What's with the Libertarians?

Great Debates
41

Thanks for the great responses; I’m just getting back to this thread, now, and I would like to add a few things.

First, I apologize naming Lyndon Larouche with the Libertarians. I have long been under this impression, but I don’t really have a source for it; apparently I was mistaken.

The general feeling seems to be that the Libertarians fail as a party because the Libertarian philosophy is not practical in the real world. I find this hard to swallow. The fact is, the Democrats’ and Republicans’ politics spring from philosophies that are equally impractical, if not more so, in the real world PROVIDED you take them to the same straw-man extremes that Libertarianism is being taken here. Those philosophies - they used to be left-leaning, quasi-socialist for the dems and right-leaning, unchecked capitalism with a strong swirl of Christianity for the reps; God only knows what you can say now with any accuracy - those philosophies are merely starting points. The high ideals of the democrats and republicans have never been completely applied, thank heaven, so asking how a Libertarian government would handle such-and-such is at best a misleading question. It would handle such-and-such democratically, of course, and according to the talents of its representatives, just as the other parties do.

I could lay out where I personally agree and disagree with the Libertarian philosophy and why, but that’s not really my point.

I could lay out how I think Libertarian ideas are best to be applied to the issues of the day, and that IS my point. This dialogue seems stunted in the Libertarian party, compared to the others and there is no reason I can see for it. I know a little about the philosophy, and it is certainly NOT more bankrupt than the philosophy informing the democrats and republicans. Geez, can anyone even spell out coherently what those latter philosophies ARE anymore? The big parties are little more than political machines, matching their platforms to the polls. There’s a vague impression of a set of ideas that cling to each party like lint on a nice suit, but little in the way of explicit philosophical principles.

My original post was meant to ask, especially but not exclusively of the other libertarians on the board, why the Libertarian party has so little political sense? The evolution, through dialogue, from their idealistic philosophy to a platform that would be practical in the real world is lacking. That’s my real question, to jodih and others, why is it so?

Maybe I’m trying to direct the answer along specific lines that you all disagree with; if so, sorry. But it seems to me it does NOT arise from weaknesses in the libertarian philosophy, given that the relative weaknesses are so small (or, at this point one might say that having any coherent philosophy at all should be a strength!) but rather it seems to me to be a lack of talented people: The dems and reps, with much more resources and political future to offer, suck them up as soon as they appear.

Clearly there are those here who think the, for instance, Republican philosophy is a more sound basis for real-world politics. Could one of you outline exactly what features it has that make it so? (Or use the Democrats if you prefer).

Going one step too far, as I usually do, I would also ask you to illustrate how the party you choose adheres to the philosophy you outline in the face of challenges of pragmatism.
This last question is a troll, I admit, but not a purposeless one. I expect that the notion that Libertarianism fails because of an unrealistic philosophy will be found wanting when compared to a similar analysis of the other parties. This, I hope, will add interest to my original question.

And of course if you are a Democrat, do you really believe the Republican philosophy is a practical one for the real world? If you are Republican, would you make this statement for the Democrats? Because they are both more successful parties than the libertarians.

42

I think even a Libertarian USA would have invaded Europe, because, if you recall, after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan, Hitler declared war on US in response. I think even Lib USA would strike first on a country that had first declared war, 'cause it seems to me that a declaration of war qualifies as an initiation of force. They may not have actually fired on us, but they certainly declared their intention to do so.

In other words, it would be like hitting a guy after he’s screamed “I’m gonna kill you!” but before he strikes you. Definitely justified there, I’d say. Though I would dare say you would not yet have the right to use deadly force; you could only use just enough force to prevent HIM from using deadly force.

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

43

It is necessary to determine if a drug is a deadly snake-oil before it hits the market shelves. If you disagree with this, then we have nothing further to discuss on the subject.

The history of the Democratic and Republican parties are in a way irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that both parties offer platforms (specific stances on issues) that have reasonable chances of addressing problems and concerns, as well as affecting quality of life improvements for people. I do not see this in the Libertarian party. What I see is a single simple overriding philsophy, from which springs massive restructering that leaves us in a state that is certainly unknown and possibly dangerous.

Some caveats: I agree that there are places that government should be made smaller - places where the market should have more control. To this degree, I am in agreement with Libertarians. I do recognize however that the market is not perfect. Libertarians seem to accept as an axiom that the market is indeed perfect.

44

Not just straw men, but red herrings galore!

When I ask people simple questions like, “Whose property do you think you have rights to other than your own?” or, “What do you have against the notion of peaceful honest people pursuing their own happiness in their own way?”, do you think I get answers like, “I have rights to the property of people who have more than I do,” or, “If I think something is immoral for me, then it is immoral for everybody.”?

Hardly.

Instead, they ignore the simple questions, and change the subject, “Oh, but what if I find myself (somehow inexplicably) living beside a madman whose manifest mission in life is to buy all the property around me and amuse himself with my suffering?”. You simply roll your eyes, wondering what sort of dolt could have been so blind and irresponsible.

They love their red herrings, because then they don’t have to deal with the issues and answers honestly. In other words, they don’t have to put any real thought into it for themselves.

That’s why Phil came to understand libertarianism. He, an intellectually honest man, stopped long enough to actually think about it. When he did, just as when I did years ago, he changed his mind.

You are exactly right.

You need not wait until a mugger has shot you to defend yourself.

45

We do not disagree.

But punish the criminal, not the victim.

Enforce strict and rigid penalties against economic fraud of any kind. Shut down a drug company that will not research its product before selling it to the public, and throw its officers in prison. Wipe out a business that misrepresents itself to unsuspecting people, and give its money over to its victims.

But don’t trust politicians to be objective when drug companies contribute to their congressional campaigns, and don’t tie up life saving drugs in endless bureaucracy while people are dying.

That’s all I’m saying.

46

The essence of libertarianism, as opposed to all the philosophical window dressing, is to allow capital to exploit labor without any legal restrictions. It is a formula for a society of great riches and great poverty existing side by side. The air would not be fit to breathe and the water would not be fit to drink. We’d have to get rid of those oppressive, socialistic, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, you know.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. (Karl Marx, 1845)

47

At last, an honest Fabianist.

Pollution, by the way, is vandalism and therefore coercive.

48

“Pollution, by the way, is vandalism and therefore coercive.”

Lib, I know you hate hypotheticals (even though any question about “What would a Libertarian state do?” must be hypothetical, because you guys don’t have a real world example), but what do you do if Polluting Industries, Inc. merges with Quality Law Enforcement, Ltd. (both, through a quirk of fate, happen to be local monopolists, due to superior business management models and good brand imaging) and decides that enforcement of the “no polluting” apect of the non-coercion principle is bad for business? What do you do if the cost of hiring a lawyer to enforce the claims against Polluting Industries, Inc. turns out to be more than the compensation that would result from winning the case – especially if a victory is not assured? What do you do if you don’t find out that Polluting Industries, Inc. was releasing poisons into the atmosphere for 20 years, by which time the business has gone bust and is unable to pay restitution?

Also, out of curiosity, in a Libertarian system, are people forced into jury duty?

49

APB says:

I honestly don’t see why you would. If Libertarianism would not work in the real world, than it is nothing more than an irrelevant pipe dream.

Again, I don’t think so. The crucial difference is that Libertarianism requires unanimous consent in all cases for any infringement on the right of the individual. Without the consent of the individual (and every individual), no law may be passed and no action taken (not even defensively). I find no shelter in the idea that if the entire society doesn’t agree, maybe smaller intra-society groups would. Then you are just positing smaller and smaller Libertarian societies, until you a left with one small enough to achieve unanimity of all decisions but too small to effectively defend itself.

Uh, no. True Libertarianism is not consistent with democracy. Any representative democracy involves placing the power to make your personal decision – your personal vote – in the hands of a “representative” acting on your behalf. There is no guarantee that the representative will vote as you personally want on every issue, assuming he or she represents more people than just you, and there’s no guarantee that the representatives position will carry the day when a larger vote is taken. Implicit in representative, democratic government is the agreement to abide by decisions that are democratically made, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. There decisions very frequently involve distribution of and assessments for social services that everyone contributes to. That is not Libertarianism, under which you cannot be required to contribute to anything, no matter how self-evidently necessary, without your personal consent.

Frankly, I have no problem with the idea of greater personal responsibility and less government. I just don’t believe that these are particularly Libertarian theories; a lot of people favor them. The ideas that undermine the philosophy of Libertarianism (especially the idea of unanimous consent) seem to me to be touchingly idealistic and totally unworkable. If you want to graft the ideas of “less government” and “more personal responsibility” onto a democratic model, I’d be all for it. But I think we have to agree that we’re no longer talking about Libertarianism in that case.

I think it is so because that idealism is their platform, and there’s nothing behind it. True Libertarianism is totally unworkable in the real world. Libertarian principles might be workable in a given context, but then you’re not talking about true Libertarianism anymore. I also think the Libertarian emphasis on personal rights and governance only with the unanimous consent of the party undermines their ability to build a party with any degree of clout. I doubt that ten people who all considered themselves “Libertarians” could agree on all the major issues that arise in a political campaign. And if they can’t agree, what position does the party take on a particular issue, and who decides? It seems to me that the problems that plague Libertarianism as a system also plague it as a party.

I disagee with this. I think the philosophy is fundamentally flawed at bottom, in that it is built on an ideal – no action on behalf of any individual without his explicit consent – that is totally unworkable. I think that “talented” people who look at it as a system recognize this. I also think that ambitious people who look at it as a party recognize that the focus on individual choice above all else means that the party could never really manage to organize itself into a powerhouse. Could a hybrid Libertarian-Democratic party? Perhaps. But a truly Libertarian party never could.

I have not been drawing a distiction between the Libertarian party and the Democratic party or the Republican party, I have been drawing a distinction between the Libertarian political system and a democratic political system. The reason a democratic system is workable in the real world (and I’m talking about government here, not politics), is that a majoritarian system allows a society to move forward as a whole (based upon what the majority agrees would be beneficial and with the tacit consent of those who disagree). A Libertarian system is not workable in the real world for reasons I have already set forth.

My system is social democracy, regardless of whether it is guided by a Republican or a Democrat. This system lurches along like an unwieldy, bloated Frankenstein, sometimes achieving good things, and sometimes not. It runs by fits and starts, and virtually no one under its governance thinks it does the best thing in every case, but it is up and running, and is historically proven to work. I don’t think Libertarianism ever could.

Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face="Verdana, A

50

But the main reason Japan declared war is becasue the United States had placed an oil embargo on Japan because of Japan’s military intervention in Asia. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States because America was supplying extensive aid to Britain and the Soviet Union. If the United States had not already been using economic pressure against the Axis (which presumedly Libertarians would have opposed) the Axis powers would have been content to leave the United States temporarily at peace.

Next time ask them “Do you think the owner of a company should have the right to fire people because of their race or religion?” Or “Do you think the owner of a company should have the right to fire any employee who doesn’t agree to donate ten percent of his salary to the political party of the owner’s choice?”

Now I will give you credit Libertarian, you personally don’t duck these questions. I’m assuming that based on your past postings your answer to these questions would be “Yes, it may not be pleasant but the owner of the company has the right to discriminate.” But I think most people, including myself, would prefer to live in a society where the right to discriminate is restricted.

If politicians and bureaucracy don’t do the job of shutting down a company, throwing its officers in prison, and giving its money back to the victims, how exactly are private citizens to accomplish this? Civil lawsuits theoretically might accomplish restitution but they won’t close the company or imprison anyone.

51

As I hope is obvious, the second half of that post is directed at Libertarian, not at APB9999.

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

52

God bless you, Little Nemo, for your intellectual honesty.

I find discrimination on the basis of race to be Neanderthal in its conception. It is a foolish and myopic practice. Among those of us here, how many of us would patronize such a business? Even eliminating the hypocrites (those who say they would but really wouldn’t and don’t in real life), are there not enough among us to boycott him out of business? And if not, then how can you say that nondiscrimination is a majority sentiment?

They aren’t.

That’s what libertarian government is for, to secure the rights of peaceful honest people against con men and thugs.

It is the government that throws them in prison to keep them away from the good people.

I guess, Erratum, you’re basically asking me what if Libertaria were destroyed by an insurrection of government. My answer would be that it would likely fail.

“Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka

53

Lib, are you pretending that this has not happened before? Still, this is pretty much a straw-man assault.

Far more likely that someone just wants to make you suffer though is that they can make tremendous amounts of money while you suffer.

This is an implicit ad hominem. I mean:

Everyone who is not a Libertarian is either
(A) Intellectually Dishonest
(B) Hasn’t Thought it about it
© Is stupid

??

Lib, you do not seem to be in agreement. It is my contention that we need to determine that a drug is not dangerous before it gets on the shelf. You think it is enough that there is retaliation afterwords. Think about this for a minute. If it takes 10 years to prove a drug is dangerous, under your system the drug would be sold and used for 10 years before any suit would be filed. 10 years of the company getting rich (and heck maybe movie most of its capital overseas) and people getting hurt. As far as I know no company officer has ever spent time in jail because of a defective product without being criminally negligent - i.e. lying about test results or in some way hiding the fact that negative information is actually known. How would this be different under libertarianism?

54

No, I don’t.

I don’t know where that came from. I have said plainly that you don’t have to wait to be shot by a mugger before your can defend yourself. (I don’t know, there are so many antilibertarianism threads right now that I might have said that in another one.)

You can’t go offering for sale something that is misrepresented as safe.

55

I’d like to make a comment on the nature of the debate over libertarianism or any other change in government:

What invariably happens in these debates is that the Libertarian is marginalized, because the ‘status quo’ defenders set an unrealistic standard for the new system, then proceed to pick apart at details to ‘prove’ that the new system won’t work. This is a standard that they won’t hold for the current system.

It is not necessary to prove that Libertarianism is perfect - it is simply necessary to show that On Balance it would result in a better society than what we now have. Of course there will be problems. Of course there will be victims. But there are already problems and victims. The question is whether or not there will be less of them.

Another problem with arguing Libertarianism is that we libertarians believe that society will find a way to regulate itself, through dynamic change and the fundamental controls of behaviour brought about through the market. Therefore, it’s impossible to describe what form that change will take. So the attackers produce a system that is controlled by government, and then demand to know how that system will function without the government. The Libertarian is then forced to respond with vague details because HE DOESN’T KNOW. That’s crucual to his belief system - that the market will find a way, and it may not be an obvious way.

This may sound like wishful thinking, but Libertarians should simply point out that the vast, vast majority of human interactions ALREADY work this way. I am sitting in front of a computer that was designed without the ‘benefit’ of government regulation (other than at the most basic level of electrical safety), and yet it is high-quality, efficient, it works with hardware from thousands of other vendors, and I’m communicating with you on a vast inter-connected web of computers that were put together without government interference.

The whole mechanism of stock prices, stock markets, capital markets for funding new ventures, etc. is vastly complex, and was built without centralized control. It was the result of hundreds of thousands of people pursuing their own self interest, but being guided by an invisible hand to create something bigger than themselves and which by-and-large regulates itself.

The English Language is beautiful and complex, and there was no governing board or steering committee that set its direction.

The detractors of laissez-faire believe that without central control chaos will reign. The defenders of liberty would suggest that central control generally makes things worse, and squashes the rights of individuals in the process.

Let’s turn the argument around, and see how the current system comes out. Let’s assume that we already live in a Libertarian society, and you are arguing to replace it with a centrally controlled government of elected representatives. Do you not think that we could find just as many exceptions and special cases to ‘prove’ that your proposed system won’t work?

If you’d like to talk about chaos, how about having a multi-billion dollar investment be controlled the whim of a senator trading favors behind closed doors? How about the waste and inefficiency of one president deciding we need a huge trillion-dollar defense system, and then having the next one scrap it halfway through? How about the economic chaos of a country that changes fundamental direction every four or eight years?

If you want to talk about the human cost, let’s talk about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the nation’s jails for committing ‘crimes’ that never hurt another person?

If you want to talk about drug safety, let’s discuss the drawbacks of a system in which a central governing board or even a single individual can make a decision to release a drug that will instantly be adopted by millions? In the old pre-FDA days, new drugs were introduced into the marketplace very slowly, with the people with the greatest need taking the biggest chances. Doctors were the front-line for deciding whether or not to use a drug on their patient, and they were in the best position to know, because they read the literature and they know the specifics of their patient’s history. Now, the FDA has become a sanctioning body, and doctors take it for granted that if a drug is approved it *must be safe. So the drug goes into instant, widespread use. But if the FDA screws up, we can have a national catastrophe. Their ‘solution’ to this problem is to be overly cautious, to the point where thousands of people die every year because they can’t get the treatment they need. Another result of the FDA is that new drugs are hideously expensive. When a company submits a drug to the FDA they have to patent it, and the patent runs out in 17 years. If the FDA sits on it for ten years, then the company only has seven years to get back their investment, plus the 170 million it costs to certify the drug, plus the profit they need to warrant future investment. This translates into terribly expensive treatments that poor people cannot afford. The government’s solution to this is still MORE government involvment.

The FDA is also unable to deal with specific cases. If a cancer drug has a 10% fatality rate but a 30% cure rate, it will not be approved, because more than 30% of people survive their cancer. But this is little comfort to the person with inoperable liver cancer and will certainly die anyway, but was denied a 30% chance to live because of a bureaucracy that can’t handle the small details.

And even with this all-powerful FDA, there is just as much snake-oil in use as their ever was.

56

[lowering head in humility and awe…]

I am in the presence of greatness.

57

Sam,

You have an elegance in your writing. Thank you for your reasonable posts, I wish I had your calm, clear and concise manner in which to post.

I’ve been away from the boards for a day and a half so I haven’t been able to keep up with all the Libertarian boards – hope Lib doesn’t mind that I said (in another post) I’d gather him up and help him beat the dead horse for the rest. But Sam has clearly been able to change that focus and write in a manner that speaks well of the Libertarian Party’s principles.

Thanks Sam

58

People must be posting all over the place in here as the response time sucks!

==========

Anyhow, it has been charged that private owners (corporations) have been the worst polluters of land, water and air. I would like to have those of you that believe this please read a long article (covered over 4 days) about the single largest polluter, our US Government.

I haven’t had the chance to read all of the article yet, but you may change your mind that the government as it exists today is not the responsible land owner you think it is.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/pollution/day1.htm
Not only does it outline the fact that the government is a bad steward of the land it owns, it is also a costly proposal in which our tax dollars are being used to clean up.

59

SAM – Lib hangs his head with justifiable humility; you’re a hell of a lot better at this than he is.

I don’t think this is true. Libertarianism is hardly “marginalized” by this discussion; it’s the whole subject. It seems to me that if you are proposing a system that you allege would work better than the one we have now, it is up to you to prove that it would work better than the one we have now. I by no means intend to pick at “details” in stating that I am not convinced Libertarianism would work; I consider its fundamental flaw to be the absence of any mechanism for building consensus. So let me ask you: Does or does not Libertarianism allow for governance in the absence of absolute unanimous consent? If the answer is “yes,” must you not then concede that you are “coercing” those who did not consent? If the answer is “no,” how could you ever have a cohesive government? These are not details; these are the basis of the Libertarian philosophy.

Correct. How does this jibe, however, with your admission that you don’t really know how Libertarianism will lead to better regulation of society? I mean, if you don’t know how it will be done, how can you still have faith that it will? Where is the basis for that?

You are on a better footing already by admitting this. Some other apologists for this system refuse to even acknowledge that Libertarian society would not be the acme of perfection in every way.

Again, where does this faith come from? Is there any historical evidence that this would tend to happen? I’m not talking about profit and loss, but about human behavior. Apparently, a child born in a Libertarian society whose parents cannot or will not support it has no rights whatsoever. How will the needs of such a child be met? Through volunteerism? It doesn’t seem to me that there is much historical precedent for the powerful in any society to concern themselves with the marginalized in that society. How does Libertarianism deal with that?

This strikes me, again, as touchingly faithful, but without much precedence. I’m not talking about the advent of personal computers; I’m talking about not having uneducated children starving in the streets due to the absolute lack of any kind of social safety net.

I strongly disagree with this. I think unrestrained “free-market” capitalism helps those who have the money to participate in it, not those who don’t. The man owning the sweat shop makes the money; the people working in it are paid slave wages which they are required to pay to a company store. The owner purchases a high education, and the resulting opportunities, for his children; the workers raise another crop of uneducated workers, regardless of innate ability, because they cannot afford to educate their kids. Why would Libertarianism not lead to two distinct social classes, the “haves” and the “have-nots,” and clearly favor the “haves”?

The English language has nothing to do with government, politics, or economics. All human societies have developed language skills, beautiful or not, regardless of political philosophy.

This detractor believes that without some central control, we would probably return to the pollution, social stratification, and workhouses of early Victorian England.

With all due respect, Libertarians have no innate right to construe themselves as “defenders of liberty,” with the related implication that non-Libertarians are hostile to liberty. This is, of course, mere hyperbole.

Maybe so, but, again, I am not proposing to replace the existing system – you are. It is therefore up to you to offer a convincing argument that doing so is the right thing to do. I am not arguing against a greater free-market economy and less government regulation – advancements I happen to be in favor of – I am arguing that the fundamentals of Libertarianism – not the details – are flawed and that those fundamentals, if deployed, would likely not result in a workable system. It seems to me that a response such as “yes, it would – we don’t know how, but it would” is obviously unsatisfactory.

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

60

There are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think the commercial property owners consist of the worst polluters in our nation and therefore the EPA needs to be supported with our tax dollars. I hope you will read the following article that will change your mind on this assumption.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/pollution/day1.htm
It’s a long series of articles that the Boston Globe ran over four days. It clearly shows that our government not only is the worst contributor to pollution which is costing us billions of dollars in clean-up, but it also shows that the federal government is mostly immune from the laws it enforces.

What I get out of this article is, the clean-up effort is merely a weak attempt at a public relations campaign to sooth the taxpayers and look like a saviour to fine and make commercial polluters look bad.