Wait. You said “bullcrap” and then re-iterated what I said.
You (assuming you are a Libertarian) are opposed to democracy. That is, when it comes to economic matters, matters that relate to the most fundamental aspects of obtaining the necessities of life, then you are opposed to democracy. So, you can chose what kind of candy bar you want to buy, and you will have a wide range of choices, but when it comes to arranging an economy, nooo, can’t have the ignorant rabble playing any role there.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.
—You (assuming you are a Libertarian) are opposed to democracy.—
No. I am opposed to people and governments having the power to abuse other people, not against governments being democratically elected. Democracy is the best way to contro political power: another important way is to LIMIT political power to begin with. I want the government to be democratically controlled. I also want it to be less powerful.
—That is, when it comes to economic matters, matters that relate to the most fundamental aspects of obtaining the necessities of life, then you are opposed to democracy.—
You need to make up your mind. First you’re complaining about democracy, and then about rights. Well, I’ve got news for you: when something is a right, that means that it can’t be violated even if people “democratically” decide to violate it. What you are accusing me of is being anti-democracy just because I believe that certain things should be protected against: should be rights.
Very well: then you are anti-democracy because you’d probably complain if me and some guys formed a “government” and decided to kill you, or take your car for our use. You might whine about your “rights” but jeez man: we VOTED on it, and we even gave you a chance to vote: how can you oppose the will of our democracy?
— So, you can chose what kind of candy bar you want to buy, and you will have a wide range of choices, but when it comes to arranging an economy, nooo, can’t have the ignorant rabble playing any role there.—
“Arranging” an economy: you make it sound so pleasant! But in reality, there is no such singular thing as an economy that society even has the RIGHT to “arrange.” At every level, “arranging” an economy means forcibly taking some people’s property from them and putting it to your own ends.
—As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.—
Well, glad to see you’ve thought this one through. I guess every political thinker since the idea of “rights” was first developed has been in on this “trick.”
rights: you deserve to be given this… a right to shelter, to a fly honey, to a racecar, etc.
rights: you cannot have this done to you: you have a right not to be murdered, raped, your free speech quashed, etc.
What do you see as illegitimate about that distinction?
What fundamental human rights do libertarians seek to deny? It would seem to me that they, by far, have the ideology most suited to protecting rights.
Unless, of course, your idea of “rights” are socialist nonsense that rely fundamentally on enslaving one portion of the population to meet the entitlements of the other. Libertarians believe (as far as I know) that slavery - even incremental slavery - is wron. And in my book, ‘rights’ such as “right to health care” or “right to a yacht” are fundamentally slavery.
Even IF the Libertarians started fielding intelligent, attractive candidates, rather than the nut jobs they usually offer, they’d be stuck with this problem:
Most people WANT “stuff” from the government. Most people GET “stuff” from the government. And most people LIKE getting “stuff” from the government.
“Stuff” covers a wide range of things, obviously. Some of them seem vital and uncontroversial to most people. Some of them may strike us as frivolous or unnecessary. Some of them may even outrage us. But people want them, and will not vote for anyone who threatens to take that “stuff” away.
A farmer receiving agricultural subsidies is NOT Likely to vote for a Congressional or Senatorial candidate who’s pledging to eliminate farm subsidies!
An old lady on Social Security is going to vote early and often against any candidate who pledges to privatize Social Security!
A college student is unlikely to vote for a candidate who’s pledging to cut back federal funding of higher education.
Oh sure, if you got to talk to any one of those people one-on-one and explained the Libertarian ideal in full, you might get a nod, a momentary sign of comprehension, even of agreement. But then, you’d have to explain to them in practical, immediate terms why each would be better off NOT receiving the subsidies he/she is now getting. And at that point, you’re out of luck.
Moreover, As it now stands, the fight for federal pork barrel is pretty much a zero-sum game. You have 535 people in Congress, each fighting to get pork barrel for his/her state or home district. Most of them were elected precisely BECAUSE they promised to bring home federal dollars for local pet projects.
Now, even if Libertarian Candidate Joseph Schmeaux is a reasonable, intelligent, articulate guy, and even if he makes a VERY persuasive case that the USA as a whole would be better off with smaller government, most voters are likely to reason…
“Schmeaux makes sense. Government SHOULD be smaller. But as a practical matter, it’s NOT going to shrink appreciably any time soon. So, what’s going to happen if we elect him? HE’LL make a principled choice NOT to fight to bring pork barrel to OUR district. But the OTHER 534 guys in Congress won’t be so idealistic. As a Congressman, Schmeaux won’t be able to shut down a single spending program. The only thing he CAN do is make certain that our district doesn’t get a cut of the spending! The other 534 people in Congress won’t hesitate to grab the spending that WE idealistic idiots refuse. So, in the end, electing a lone Libertarian Congressman is both useless and self-destructive. We’d cost OURSELVES federal benefits, but wouldn’t save any money at all. Our own best interests lie in electing a Congressman who’ll fight tooth and nail to get OUR district a goodly share of the loot.”
So, the bind the Libertarians are in is this: they CAN’T and WON’T win local Congressional elections one at a time. It makes no sense for any district to elect a Libertarian unless all the other districts are doing so.
Basically, a vantity publisher is someone you pay to publish (usually a very small quantity of) a particular book, with no restrictions on quality, and no other services (marketing, selling/shipping to book stores, etc.) They tend to be used either for people that just like seeing their name in print, family histories, or other things that very few people would want, and even fewer would like to buy.
Again, you are not contradicting what I have said. You are opposed to democracy, since you want to limit democracy to certain areas. You are passionately opposed to democracy in the economic sphere.
At least be consistent. If you are going to be against democracy, then defend your anti-democratic stance. Don’t pretend to be pro-democracy, and then say that you want to limit democracy.
I can’t make sense of that last sentence. Perhaps you would like to clarify. But, I see no contradiction between rights and democracy.
In fact, rights only exist to the extent that they are a part of the social contract. Neither states nor laws grant rights, the role of the state should be to defend rights that are a part of the social contract. But, rights only become a part of the social contract after years of struggle, they are never granted as a gift. They must be won and defended by popular action. This is true with every right we enjoy. To take one example, the right to free speech has not existed in the U.S. until very recently, despite the right to speek freely technically being part of our system of laws. Still, people were sent to prison for saying the wrong things all the time, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court until the 1950’s. It was only popular action and struggle that won the right to free speech. It had to be won against the powerful and the state, who sought to destroy it, and still do.
If that is your conception of democracy, then I can understand why you are so passionately opposed to it. In this regard, you share the views of the intellectual culture in general in the U.S., which has always been passionately opposed to democracy. However, your scenario suffers from very serious flaws, not the least of which is that you and your friends do not constitute a legitimate government.
Why should society not have the right to arrange its economy!!?? Why should we not have the right to decide how we will arrange production and consumption?
Perhaps you should read some writings of the greatest American philosopher, Thomas Dewey. Dewey argued that it is ridiculous to even talk about democracy unless there is democratic control of all aspects of public life, including economic matters. The rather pernicious technocracy that has taken power in the west in the last century has been a triumph over democracy, as it has taken the most fundamental decisions over how we, as a society, arrange our economy, out of the hands of the people, and placed them in the hands of a mostly invisible corporate ruling class.
With only “negative” rights you do not have the most basic right of all, the right to live. In Libertopia, there is no right to live, only the right to try and get what you can on the market.
The distinction between “negative” and “positive” rights is one that seeks to separate the idea of rights from the very thing that wins and protects rights, namely the social contract. By claiming that only negative rights are legitimate, you eliminate any obligation of Man toward his neighbor, placing each person on an island, divorced of the society he lives in. But, this simply does away with all rights, since if there is no social contract then there will very quickly be no rights at all, and simply a social darwinist nightmare of “every man for himself.” It is not the state which creates or protects rights, but people working together, who press for their rights cooperatively. Only in a society with a residue of solidarity, and a culture of mutual aid and support do rights exist.
As Aristotle pointed out, “Man is a social animal.” We exist in a social mileau, and both shape and are shaped by this social setting. Freedom exists only to the extent that your neighbors respect your individuality and will fight for your rights.
Humanity took a great step forward with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. For the first time, the recognition that all people are entitled to certain basic rights was made the highest law of the land, including “negative” rights like the right to live and the right to free speech, and “positive” rights like the right to a “decent standard of living.” Despite the rather shameful record of the signatories of the declaration in upholding these rights, the recognition of them as rights was a step forward.