered into by several libertarians and several non-libertarians would have to be a compromise: the only way it would be a purely libertarian social “contract” is by coercion.
picmr
I didn’t mean to imply that all Americans and all Canadians follow the dominant ethos in their society. I know many Americans and, heaven knows, more than enough Canadians who don’t. It’s merely a cultural atmosphere.
The quotation from Voltaire means, “Let us move away from these fictions we call systems, and to raise ourselves up let us descend into ourselves.”
Excellent; now, I think it is getting more interesting.
matt_mcl:
So, you are aware that governmental solutions tend to be bad ones; is that what you’re saying? If so, you’re already headed down the road to Libertarianism.
SingleDad:
I think we just have to piss each other off a little more, and then we’ll really be able to communicate. I think I am starting to understand where your complaint wrt libertarianism is. If I am reading you correctly, then you generally agree with libertarian principles, you object to the fact that there is nothing inherent in the system to prevent economic exploitation, and that is the reason for the thought experiment. Just to be clear, I don’t agree that the experiment shows that economic exploitation will happen; however, I don’t deny that, as a system, libertarianism does not actively prevent it. I think I want to come back to this point.
While I agree with this, I don’t think of it as a religious or moral view. If I have a moral position it is this: People should be as “free” as possible to live their lives as they see fit. Do you disagree with this? Second, I don’t believe that any one person is inherently more entitled to freedom than any other. Do you disagree with this? Now, there is no way for me to exert coercion on you without taking away from your freedom. Likewise, there is no way for you to exert coercion on me without taking away from my freedom. As a result, the fairest (that is, the most evenly distributed) way to give out freedom is to protect every individual equally from coercion. Thus each person is “safe” to live their lives according to their beliefs without worrying about being coerced by another. For me, this is not about the morality of coercion so much as it is about the importance of freedom and the equality of individuals. If there is some reason to dispute this, I would be interested to hear about it. In my experience, libertarians don’t assert this because of a religious feeling, but because we believe it to be something that should be obvious to everyone (or at least everyone who is fair-minded).
I pay my taxes every year, on time. While there are definitely things I would like to see changed in this country, I haven’t seen anything better. For me, it is not necessary to tear down the government and start over. Rather, I think we could get pretty damn close to the libertarian ideal by electing libertarian leaders and reasserting the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution.
I have not characterized taxation as theft, but as “stealing”. Obviously, it is legal. I am referring to this definition (also from Merriam-Webster): “to take away by force or unjust means”. Specifically, because of all the democracy, members of society are able to use the government to forcefully take money from me.
If the contracts were libertarian, there would be no need for renegotiation. The fact that I think the US is better than the alternatives does not mean that I am pleased about such things as taxation. When I would be leaving a situation of being forced to part with my earnings in order to enter a situation where I would be even less free, it’s not much of a choice. And certainly does not qualify as a libertarian context.
This is exactly the point. I don’t want my personal morality implemented by society. I don’t want yours implemented either. I want us all to be free to implement our own personal moralities for ourselves as we see fit. To believe that people should not be allowed to starve is a moral position. To use the government to forcibly collect money to feed these people is to implement the moral position of some portion of the population.
That is a legitimate opinion for you to hold. I could also have the same opinion of your positions. However, calling our arguments propagandistic does not help forward the debate. Your definition includes “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”. This, in and of itself, does not clarify whether the ideas are right or wrong. By calling our arguments propagandistic, you are calling into question our motives, without saying where the error you seem to perceive lies. If you then dismiss an argument out of hand because is it is “propagandistic” leaves us no points to argue, unless you are saying that if we convince you that we are not trying to help a cause, then you will accept the ideas. On the other hand, if you will give the reasons that you think the ideas are incorrect, then we can debate.
I think I pointed out before that my position isn’t that every other theory is incorrect or that libertarianism is in some way innately correct. Instead, my position is that libertarianism offers a system that is more fair than any other now existing. I don’t believe that there ever will be such a thing as a perfect system.
I also thought I explained this. I will try again. Under libertarianism, those goals that are most desirable to the most people will be most likely to be achieved. Since people are free to use their resources as they see fit, they are able to devote their energies to the goals that they think are most desirable. Therefore, if a large number of people think that it is important to feed the poor, then they will act on this belief by creating organizations to feed the poor and by donating money for this purpose. Thus, if enough people desire for the poor to be fed, they will be. Most of the things that a democratic government tries to achieve are those things that the majority of people vote in favor of. Thus, if in a democratic government, people would vote to feed the poor and thus encourage government to tax the people in order to achieve this, that means that a large percentage of the population are in favor of this action. In a libertarian system, voting would not need to occur; people, knowing that it wasn’t government’s job to solve problems, would act on problems on their own and, I believe, achieve better results. I would describe this as happening “naturally” because it corresponds to the will of the people. Whereas, when something happens by means of forcing citizens to cooperate, I think of that as being “unnatural”, or forced.
And how would the structural guarantees work? Based on what you’ve posted in the past, I think you support an ability to vote to enact change as a structural guarantee. However, this guarantee does not automatically solve problems. Before any action by the government, the people must vote for it to act, which means there has to be a large number of people wanting something to be addressed. Without a majority decision, the government offers no guarantees. In a libertarian system, people may act without the need of a vote. If enough people want something to happen to constitute a majority, then I submit that there are enough people interested to accomplish their goals without the need of government intervention. This is the problem that I have with your thought experiment. There were enough unhappy people to have passed a law to solve their problem. However, as we pointed out, there were also enough people to solve the problem without need of a law. I submit that, if you create a similar experiment where the people cannot solve the problem on their own, then they won’t be able to muster up the votes to solve it in a democratic system either.
Since I don’t know if you agree that the most fair system is one that provides the most freedom to everyone, I don’t know how to argue this. Do you think that libertarianism gives more freedom to some than others? You have only mentioned the rich. I agree that rich people have more freedom than poor people, but this freedom is not given them by the system–it is given them by having more money. And they have more money because they (or their parents) were able to sell something that was of great value to many people.
Here is the thing about democratic government that I have a problem with: Yes, the people can act, by voting, to correct a perceived inequity. However, there is no “structural guarantee” to ensure that the majority will act in a fair way. Thus, as long as there is a majority, they have power to exert supreme force against those in the minority. This is not to say that economic exploitation isn’t bad, but oppression by forced coercion is worse, because it can include economic exploitation. Taxation is a fine example. There are some things that tax money is used for that I think are good uses. However, there are a whole lot of things that I would never choose to spend my money on. Unfortunately, if I don’t make my contribution, I am breaking the law, and the government will not hesitate to use force to bring me back into line. The cost of this to me is over 1/4 of the money that I earn. Thus, I am being economically exploited through use of force. Sure I could leave; I note, though, that that is my only alternative. The people in a libertarian system also have that option–of course, they usually would have many other options as well, giving them more choice.
Sure it can. However, just “proving” that economic exploitation can occur is not enough, at least from my standpoint. In every other system, you can also have economic exploitation, and you can have coercive exploitation as well. If you want to turn me away from libertarian views, you will have to convince me of more than that it is not perfect. I already know that. You have to convince me that there is another alternative that is better (for everyone).
Does that leave us more to debate?
And don’t forget to notice who has posted more of them, as well.
2sense:
It doesn’t. Neither does any other system, unless it does so at the price of everyone’s freedom. Ultimately, the people are always the final guarantors of their own freedom. What it does is attempt to give the people as much freedom as possible to prevent it on their own. As SingleDad has noted, no one living in society can every be completely free. Libertarianism is based on the ideal of giving every individual as much freedom as possible, without favoring one individual or group over another.
How does democracy prevent economic exploitation? If the majority make the decision, then it is the minority that is exploited. In a democracy, there is also exploitation by use of force.
What would be a fair division of property?
They don’t have enough power. All they control is water, which also happens to fall out of the sky. Without being able to use force, the only thing they can do is charge exorbitant prices. However, since they cannot live off water alone, they have needs for more than just wealth. Just as the people cannot live without water, they cannot live without food, fuel for heating in winter, etc. Also, they cannot patrol the use of water well enough to prevent stockpiling. Nor can they control the sources of water well enough to prevent people from getting their own.
It is possible to envision along the lines of this experiment situations where real exploitation would be possible. However, they generally require some unique assumptions and the freezing of time. Also, it requires more people to be “in on it”. Eventually, if you get enough people in on it, you have a majority anyway. Or you run into the same problem that cartels have: The inability of conspirators to police each other.
Cazaly:
Libertarians do not support anarchy. However, they feel that “policing” is the only legitimate purpose of government. In other words, government’s purpose is to protect people from violations of their rights (from within the country or from foreign invasion), but nothing else. No regulation of health care, no feeding of the poor, etc. Needless to say, if the police have been given such power as to feel free to use it as they say fit, libertarians won’t be very happy.
The government should be answerable to the people, but should not be seen as the tool of the people for accomplishing purposes outside of the goals I described above.
If people are willing to give Abe something of value (let’s assume money) in exchange for what he produces on his farm, then he has earned the money. Since it is now his property, he is free to dispose of it as he wishes. That means if he wants to give it all away to the poor guy on the corner, that is his right. If he want to give it to his son upon his death, that is also his right.
Once the money is given to Barry, it belongs to him, to keep or dispose of as he sees fit. If he loses it to Cecil in a wager, it is now Cecil’s. And so forth.
This is true. I take it that you think of hard work and ability as virtuous and gambling as not virtuous. This is a perfectly fine moral system. However, it would be inappropriate to have government impose this morality on others, who may not have the same beliefs, and whose moral systems are equally worthy of consideration.
We do not insist that people keep all their property. In fact, most libertarians would encourage people go give money to causes that are important to them if they have more than they feel they need. What we think is important is that no one forcibly take your money from you, based on what they think is the proper amount to make your freedom meaningful. Only you can decide how much money is necessary to make your freedom meaningful. As long as you can obtain it without violating the rights of others, libertarians support you going and getting it.
picmr:
We believe our rules to be the most fair to every individual. Can you suggest a set of rules that is more fair? Convince me and you’ve got a convert.
Also, you make it sound like libertarians have a whole bunch of rules, and the discussion is just “your rules or my rules”. Libertarians want the least feasible number of rules so that, in practice, it is usually “your rules and my rules”.
Could you please clarify this point? An example of what you mean would be nice, because I can’t picture the situation you’re describing.
matt_mcl:
Actually, there are many Americans who think of the government as a tool for achieving desirable societal goals. However, with each passing year, I think that number grows smaller. The reason is that usually when the government attempts to solve a problem, not only does it fail to solve it, it creates new problems that are often worse. Take, for example, the drug war. No one would argue that it would be better for society and its individuals if people did not ingest things like cocaine and methamphetamines and become addicted to them. Because of this, the people have made it clear that they want government to solve the problem. The result? Several trillion dollars later, we still have all these drugs readily available to most people (at higher prices). Because of the decrease in supply, the trade of drugs has become extremely profitable. With these kinds of rewards available, sellers are willing to take extraordinary risks in order to get their goods to market. Then, they are free to use the profits to engage in more illegal activities, such as bribery, and arming themselves with smuggled weapons. Now, we have an entire criminal class, with a lot of “illicit” money, armed to the teeth, and patrolling every major city.
The more government spends our money to implement these sorts of solutions, the more people begin to think, “I think I could do at least that well if I got to keep my money and government stayed out of it.” Needless to say, the Libertarian Party has been achieving some phenomenal growth lately.
-VM
Only if you fall for “we must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it” fallacy.
Government solutions are never ideal, and frequently disasterous. No-one here would dispute that. But compared to what? To the extent that governments fail in the correction of market failure, to say they have failed is only to say they have failed to perfectly correct the failings of individual interaction. Compare actual government performance with actual market performance, not with hypothetical market performance.
Now to my example, which was, truth be known, a polite way of suggeting that libertarians are hypocrites:
What I am saying is this: (1) a social order requires a set of rules: property rights, etc.
(2)A libertarian would have to agree that the legitimacy of such rules would depend on the consent of all parties (hence a social contract).
(3)Given that not all people are libertarians, the agreed social contract specifying the rules of society would not be libertarian, it would be a compromise which would gain the consent of people of varying political philosophies.
Therefore, a libertarian social order (a set of rules/ constitution) which only protected negative freedoms would fail to gain the consent of non-libertarians, and thus would be coercive of such people if applied.
To insist on interpreting the existing set of rules from a libertarian point of view is a misrepresentation. To suppose that a social order could be libertarian is wrong unless one assumes that everyone is a libertarian. Without coercion of non-libertarians, there would be no agreement on such an order.
To espouse a view that it would be better if the set of rules were different is fine. Just don’t insist that we argue on your turf: it is inconsistent with your political philosophy.
picmr
The market forces of the “invisible hand” are very efficient as long as the establishment of value remains reciprocal. In such an environment market forces have been empirically proven as unbeatable in arriving at optimally efficient negotiations of value.
Where I disagree with Libertarianism is I hold the opinion that pure market economies are not stable. The accumulation of wealth has a positive feedback effect that market forces cannot control. Left unchecked, tremendous differentials of wealth will eventually remove the reciprocity of market forces. The success of Bill Gates is a prime example of this positive feedback effect: His original success derived from an astute business decision, but his success in later years derived solely from the weight of his already-accumulated wealth.
In fact there are no inherently stable theories of political economics. Societies survive and prosper, not because they have found or are approaching a “perfect” theory of political economy, but because they consiously implement a variety of competing feedback systems: moral ideas (and the moral protection of property is an important moral idea held by many people, including myself), market mechanisms, and the use of coercion to maintain both the equality of participation (taxation) and limitations on the extremes of accumulation of wealth (welfare on one end and anti-monopoly laws on the other).
Libertarianism and Communism are examples of extremist philosophies. Communism attempts to completely prohibit market forces because they can (truthfully) lead to exploitation. Libertarianism attempts to completely prohibit political forces because they can (truthfully) lead to oppression. But both systems fail because they lose the negative feedback effects of the forces they prohibit on those they permit. Western democracies have succeeded because, by permitting both market and policitical forces, they hold those forces in a meta-stable state of dynamic feedback, thus limiting the excesses of either alone.
Lest I be accused of non-sequitor, I will amplify and support these assertions in later posts.
The “robo-gov” experiment is not just a contrived example to put down Libertarianism. It is an admittedly artificial environment to isolate the operation of political and economic theories. The robot exists only for the specific purpose of ruling out revolution; the political theory must stand or fall on its own merits. And such is the purpose of political philosophy: To examine ideas that to allow us to specialize and cooperate without killing a lot of people off every generation or two.
Libertarianism can fare quite well in our theoretical community, given a small alteration in Libertarian theory.
Under classical Libertarianism, there is no check on the wealth that Bill & Ted can quickly accumulate. Since, in the short term, everyone must agree to an arbitrarily high value of water, they can quickly accumulate all the property in the community. On day one of their “putsch”, they simply set the value of water to all one’s worldly possesions, one’s home, one’s labor for life, ownership of the water, and even the very air they breathe. They don’t coerce this value, but since the alternative is death by thirst, the residents have no rational choice but to agree. There is not enough time for market forces to counter Bill & Ted’s actions. Deprived of their property, the robot, programmed with classical Libertarian theory, protects only Bill & Ted’s rights.
But let’s add one restriction to classical Libertarian theory: No one may own more property than they can personally use and control. For the sake of brevity, I will leave the precise definition of “personally use and control” as an exercise for the reader.
If we craft our definition carefully we can take away Bill & Ted’s primary tool of exploitation. Since they cannot live in each house, they cannot demand ownership of other peoples’ houses. Since they do not control the water not yet extracted, they cannot demand ownership of it. The same is true of the future value of each person’s labor. The robot simply will not enforce claims to ownership of property one does not use and have under his own control. Bill & Ted will most probably become quite wealthy, and good for them. But they are unable to use their wealth to completely remove the other residents’ ability to reciprocally set value. And now the market forces will have time to work.
The science fiction novella, And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russel describes such an ownership-limited Libertarian society.
In isolation, this sort of theory would work very well. In competition with other communities, it is arguable that other more sophisitcated methodologies would have more efficiency. “Social Democracracy”, where the large scale power of abstract ownership is permitted but limited by the power political force is a strong candidate; it’s value has been proven by the economic success of the United States and other Western Democracies. As technology becomes more advanced, and the critical immediacy of relative efficiency becomes less pronounced, it is entirely plausible that some group of people might successfully chose to live in this manner.
[quote]
So, you are aware that governmental solutions tend to be bad ones; is that what you’re saying? If so, you’re already headed down the road to Libertarianism.
[quote]
As any member of the New Democratic Party will tell you, there is a difference between believing that the government ought not to do what it is doing now, and believing that the government ought never to do anything.
I couldn’t pass this one up.
Smartass: “nothing inherent in the system to prevent economic exploitation”
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”
Lib made clear, at least to me, that the solution to the thought experiment lies in ethics, not in economics or politics. If Bill and Ted used a weapon of force to oppress the people, correction is easy to justify as a matter of self defense. They instead chose a weapon of economic exploitation, which makes correction impossible to justify without throwing out our own notions of property rights. Thus we tried to find economic solutions that didn’t solve things very well. But we were looking in the wrong place. Of course weapons of force are entirely different from weapons of economics. But the more important thing is that they are both weapons. We were focused on the type of weapon, rather than the use: oppression. In that light, correction is once again a matter of self defense.
It would be dishonest for libertarians to create this shift of focus magically just because it’s convenient. But I think it can be found in the principle that states it’s initial force that isn’t permitted. B&T initiated the oppression, so defense is justified. I can’t think of a good way to say it using terms that all sides can agree on the meaning of, but the best I can do is to say B&T “breached their social contract” once they began requiring people to be their subjects in order to live.
In the real world, it’s a lot easier to identify the oppressed than the oppressors. It makes a lot of sense to just come right out and say everyone is guilty, and it provides a practical way of “punishing” them fairly, using amount of wealth as an indicator of the degree of guilt. I need to come up with a better way of saying why I think this is the wrong approach before I post it. SingleDad, picmr, and matt_mcl raise important objections that in the past I’ve totally misunderstood in a hasty attempt to be defensive. I’ll agree to consider these objections a lot more thoroughly before replying.
picmr:
I suspect I am not following your argument. I’m not aware of any instances where the market, at least here, has failed. I am aware of instances where the government acted to correct perceived “imbalances” and, in my opinion, did more harm than good.
Agreed.
I’m not sure that even libertarians think they can work miracles. I think the key is that, if the top-level government were libertarian, then virtually all other forms of social contracts are allowed within that society, as long as they are indeed based on legitimate contract. I don’t think of it as exclusionary. If the society were completely libertarian, that wouldn’t mean that everyone was required to live a libertarian lifestyle. As has been mentioned, other forms of order can exist within this context.
While your point is taken, it doesn’t make me feel hypocritical. Since the goal of libertarianism is to give everyone the best chance of living the way they want to, I don’t see how you can imply that we are forcing people to live the way the want to. Somehow just sounds odd.
Once again, any form of government is coercive to some extent, else it is not a government. The libertarian form strives to involve as little coercion as possible. Are you saying that since we can’t reach this level of perfection, we are hypocrites for saying that it is our goal?
I just don’t get it. Are you saying we would by hypocritical for forcing freedoms onto people that they don’t want? A libertarian government does not force people to be libertarian, it only prevents them from coercing others. Now, if their personal beliefs require the ability to coerce others, then they will receive coercion from the state. Is this what you’re referring to?
SingleDad:
It’s becoming clear that we are not as far apart as I originally thought. I personally don’t have a problem with government being able to act in case of a real inequity, like in the Bill and Ted problem; the problem, to me, is defining the limits on that action–and defining what problems justify an action. As Gilligan mentioned, exploitation at that level is coercion. But, if we were re-inventing government, where would we draw the line between acceptable business practices and exploitation?
At this point, though, I don’t see it as a failure of the market. I have spent a fair amount of money on Bill’s products, but I don’t feel I have been exploited. In fact, even now, the market is working: Linux grows more popular every day. More people are learning about BeOS. Plus, the public backlash. Without the antitrust trial, MS was already getting in trouble because of consumer perception. Consumers are showing more interest in alternative OS’s for no other reason than because they disapprove of the size of Microsoft.
I want to point out, again, that the US is not a democracy. More importantly, even though it is ignored in some cases, the government is based on a Constitution which relies heavily on the notion of protecting individual rights. These rights are of a very libertarian nature. I believe that one of the reasons the US has been so successful is because of the protection that the Constitution has granted us. I also believe that, as leaders feel more and more free to flout the Constitution, we are in more and more danger of losing this greatness.
I would, in fact, contend that the political forces are not being held in check. If I were being taxed 5 or 10 percent, it might not even be worth getting too upset over. But when I am being taxed over a 1/4 of my income, I think we’ve gone into the realm of “outrageous”. And the government seems to just grow and grow…
I can accept that libertarianism might be more acceptable to more people with a bit of a “security blanket”, and that it should be focused on preventing the kind of economic screw-up that you are referring to. However, I’m not convinced that the correct basis of it would be what one person can “personally use and control”. I think that leaves to much room for unwarranted governmental abuse. Of course, at this point, I don’t have an alternative to offer. I must think on it…
I would not contend that social democracy is unworkable. However, I think it is still tends to be too inefficient to compete with a libertarian system. In comparing the countries that are generally referred to as “democracies”, the general trend is that the more “social” their policies, the less efficient their economies. The US, while certainly having socialistic aspects, and democratic elections, is the most libertarian of all. And it is the most successful. I believe that this is not coincidence.
matt_mcl:
I guess that feeling comes with time. As you grow older, and watch the government screw up more and more stuff, you start wanting it to do less and less. Not to say that you’ll want to give up on making the world better. I think most of us want to do that. The problem is that government is outside of the market, and thus is not subject to the forces of the market. Without the nudging of the “invisible hand”, there is little incentive to be efficient or to ever completely solve a problem. Most government employees are working to solve a problem that, if it were ever solved, they would be out of a job. I’ll go ahead and submit that both my parents were government employees for their entire careers.
Gilligan:
Just remember, strange people hanging about message boards distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
-VM
Smartass:
Sometimes this is indeed the case! 
More seriously, before Libertarianism can be rationally debated, the implicit assumption of the Libertarian principle as intrinsically true must be laid bare and debunked. As long as this implicit assumption exists, Libertarians can argue that their philosophy is by definition correct, and no debate is possible. Competing philosophies are by definition incorrect.
I call this sort of conflict “religious” because it almost precisely mirrors the impossibility of arguing against Creationism. Regardless of the evidence presented, evolution contradicts the Creationsists definition of truth as the contents of the Bible. Until that definition is exposed, debate cannot proceed. Once it is exposed, the only possible response is accept the disparity of definitions, or agree on a meta-theory for evaluating different definitions. I don’t debate with Creationists about the validity of the Bible. It is only when they attempt to prove their point according to my definition of a truth-seeking process that I engage in debate.
Libertarians generally have more intellectual integrity than Creationists (and I apologize for damning you with faint praise ;)). My primary intention in this thread has been merely to knock Libertarianism off its self-rightous high horse and find a relatively neutral basis by which the relative merits of various political philosophies might be discussed.
Yes, you are reading me correctly.
Of course you’re correct; the system is far too simplistic to itself be a predicion of the behavior of actual people.
Then I’m uncertain as to what you’re actually agreeing.
The assertion of the initial sentence is far too fuzzy for me to agree or disagree with it. It depends on what you mean by “free”? In the narrow definition Libertarian offered, I would disagree.
The use of the word “free” in describing a political system, be it Libertarianism, Communism, Liberalism, etc. is usually a fallacy of equivocation, because the term is much too broad. Specifically, “free” has two contradictory interpretations in political philosophy: paucity of restrictions, and abundance of options. The fundamental Libertarian principle shows this dichotomy: The restriction of the ability to coerce opens up an abundance of options not available if that restriction is removed. I can claim that my system is more “free” because it offers more options; you can simultaneously claim yours is more free because it offers fewer restrictions. Even worse, we can each argue that the other’s philosophy leads to slavery, the antitheses of freedom, because each contradicts the other’s definition of “free”. Far better to abandon this complex term and move to more narrowly defined comparative measures.
The remainder of your argument proves my point. Under a definition of “freedom” as paucity of restrictions, Libertarianism is merely tautologically correct. Libertarianism is indeed the best method of implementing the Libertarian definition of freedom.
“Stealing” vs. “Theft” is a semantic quibble. You are, in essence, asking us to accept the Libertarian principle as an assumed definition of justice. The perspective of the Democrat is that compulsory taxation is merely the enforcement of a an agreement consented to by your continued participation in society.
This rebuttal is not intended to show the superiority of taxation, but rather to demonstrate that different definitions of “justice” lead to different moral interpretations of a specific action. You may not simply presume your own definition.
This paragraph is in direct contradiction to other definitions of the “Libertarian context” offered in this thread. By those definitions any set of agreements freely consented to, forms a valid Libertarian context. As I have said before, since there is no coercion forcing you to remain in this society, your continue presence implies your consent. To declare the natural fact that there’s no other place equally or more “free” somehow hampers your political liberty is equally invalid as a parasite’s declaration that the natural fact of the necessity of eating somehow hampers his.
When your personal morality requires that you be allowed to participate in society without fulfilling the agreements imposed by that society, yes you are arguing that your personal morality be implemented by society.
Actually, the facts seem to contradict you. The debate does appear to be moving forward from a stand-off.
I explicitly added repeated fallacious reasoning to the pejorative connotation of “propaganda” and gave a score of examples where I perceived obvious fallacies as well as a basic refutation of the two primary points (theft and oppression) of Libertarian arguments.
This is a deduction. The robo-gov example posits a simple situation where the goal that is most desirable to the people is survival, and they acheive that through unchecked submission to Bill & Ted. I proved that such a “distortion” of rational goal-setting is possible (although I did not prove it inevitable). However it does throw an obstacle to your deduction. Since I proved economic oppression possible, I threw the burden of proof in your court to explicitly show how it is avoided. Since it is conceivable that the “invisible hand” may lead to oppression, you cannot merely invoke it in your favor without further proof.
Since we’re here, let’s extend the robo-gov example somewhat. According to game theory, in a resource-production competition, the victory usually goes to the player that can acheive even a small advantage in resource production. The competition is over the initial accumulation of that small advantage. Once it has been gained, the victory is almost certainly assured.
The strategy, once the initial advantage has been gained, is to use one’s superior ability to weather (or create) short-term crises to unilaterally manipulate value in one’s own favor. Monopoly is an excellent example of this initial strategy. If I can gain even a slight edge in overall resources (e.g. a hotel on Boardwalk), at some point I will almost certainly (barring unusual luck) have the ability to set the value of the rent arbitrarily high; if he cannot pay the rent in cash, I may demand enough of his property to crush his ability to compete yet allow him to survive in the game. As I take advantage of each player’s crises, it becomes easier to create or take advantage of the next player’s crises; thus the accumulation of wealth shows unrestricted “runaway” positive feedback.
This strategy finds strong analogies even in the real world. Predatory pricing, dumping, product linkage are all strategies designed to induce a short-term crisis to inflate certain valuations. These strategies rely on their proponents’ amplification of small differentials in economic power for their success. Of course, once the initial differential has been parlayed into a larger differential, complete domination is all but assured.
Purely market-base counter strategies are quite difficult to formulate. The assertion of sufficient size or complexity of the environment as a “natural” counter is not sufficiently obvious to stand on its own merit. Political solutions, i.e. enforcing arbitrary limitations on ownership and economic power, have been proven to curb at least the most extreme examples of runaway positive feedback in economic differentials.
Naturally political solutions have their own problems; runaway political positive feedback leads to disaster: Soviet Communism, for example. It is not my intention to argue the superiority of political controls over economic value. I merely wish to show that without political control, runaway feedback in the accumulation of wealth is not so trivally dismissed as “impossible”.
I have countered the refutation that without structural limitations Bill & Ted have the means of total domination at their disposal in the simplistic environment. I have shown that there is evidence that in any purely resource-accumulation based environment, game theory predicts that a small difference in resources will lead to inevitable concentration through a process of positive feedback. I have shown that real-world strategies implement these features of game theory. Naturally, a more thorough examination of these assertions is warranted.
Unrestricted democracy certainly can have this effect. The structural protections of constitutional democracy against economic and political positive feedback catastrophes are not absolute, but they are present.
By its very nature, rationality is usually consistent. Indeed one definition of a rational evaluation is that it remains consistent over time across different investigators. By requiring majorities or super-majorities, and imposing lengthy procedural requirements on fundamental changes, constitutional democracy amplifies rational decisions and diminishes irrational decisions. A rational point of view, by its very definition, will have a greater consistency across multiple people for long periods of time; irrational views, because they, again by definition, are inconsistent, will tend to cancel each other out.
No political theory, be it Libertarian or Democratic, can completely rule out social catastrophe. But, as a corollary, philosophies cannot be compared according to their moral basis. Self-destruction is a bad outcome, even if it proceeds on the most moral basis possible. We cannot compare flavors of Libertarianism and Democracy based on their intrinsic morality; I offer the alternative of basis of their predicted ability to generate wealth and avoid catastrophe. Libertarianism probably works best at the former, but there are troubling concerns about the latter.
Before we can begin to debate, though, we have to find a neutral basis on which the debate can occur. The assumed inherent moral superiority of Libertarianism must be overcome before such a neutral basis can be found. If I prove that Libertarianism is not perfect, then I have we are closer to finding a mutual basis of negotiation other than the definitions of the philosophy itself.
Gilligan
Splendid analysis. Thank you.
Single Dad
All definitions are arbitrary because they are all tautological by nature.
Given any arbitrary word, its definition consists of other arbitrary words that are themselves defined, and so on. This recursion of elements (words) within the universal set (the language’s whole vocabulary) will always lead eventually to the original word. It is like a curved universe in which, if you looked through a telescope sufficiently far, you would see the back of your head.
A crib is not a baby bed in South Central LA. Force is not mass times acceleration when we are talking about ethics. And freedom is not anarchy when we are talking about libertarianism.
It is not a fallacy to define your terms. Whatever source conveyed that to you is mistaken, or else you have mistaken what it was saying.
Libertarian If all terms are arbitrary, and all analysis equivalent, on what basis can we debate? Or are we all just engaging in meaningless activity, with no point but to amuse ourselves until we die?
All governments operate at the expense of the freedom of their citizens. Our present government has laws to prevent economic exploitation. Assuming that these laws were enacted to prevent exploitation that was happening at the time, I would think that the exploitation would begin again if these laws were repealed. I assume that you would favor the repeal of these laws.
The reason that I was asking about a fair distribution of wealth was this:
In democracy everyone has an equal say in governmental decisions ( obviously this is theoretical ). In a L. system while everyone would have equal rights, they would not have an equal say in solutions. A person with more wealth would be in a position to have more influence on an issue. This seems unequal to me.
Why should I be more influential in social policy making than someone else simply because I happened to be born with more property?
Since SD is back I will leave his thought experiment to him.
I still do not understand what type of govenmental system the L. context would be in. Was my earlier statement about this correct?
Thanks for the reply.
SingleDad:
I’m not too sure about this. In real world terms, how can you achieve, long-term, more options without the removal of restrictions? Is not each restriction the removal of an option? Or are you referring to equality of options? If that is the case, then I would submit that equality of options is neither achievable nor desirable. For one, many people begin life with a distinct inequality of options due to their genetic makeups. Further, for most people, it is not the quantity of options that are important so much as the specific ones–it will never be important to me to have the option of homosexual marriage. On the other hand, it is very important to me to have the option of purchasing a firearm. I would say that by trying to minimize restrictions, libertarianism ensures that people are most able to pursue those options that are most important to them.
Are you suggesting that we can come to a more mutually acceptable definition of “freedom”, or that we should abandon the term? At some point, to reach any sort of a agreement, we’re going to have to determine some sort of base value–something that we can agree is important to achieve. If we are not giving some sort of weight to something, then all systems are equally acceptable.
Indeed, I am trying to convince you of that. However, that is not the reason I pointed this out. I have noticed a tendency for you to point out things that are “legal” or “illegal”–and in this case you dismissed my statement as simply incorrect on this basis. I was pointing out that my statement was not in reference to legality but, indeed, the libertarian definition of justice.
This is true. But if we don’t have agreed-upon definitions, we cannot discuss anything. Until and unless you offer an alternate definition–which we can debate–that leaves me with only my own to go by.
But, in reality, this “natural fact” does, in fact, hamper my political liberty. However, I will submit that this society is libertarian enough that we can achieve greater freedom from within it, without necessitating departure. To be honest, I find this part of the debate a little confusing because my goals are not to destroy the system but improve it–to modify the social contract, if you will. I think my goals could be achieved merely by the election of a libertarian president and a certain number of libertarian representatives. I further believe that if more people had a clear understanding of libertarianism, that this would be achievable.
I disagree. My desire is not to circumvent the agreements. My desire is to change them. I think this is fair. If society were implementing what you are referring to as my personal morality, it would not prevent anyone else from living according to theirs–as long as theirs didn’t require use of my property. I think if we pursue this, though, we will wind up chasing our tails. We need to get the underlying stuff straightened out first.
Depending on your assumptions, you can prove anything to be “possible”. And I don’t know of any way of proving something to be “impossible”. While we did not show that your scenario was always avoided, I think we did show that it was “unlikely”. Does “unlikely” counter a “possible”? I don’t know, but it’s giving me a headache.
I don’t like this line of reasoning. In real life, there is rarely a clear-cut victory to be had, and often decisions are made on factors other than just cost. By this line of reasoning, Coke should have already put Pepsi out of business. In most cases, rather than winners or losers, you usually have people doing the “most well” and others who are doing “not as well”. The thing about playing Monopoly is that there is no choice–I don’t decide to stay at your Boardwalk hotel; I am forced to by the roll of the dice.
If it is “all but assured”, why is it that it practically never happens, even in markets where practically no outside intervention is present?
No need to argue that point–I have no desire to dismiss it as impossible.
I disagree. I would submit that this occurrence is possible, but would not say that it “will” happen or is, for that matter, even likely. In the thought experiment, for example, you did not establish the accumulation of resources–specifically, water. You said that Bill and Ted specialized in water production, meaning they are more efficient at it than others; this does not, however, lead to the conclusion that they can contol all sources of water. And in fact, I would counter that, as soon as their prices exceed the less-efficient costs of people acquiring their own water, people would stop purchasing from them. The only way that Bill and Ted can force people to pay exorbitant prices is by controlling all other sources of the good. I submit that, in almost all cases, this is virtually impossible without the use of physical force. Once again, I’m not saying it is impossible, but far less likely than you are suggesting.
And, in the short term, generally quite effective. What disturbs me most is the erosion of these protections over time: An income tax of the sort we are using now would have been unthinkable at the founding. Second Amendment rights to bear arms are infringed more with each passing election cycle. Protections of one of our most valued rights, free speech, are abridged by pointless “political reforms” like campaign finance restrictions and disclosure laws. Dishonest, or misguided, politicians are too able to point to perceived problems and convince the majority that the solution lies in conceding necessary liberties.
I disagree, unless you are assuming rational thinkers. If this were true, by now there should be no Biblical Creationists left. The Drug War should have ended years ago, when rational thinkers realized that it just plain isn’t working. Etc.
I can accept this.
This proof is not necessary. I will submit that libertarianism is not perfect. Let us find this mutual basis of negotiation.
Libertarian:
Naturally, I appreciate you jumping in. However, I think you are, indeed, equivocating. The point is not whether any words can have an ultimate, inviolate definition. The point is that, before we can have a meaningful debate, we have to be able to agree on at least provisional definitions. Otherwise, I might refer to my pet dog sitting on my lap. Meanwhile, you, who think of “dog” as referring to what I think of as “elephant”, are appropriately horrified.
If we cannot agree on what is “freedom”, we must agree at least on what things are desirable for society; else we will never reach any sort of conclusion.
2sense:
Generally, yes. Could you list some examples of this exploitation that were curtailed by laws? When you say, exploitation will begin “again”, I am wondering when it stopped.
In what way does this person with more wealth influence this theoretical issue? For one thing, if the decisions are not “govermental” decisions, it changes the landscape, don’t you think? In this case, decisions are “personal” decisions, and I have the most influence on my personal decisions. Someone with wealth may be able to influence those decisions–but I ultimately have the greatest influence.
Also, you seem interested in equality. I guess you define “one person, one vote” as equality. As for me, I think there are many different measures of equality and that, in this world, no two people will ever achieve equality. If I am consistently in the minority of a democratic society, I may not have more votes than my neighbor, who is in the majority, but his choices are always implemented and mine are never implemented. Is this equality?
If the government is solely concerned with protecting the rights of citizens, what sort of social policies do you expect to be influencing? In terms of big social issues, even Bill Gates can only accomplish so much, particularly with money as his primary tool. For big issues, the amount of actual change is going to be based on the number of people interested and their level of dedication. This is similar to what happens in a democracy; however, leaving all participants subject to market forces tends to make the processes much more efficient.
Hmmm. I may be the wrong person to ask about that. I don’t know if libertarian theory provides for a “correct” governmental system or not. To be honest, I don’t get a lot of joy from theory for its own sake.
For my purposes, we can achieve a quite effective libertarian context with our current governmental system. Maybe I’m not fanatical enough, but I believe that our Constitution, as written, provided a very libertarian context to society. It is the willingness on behalf of the Congress and the Supreme Court to reinterpret things like “interstate commerce” in such a way that everything is now interstate commerce that leads to problems. Most of the things that I see the government doing now that are “anti-libertarian” are things that they were not actually empowered to do.
So, the short answer is: We can achieve a libertarian context by electing Libertarian candidates. For me, that is enough of a revolution.
-VM
Single Dad
We can debate so long as we understand one another’s arbitrary definitions and so long as we accept one another’s axioms. Failing those, debate is futile.
Some of us seem to be.