The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[manifold]

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

too stupid and perfectly liberal given that much of the world just took a huge step toward freedom and liberty from government!! Ever heard of China, to name one!!!!!

Big steps are achieved every few centuries or so, I would never suggest otherwise. But baby steps only go in one direction, and I submit only a fool would suggest otherwise.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

too stupid and perfectly liberal given that much of the world just took a huge step toward freedom and liberty from government!! Ever heard of China, to name one!!!!!

Big steps are achieved every few centuries or so, I would never suggest otherwise. But baby steps only go in one direction, and I submit only a fool would suggest otherwise.

dear, China took a huge step 30 years ago!! Most of the world is new to freedom and capitalism and it happened quickly and recently, not over a few centuries!!!! Almost over night!!! What planet has the liberal been living on!!!

 

[Contumacious]

I'm a libertarian in that I value liberty above all else, but within reason, and I agree that the smallest effective government is optimal. Where I part ways with many self-professed libertarians is on what constitutes 'within reason' and 'effective government'.

Liberty to live one's life how they see fit, unabated, so long as the next person's right to do so isn't being infringed upon.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.

Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?

Should DC have the authority to turn our nation into a welfare/warfare state?

.

 

[Widdekind]

The biggest consequences to any misdeed by business are lawsuits by victims... lawsuits and fear of lawsuits, drive a lot of safety concerns. And none of that has to be done by regulation.

Lawsuits represent an invocation of Government Authority -- by definition, The Law, enforced by Government, regulates everything under its Jurisdiction. However, Lawsuits represent invocations of a general Governmental Authority, e.g. Laws enforcing legal contracts; Regulation represents invocations of a specific Governmental Authority, e.g. new Laws specific to some circumstances.

Fair markets cannot exist, unless all players have equal access to Legal Protection. If businesses can run roughshod over individuals, then that market is not fair. And Libertarianism is about free & fair markets. "That business can sell bogus products and force people to buy them" (exaggeration for emphasis) is not Libertarianism.

The same applies to individuals, who vote in Regulations -- if Government Regulations push businesses around, then that, too, is neither free, nor fair, nor Libertarian, economics. Neither Fascism (Government backs businesses), nor Communism (Government backs workers), is free or fair market Capitalism. Libertarian Capitalism requires "neutral" and "impartial" Governments & Laws -- if somebody can "whine to Big Brother" and be "propped up", then (1) they thereby destroy the free & fair market; (2) they get to "don the Exoskeleton of Government support" (from Aliens) and, there-with, swat others around.

Libertarian Capitalism requires neutral Government & Law, with everybody on a level playing field, w/o favoritism.

 

[dblack]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

Libertarianism is as practical as the person defining it. For most of us, it's not an idealistic call for anarchy. Instead, it's a conviction about the purpose of government. For the libertarian, the purpose of government is to maintain a society that maximizes freedom for it's inhabitants. Government exists to make it possible for us to live together and enjoy the benefits of civilized society - not to tell us how to live.

Libertarianism is about maximum freedom for the individual, which really isn't possible without some form of government in place with the tools to protect the rights of the individual.

That used to be called Liberalism.

Yeah. The terms have shifted around considerably.

Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.

Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?

Yes, until that action infringes upon my health and well being.

Does your property value impact your health and well being?

The oft cited (and more often ignored) liberal ideal of tolerance is the heart and soul of libertarianism. Without it liberty is not possible. The entire ethos of libertarianism can be summed up in the phrase "live and let live". Every single thing we do in the world has a secondary or tertiary impact on someone else.

We draw the line around the concept of property. The primordial property is your physical person, your body. We extend that to the physical objects and territory. Ownership of property is the right to say what happens with that property - who can use it, what they can do with it, etc... But we don't extend that concept of property (with limited exceptions - e.g. copyright law) much beyond that. You don't own the perceptions and opinions of your neighbors (which is what 'property values' amount to).

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable.

It depends on what definition of libertarian you're working with. If you start with "wildly subjective superlatives", that's where you end up. Basic agreement on the purpose of government is more attainable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone can list a bunch of companies.
Show how this list proves your assertion.

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

Let me make this clear: I THINK WE OVER-REGULATE IN MANY CASES. Is that clear? Good.

But the idea that "The Market" will for example, prevent drug companies from literally killing people, is beyond naive. yet that is exactly what many libertarians claim.

Now, rather than constantly dodging, deflecting etc... perhaps you or other Libertarians would like to provide all those examples to the contrary?

I do give you credit btw. No petty insults or projecting inaccurate extremes. That certainly sets you far above the bottom-feeders who often have nothing but such prattle as responses.

The biggest consequences to any misdeed by business are lawsuits by victims. And yes, the lawsuits and fear of lawsuits, drive a lot of safety concerns. And none of that has to be done by regulation.

That’s a gross oversimplification.

Tort law is indeed a vitally important component to the overall regulatory scheme. But it is for the most part reactive, rather than proactive. The ‘threat’ of a lawsuit may indeed act as a deterrent to corporate bad behavior, but there are too many corporate entities that simply calculate the cost of litigation as among other ‘operating expenses.’

The people have the right to expect Congress to play a regulatory role, as authorized by the Commerce Clause and its subsequent case law. Proactive regulatory policies have the effect of preventing corporate harm to society, as opposed to lawsuits which, for the most part, seek compensation after the damage has been done.

Libertarian Capitalism requires neutral Government & Law, with everybody on a level playing field, w/o favoritism.

And hence the utopian nature of libertarianism – both naïve an reactionary.

Capitalism, ‘libertarian’ or otherwise, will forever compel its players to seek an advantage over the competition. It’s as inevitable as water flowing downhill seeking the path of least resistance; there will always be a significant number of corporate entities willing to lie, cheat, steal, and endanger the lives and safety of their employees and customers to realize the greater profit. However much in conflict with libertarian dogma, the government and courts are the only substantive countermeasure to corporate criminality.

 

[manifold]

too stupid and perfectly liberal given that much of the world just took a huge step toward freedom and liberty from government!! Ever heard of China, to name one!!!!!

Big steps are achieved every few centuries or so, I would never suggest otherwise. But baby steps only go in one direction, and I submit only a fool would suggest otherwise.

dear, China took a huge step 30 years ago!! Most of the world is new to freedom and capitalism and it happened quickly and recently, not over a few centuries!!!! Almost over night!!! What planet has the liberal been living on!!!

Either your reading comprehension sucks syphilitic moose cock, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

Have a nice day.

 

[manifold]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

Libertarianism is as practical as the person defining it. For most of us, it's not an idealistic call for anarchy. Instead, it's a conviction about the purpose of government. For the libertarian, the purpose of government is to maintain a society that maximizes freedom for it's inhabitants. Government exists to make it possible for us to live together and enjoy the benefits of civilized society - not to tell us how to live.

That used to be called Liberalism.

Yeah. The terms have shifted around considerably.

Does your property value impact your health and well being?

The oft cited (and more often ignored) liberal ideal of tolerance is the heart and soul of libertarianism. Without it liberty is not possible. The entire ethos of libertarianism can be summed up in the phrase "live and let live". Every single thing we do in the world has a secondary or tertiary impact on someone else.

We draw the line around the concept of property. The primordial property is your physical person, your body. We extend that to the physical objects and territory. Ownership of property is the right to say what happens with that property - who can use it, what they can do with it, etc... But we don't extend that concept of property (with limited exceptions - e.g. copyright law) much beyond that. You don't own the perceptions and opinions of your neighbors (which is what 'property values' amount to).

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable.

It depends on what definition of libertarian you're working with. If you start with "wildly subjective superlatives", that's where you end up. Basic agreement on the purpose of government is more attainable.

I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends ).

 

[Toro]

Pure libertarianism has about as much a chance of working as pure socialism, which is to say zero. The only 'ism' that works is pragmatism. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.

No one has really seen pure libertarianism in action though. We've seen random bits and pieces of it in the marketplace, if you call specifically targeted deregulations "libertarianism", but regardless it's been extremely tainted by the rest of the regulatory burden and a currency that's 100% centrally controlled.

Communists say the same thing about Communism.

 

[Toro]

No one has really seen pure libertarianism in action though. We've seen random bits and pieces of it in the marketplace, if you call specifically targeted deregulations "libertarianism", but regardless it's been extremely tainted by the rest of the regulatory burden and a currency that's 100% centrally controlled.

How much government regulation of business would there be under pure libertarianism?

The pure part is subjective, but putting that aside for the sake of the question I would say that most libertarians that recognize that there's a certain amount of regulation that is constitutionally authorized would probably agree universally on what would be considered common sense.

It would be time consuming but I could come up with a plethora of examples...one being that there shouldn't be any argument that food should be clearly and transparently labelled as to what exactly is in it. No one can inform themselves on what meat has pink slime in it, for instance, if companies aren't labeling it.

That's a cheap, fair regulation that benefits consumers. But the kicker is that it DOESN'T benefit big business. And that's why you don't see "pink slime" labels.

I agree with you but government laws forcing disclosure isn't pure libertarianism. It might fall under "mostly libertarian" however.

 

[konradv]

Liberty to live one's life how they see fit, unabated, so long as the next person's right to do so isn't being infringed upon.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.

Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?

Yes, until that action infringes upon my health and well being.

Sorry, but I would prefer not to wait that long. That's a big problem with libertarianism, there's no recourse for known dangers until the damage is already done.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, you sure sound like a guy interested in having a sincere, intelligent discussion on the subject.

He didn't post to someone sincere or intelligent, he posted to you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That doesn't sound very pragmatic at all IMO.

Yes, but then you are an utter dolt who can't distinguish an economic system from a political philosophy.

I'm just sayin...

 

[Uncensored2008]

How much government regulation of business would there be under pure libertarianism?

Have you ever heard of Underwriters Laboratories? They are the folks who put the U/L certification on electrical devices. I'm going to blow that tiny mind of yours - U/L is NOT a government agency. There is NO LAW requiring U/L certification of electrical appliances. Run off and check mommy's iron, I'll wait; is there a U/L sticker or symbol? There is, isn't there? Now check the TV and even your gameboy... It's on everything electrical in your house.

How is that possible? Isn't government regulation required for there to be any regulation at all?

I'd tell you to think about it, sparky - but, well....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Agreed. But as always, the devil is in the details.

Should your next door neighbor have the liberty to turn his backyard into a landfill?

You think Libertarians oppose the concept of zoning laws?

 

[dblack]

I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends ).

On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.

It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends ).

On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.

It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.

I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?

That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?

That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.

Absolutely. It's ultimately a subjective judgment - but that's what the court is for. Such an amendment would at least clarify intent. I'd also extend it to the formulation of policy, and not just the spending of tax money.

 

[The T]

I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends ).

On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.

It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.

I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?

That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.

Wasn't that what the politicians claimed 'Affirmative action' was supposed to achieve?

 

[Foxfyre]

On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.

It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.

I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?

That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.

Wasn't that what the politicians claimed 'Affirmative action' was supposed to achieve?

No, we would have to deal with Affirmative Action on another front. But the Founders did not allow the federal government to collect or expend any monies that were outside the constitutionally mandated functions of government. At the same time, they warned us that the Constitution would be a jeopardy as soon as somebody figured out how to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Why they didn't plug that hole at the time is anybody's guess, but my best guess is that at the time, modern American liberalism was something even those great minds could not conceive as ever being possible.