The people who are on the Internet, and particularly the people who have time to vote in online polls, are not representative of the American electorate.
I think one reason the LP has such little support from large businesses is because of its total opposition to corporate welfare. It opposes special favor legislation.
My, my, you people are sooooo cynical. A lot of you think that people vote solely in their own self-interest. I have to disagree. Reduce this argument to its simplest terms, and Dubya should win this election by a landslide - he’s promising tax cuts for everyone, so the only people who should vote for Gore are the relatively few who will get more from Gore’s promised cuts, and those who work for or benefit from government programs Dubya might slash.
As it happens, I am somewhat impressed by the American electorate, for the first time in years, that Dubya’s tax cut proposals aren’t helping him, and might actually be slightly hurting him.
People often vote stupidly, but not necessarily because of their self-interest.
Sua
Libertarian: one reason the LP has such little support from large businesses…
That’s kind of surprising, considering that Libertarians are frequently enthusiastic supporters of large businesses and strongly anti-regulation: consider some of the many articles at free-market.net defending Wal-Mart and Microsoft, for example, against charges of unfair competition.
…is because of its total opposition to corporate welfare.
But as noted above, many Libertarians are fervently pro-corporate in most other respects. It seems to me that more likely reasons that corporations aren’t trying to pour money into Libertarian campaigns are 1) much Libertarian support can be counted on via ideological commitment rather than bribery—why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? and 2) the party is not currently enough of a player on the political scene to repay the investment.
And good points, waterj and MEB and MysterE: it’s true that while many non-Libertarians may be explicitly anti-Libertarian, we can’t be more than a small fraction of those non-Libertarians who simply have no exposure to its philosophy.
Libertarians fare poorly because the American people are lying frauds!
The American people may tell pollsters that they want smaller government, but they don’t mean it. Fact is, most Americans want smaller government for everybody ELSE< but they want lots of pork barrel and goodies from the government for themselves.
A TRUE Libertarian candidate for Congress could NEVER win in Iowa, because he couldn’t hope to promise as many subsidies to farmers as the Republican or (especially) the Democrat would.
A TRUE Libertarian could never get the all-important Senior Citizen vote, because he couldn’t promise to jack up Social Security and Medicare benefits.
A TRUE Libertarian can’t promise much to his constituents, and that puts him at a severe disadvantage.
astorian: *Libertarians fare poorly because the American people are lying frauds! *
Gee, sounds like just the sort of folks you’d want to entrust with the responsibilities of maintaining a Libertarian society. :rolleyes: I’m with Sua on this one: I don’t understand how so many of you can be so convinced that Libertarianism is the right political philosophy for this country and simultaneously so contemptuous of your fellow-citizens’ ability to live up to its demands.
Kimstu: You should do your homework. astorian is right behind oldscratch on the “People I would never mistake for a Libertarian” list. So why are you misattributing your reservations about Libertarianism to someone who doesn’t even subcribe to its philosophy?
As far as:
I would turn it around and ask how you can simultaneously believe that the citizenry is composed largely of selfish, evil reprobates who could not be trusted to live peacefully and honestly in a Libertarian context, yet trust those selfish, evil reprobates to elect people who will make decisions with respect to how you may live your life.
You apparently are having a difficult time distinguishing between laissez-faire capitalism and giving millions of tax dollars to Pillsbury Corporation to promote its products in Europe. It’s a distinction worth looking into, if you’re so inclined. If you’re not so inclined, you may continue to conflate them to your own detriment.
You misspelled, “Dubya’s proposed tax cuts mostly benefit only the wealthiest 10 percent or so of Americans.” Hope that helps.
Phil: Just wanted to point out, once again, that neither Kimstu nor anyone else offering a reasoned critique of Libertarianism has ever said this. The libertarian philosophy necessarily predisposes itself to absolutism–i.e., for a libertarian society to function, it must be possible to easily distinguish the peaceful, honest people from those who aren’t always peaceful or honest, or those who are peaceful and honest to varying degrees. Our current context, despite your protestations to the contrary, is based not on the idea that we’re all “selfish, evil reprobates,” but that such absolutism is inherently impossible–that some people are dishonest, and some people act irrationally, and that we need a social framework to deal with those eventualities in light of a greater good.
Also, Wendell Wagner said this, in response to the OP:
It’s important enough to be repeated. There is a greater proportion of libertarians on the Web than in the U.S. as a whole, and most Internet polls are easily skewed towards one perspective or another, with a little coordination.
Well one time they departed from this caused them to lose my vote. That was when they ran Howard Stern for Governer of NY.
This is absolutely, 100% untrue, Gaudere, and I can’t imagine why you would say it. There need not be any distinguishing done at all. In a libertarian context, all people would be presumed to be peaceful and honest until they demonstrate otherwise. The ones who are not peaceful and honest will be easy enough to distinguish by their own actions; they will act unpeacefully and dishonestly. And, when they do (and not a minute before) they will be subject to the appropriate penalties, and it won’t matter if they are Mumia Abu-Jabal, or Bill Gates, or you, or me.
Wherever did you get the idea that it would be otherwise?
Of course we do. That’s exactly what Libertarianism is–a framework in which, unless one is acting dishonestly (we won’t even get into “irrationally,” as that shouldn’t even enter into it), one is left alone to engage in relations as they see fit. When one does act dishonestly, then and only then should they be “dealt with.” Do we need a framework where peaceful, honest people are not allowed to engage in voluntary relations with others, and regularly have their freedoms abridged, because some other person claims power over your life and your property?
(italics mine)
That sums it up, Phil. The fact that people do act irrationally changes the nature of the whole equation, and your dismissiveness exemplifies the utopian nature of libertarianism. Listen: Not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time. Not even most of the time. Some people act out of short-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the longer term, and some people act out of long-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the shorter term. But not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time, and being occasionally irrational in no way automatically removes someone from the ranks of peace and honesty. It really doesn’t seem like you’ve factored this stuff in.
(Oh, and by the way…I’m Gadarene, not Gaudere.)
Most Libertarians believe that the correct function of the state is to:
[ul]
[li]Maintain a military, to defend us from outside agression[/li][li]Maintain a police force, to protect us from internal agression[/li][li]Maintain courts-of-law, to objectively settle disputes among citizens[/li][/ul]
Thus, in a Libertarian society we would still have crimes, and those crimes would still include things like forgery, bribery, fraud, and theft. We would still have civil courts, and you could still sue someone for infringing on your civil rights or damaging you financially.
To the extent that these necessary forms of government need to be financed, libertarians still support various forms of taxation. The Libertarian Party proposes the abolishment of income taxes, because they believe that these functions could be financed purely with excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. And I think this is true.
What we WOULDN’T have are:
[ul]
[li]‘Victimless’ crimes such as drug use, prostitution, seat belt laws, etc.[/li][li]Government agencies that confiscate the wealth of one person for the purpose of giving it to another.[/li][li]Government agencies that act to protect us from our own free choices. That would include OSHA, the FDA, and other ‘nanny state’ bureaucracies.[/li][/ul]
Note that a Libertarian society would not be much different than what the U.S. had in the early 1900’s. I dont’ recall chaos in the streets then, and our improved economy and technology should make things a lot better today.
A standard tactic used by statists to attack libertarians is to characterize them as anarchists and ridicule them. Unfortunately, many libertarians play into this by allowing debates over private police forces, private militaries, for-hire courts, and other extreme ideas that are not part of mainstream libertarian thought anyway, and just serve to make them sound dangerous and silly.
If you want to debate Libertarian ideas, start with these:
[ul]
[li]Is the ‘war on drugs’ on balance a good thing for our society, or would we be better off just legalizing it?[/li][li]Does the FDA do harm? We all know of some of its benefits, but why do we never discuss the liabilities?[/li][li]Does the ‘war on poverty’ actually help poor people, or would they be better off living in a wealthier society?[/li][li]Is a huge Bureaucracy dedicated to organizing the retirement benefits of all citizens better than letting those citizens do it themselves? What are the societal consequences of guaranteeing a safe retirement regardless of what lifestyle choices you make?[/li][li]Does the Department of Occupational Health and Safety do enough good to justify the billions of dollars it absorbs?[/li][li]Is giving a bunch of men in Washington control over the direction of our technology, space program, agriculture, and other important infrastructures better than letting the citizenry decide with their own dollars?[/li][li]Is a large national agriculture policy a better way of organizing our agriculture than the free market? To agricultural subsidies and special levies serve our interests, or the the interests of those who want to be re-elected?[/li][li]Do Career politicians act in the best interests of the country, or do they pander to special interests?[/li][li]Is the free market capable of regulating itself, or do we need a group of politicians to over-see it?[/li][li]Could private charity and an improved economy replace the welfare system?[/li][/ul]
THESE are the questions we should be debating. These are the ones that have immediate impact, and the ones that would be rapidly changed under a Libertarian government.
Mea maxima culpa. Stupid post-holiday faux Mondays. 
I’m not dismissing it completely, merely pointing out that acting irrationally does not mean you are not peaceful and honest. “Peaceful and honest” being defined here, of course, as not initiating force or fraud against another person. Rationality and irrationality don’t enter into it at all.
I don’t see that it changes the nature of anything. If someone acts against their own self-interest, as long as they are not coercing others to join them, it does not compel us to constrain their behavior.
Look at it this way: My sister is extremely irrational. She often acts against her own interests. Whether she chooses to do so is no concern of mine except to the extent that I don’t want to see her suffer as a result of her own stupidity. I choose to help alleviate that suffering.
My sister, however, is also dishonest and unpeaceful. That is a concern of mine, because she acts fraudulently towards me and others.
No kidding.
You seem to be arguing my side here, unless you’re saying that people don’t have the right to be irrational.
As long as people are peaceful and honest, do they have they right to act irrationally, in your opinion? Or do you feel people’s behavior should be constrained completely by what you (or someone else) feels is rational?
Gadarene said:
Wait, phil- you’re a Libertarian, too? They’re everywhere! Or are we merely assuming that anyone who can cogently describe the Libertarian philosophy must completely adhere to it?
Anyways.
I think the Libertarian lack of votes on a Presidential scale is mostly due to a fear of vote-wasting. Sure, one could vote for Browne and show one’s true feelings and philosophy, but Browne’s never going to get enough votes to be noticeable, and you’re better off voting for the Republicans/Democrats who better agree with your feelings on Libertarianism in order to keep the Democrats/Republicans out who would trample over your rights (choose between them depending upon whether economic or social issues take the forefront in your Libertarian point of view).
As for the lack of exposure- it is a painful cycle, what with the media refusing to take the Libs seriously until they receive enough votes, and the Libs unable to receive enough votes until the media takes them seriously. However, the Reform Party took a major swing over the election of Jesse Ventura (true, Perot had given the party its’ original legs, but by '98 it was falling apart into irrelevancy), albiet a swing destroyed by the current fracas over who is the ‘real’ Reform Party.
But there’s also the extremist philosophy- the Libs are advocating major changes in the way the U.S. government currently works. We can debate the ‘rightness’ or ‘originalness’ of this position until we’re blue in the face, but what’s important is that the Libs are asking for people to make severe adjustments in their own lives and what they expect/require from the government. And until we reach a point where the current status quo of the government has obviously failed, I don’t think many Americans are interested in those kinds of changes.
Okie-dokie. I’ll give you my personal opinions.
The war on drugs is a Very Bad Thing ™. We’ve built ourselves a ‘prison industrial complex’ in this country which needs to be completely re-evaluated.
I’ve got no problem with discussing its liabilities. It doesn’t seem like most libertarians acknowledge its benefits and, more to the point, whether those benefits could be retained in a society without federal oversight of food and drugs.
You might want to rephrase that question; as it is, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I’ve yet to see a cogent argument that this society would not suffer greatly without some sort of safety net–the wealthier the society, it would seem, the greater ability to provide for those less fortunate.
Again, you present a false choice. “Letting those citizens do it themselves?” Is that really what privatization does? In addition, I find the implication that prolonged poverty (a condition by which people could not guarantee themselves a safe retirement) is to some extent a lifestyle choice extremely telling.
A syllogism. OSHA does good. OSHA is inefficient. Therefore, OSHA should be streamlined so that it continues to do good while becoming more efficient. As above, no one’s presented a convincing case that workers would be more safe–or even as safe–in a society where businesses regulate themselves.
How, exactly, could citizens “decide with their own dollars?” I’d say it’s necessary for citizens to defer many aspects of policy to a group of people somewhere, be it in Washington or the various boardrooms of businesses across America; I’d just as soon have that group of people be ostensibly accountable to and representative of the rest of us, in a way that private industry could never be.
There are problems with our national agriculture policy. Make a case that an unregulated free market would address those problems without creating other, more severe, problems. Explain why ceding policy control to the market would be preferable to reforming our current system.
The latter, in many cases. Do CEOs (who aren’t bound even nominally to act for the good of society) act in the best interests of the country, or do they pander to special interests?
The latter. Find me an economist who says that a self-regulated market would not most likely be an unmitigated disaster.
Unless by “improved economy” you mean “millions of people no longer experience systemic poverty,” then absolutely not.
Just three questions which might help clarify the field of potential discussion:
-
Is it in my own self-interest to provide a safe workplace for my employees, or one where they are in danger of preventable injury or death?
-
If I promise my workers a safe workplace, and fail to do so, I have committed what?
-
Would I be smart if I went to work for an employer who did not promise a safe workplace?
By deciding which entities they want to do business with. If I want to launch a satellite, and some company can do it more cheaply, more safely and more efficiently than NASA, why should I not be allowed to do business with them?
If those private industries don’t provide their customers with the products they promise at reasonable prices, they won’t have any money. That’s pretty accountable.
Phil: Because people do not always–or even often–act rationally and with appropriate foresight, we cannot be counted on to pursue policy goals that will result in a positive outcome for society. This doesn’t mean that people are “selfish, evil reprobates”; simply that we’re not perfect.
For example, if public libraries are not a high enough collective priority–assuming that each person has finite resources (time and money) to spend funding their favorite causes–to be sustainable by charity, a foreseeable outcome is a rise in illiteracy and a concretization of class boundaries (as those who can’t afford it do not have access to means of improving their standing). This, in turn, could have negative effects for everyone–higher incidence of crime, declining purchasing power, fewer college graduates. Arguably, if people were perfectly rational, we’d understand that the long-term benefit of a literate, informed society outweighs the short-term cost of helping fund libraries. Since we’re not, we probably won’t.
Libertarians counter the questions about privatization by saying that peaceful, honest people will be free to make their own decisions regarding their own interests, without government interference. Given that people’s decisions–especially regarding social institutions–can impact more people than just themselves, the fact that those decisions will not always be informed or rational should certainly be an issue when evaluating the libertarian philosophy.
Hong Kong
A side note: Y’all do realize that a “pocketbook democracy”–that is, a society in which people’s consumer choices serve in the stead of political representation–will perforce favor those who have more money (and are therefore able to voice their preferences to a greater degree) over those with less money, right?