Seeing as this subject is rather close to my heart and everyday existence, I'm gonna take my time over the next few days to run through it and read everything people have to say. For now, on the subject of liberty, freedom, personal or otherwise, (and if we don't start with personal freedom where can we start?!?!?!) i can only say this...Power is given only to the man who dares stoop and take it; the man whom drinks from the well of unlawful knowledge, and profits. As an individual, as a human doing not being, as the individual soul you were born as.
As Malcolm X said - “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.”
Can the ideal of voting and this pseudo-plutocracy they call western democracy be reconciled with true libertarian ideology? Surely Libertarians should be oppposed to the ideal of the 'vote'...is'nt true libertarianism really anarchy - an archos - without the state ? I think so. Without a state, a goverment, who can tell us what to do, what to pay, and when to pay it? States enslave, states make us 'subjects', or 'citizens', or 'taxpayers'.
There seems to be some sizeable movement in the US for Libertarianism getting on the ballots in some states, and being in a country where there is jack shit of the sort, is the ballot box the way to go about bringing true liberty to the people? I dunno.
Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.
I will say this about libertarianism, it works nicely on the individual level, and I am on the same page when it comes to personal and private issues. My problem stems from it being based on extreme individualism. To the extent that it seems to be denying or ignoring the existence of collective problems and issues transcending the individual person's sphere. Actually, as I see it, it is based on some axioms, or what you wanna call them which to me looks something like this:
1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.
2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.
3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.
Am I way off with this? I dont agree with any of these three axioms at face value. But perhaps you can soften them for me?
Peace
Dan
You're not way off to me. That's how I see it as well, only you say it so much better.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.
You're always welcome!
1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.
The first two statements are right on, per Libertarianism. The last, not so much. Libertarians certainly agree that society exists -- the existence of society as a potential oppressive force is intrinsic in Libertarian ideology. Furthermore, Libertarians certainly believe problems, successes, and many things exist because of social forces and conditions. It's not that "all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings". Rather, it's that all responsibilities and rights can be ascribed to individual existence, rather than social circumstance.
2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.
Again, Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things. Few Libertarians believe that "government is the opposite of liberty". Rather, they believe that individual rights simply precede government. And Libertarians have a narrow view of individual rights, typically limited to life, liberty, and property. When government violates those rights, or pretends to be their determinant, only then does "government become the opposite of liberty".
"Money equals amount of freedom" is an anti-Libertarian statement and few, if any, Libertarians would agree with that. That is more a concept left to the socialists and anarchists who believe that property is an oppressive force. Libertarians view property as an individual right. The amount of property (or lack thereof) doesn't determine your freedom. The ability to pursue that property, in whatever form, does.
3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.
For the most part, yes. Libertarians typically believe that taxation is a violation of the individual rights of liberty, property and life itself (though the last is more an Objectivist view).
The predominant Libertarian axioms are more along the line of this:
1. All men are created equal.
2. All men have equal rights to life, liberty, and property.
3. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another.
The first two statements are right on, per Libertarianism. The last, not so much. Libertarians certainly agree that society exists -- the existence of society as a potential oppressive force is intrinsic in Libertarian ideology. Furthermore, Libertarians certainly believe problems, successes, and many things exist because of social forces and conditions. It's not that "all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings". Rather, it's that all responsibilities and rights can be ascribed to individual existence, rather than social circumstance.
OK. But even after that slight correction, it seems I was on the money then. With a libertarian position that does not really consider anything beyond an individual perspective, any concessions that they may be aware of "social forces and conditions" seems hollow, as they don't seem to take the consequence of them. If there are problems created by social forces on an aggregate level, that's where they should be met, not by somehow finding the individuals whose responsibility it (arguably) is.
Again, Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things. Few Libertarians believe that "government is the opposite of liberty". Rather, they believe that individual rights simply precede government. And Libertarians have a narrow view of individual rights, typically limited to life, liberty, and property. When government violates those rights, or pretends to be their determinant, only then does "government become the opposite of liberty".
OK, I see what you mean
"Money equals amount of freedom" is an anti-Libertarian statement and few, if any, Libertarians would agree with that. That is more a concept left to the socialists and anarchists who believe that property is an oppressive force. Libertarians view property as an individual right. The amount of property (or lack thereof) doesn't determine your freedom. The ability to pursue that property, in whatever form, does.
Well that's the principal anyway. But in our current context, given a capitalistic system as of today, doing away with government just gives the power to those with the most money. And money makes money, driving differences until there are widely seperated classes in society. I wasn't suggesting that money equals freedom is what libertarians say, but I am arguing that it's a consequence under current circumstances.
For the most part, yes. Libertarians typically believe that taxation is a violation of the individual rights of liberty, property and life itself (though the last is more an Objectivist view).
Well, I tend to take the large view on those things. We are part of a system or rather system of systems. Our salaries come from the system, and the system also supports us in many ways. Thus, getting caught up in the taxation issue is a trait of a very individualistic position where the money you make is seperate from the rest of society and owing only to yourself for having it. Tax=theft falls apart the moment the individualistic position is abandoned.
The predominant Libertarian axioms are more along the line of this:
1. All men are created equal.
2. All men have equal rights to life, liberty, and property.
3. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another.
No problems with these ones here in themselves, particularly 1 and 3, although I must say that the right to liberty is issue enough to go to town with. The precise interpretation of that point is the critical issue. Life is obvious, liberty is very fuzzy, and property should not be mentioned as a fundamental on that level, but rather as a possible "first amendment" or something. Property is a cultural and social invention, not a natural given or constant. At least not to the extent we usually draw it in modern society.
Anyway, you did soften it up a bit for me, but I won't accept it still. For me it is a way too individualistic way of thinking that disregard our traditional collective and social ways of living in favour of self.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
OK. But even after that slight correction, it seems I was on the money then. With a libertarian position that does not really consider anything beyond an individual perspective, any concessions that they may be aware of "social forces and conditions" seems hollow, as they don't seem to take the consequence of them. If there are problems created by social forces on an aggregate level, that's where they should be met, not by somehow finding the individuals whose responsibility it (arguably) is.
I think you missed the point here. Libertarians believe in society and social forces. Libertarians do not believe, however, that social forces can be greater than simply the sum of the individuals involved. They certainly recognize the "consequences" of these forces, but Libertarians would argue that those consequences and their causes only make sense when considered on the individual scale. Societies do not live in poverty. Individuals do. Societies do not commit crimes -- individuals and social bodies do. Societies do not have rights -- individuals do. Societies cannot follow through on obligations -- individuals do.
Furthermore, individuals can come together and accomplish great things. Libertarianism isn't built around the island man concept. Libertarians are often great supporters of cooperation and community. Just because they don't believe in a community's right to trump an individual right doesn't mean they don't believe in working with others and meeting problems on the "aggregate level".
Well that's the principal anyway. But in our current context, given a capitalistic system as of today, doing away with government just gives the power to those with the most money. And money makes money, driving differences until there are widely seperated classes in society. I wasn't suggesting that money equals freedom is what libertarians say, but I am arguing that it's a consequence under current circumstances.
Libertarians would take real issue with all these principles. First, they would reject the notion that today's system is "capitalistic". Secondly, they would reject the idea that "doing away with government just gives power to those with the most money", since Libertarians would reject the logic that simply transferring aggressive power from one sector of society to another can be called an accomplishment and that much of today's corporate power is explained by corporate involvement with government to begin with. Furthermore, they're not proposing to "do away with government" anyway. They believe government should exist to protect the rights of all, not create and then violate the rights of some.
The "consequence" of Libertarianism would be a small government tasked only with protecting life, liberty, and property. It would not be a government tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor (welfare), nor would it be a government tasked with protecting corporate interests (corporate welfare). It would protect both rich and poor from rights violators.
Well, I tend to take the large view on those things. We are part of a system or rather system of systems. Our salaries come from the system, and the system also supports us in many ways. Thus, getting caught up in the taxation issue is a trait of a very individualistic position where the money you make is seperate from the rest of society and owing only to yourself for having it. Tax=theft falls apart the moment the individualistic position is abandoned.
Again, this would be inconsistent with Libertarian ideology. To make a blanket statement that all money gets its value from an undefinable system doesn't sit well with Libertarians. Libertarians would argue that governmental systems have done more to devalue money than they have ever done to give it value. Money, to a Libertarian, simply represents the exchange value of labor between conscious individual actors and groups of those actors. The taxation issue, yes, is an individualistic position in some sense. But so is universal health care, in some sense. Obviously all governmental actions and services affect individuals, right? If we were only concerned about a "system" why would it matter that some individuals are poor or oppressed or whatever if the "system" could be judged healthy? If you seperate the concept of individual from society, you've rendered the latter term meaningless in the eyes of a Libertarian.
No problems with these ones here in themselves, particularly 1 and 3, although I must say that the right to liberty is issue enough to go to town with. The precise interpretation of that point is the critical issue. Life is obvious, liberty is very fuzzy, and property should not be mentioned as a fundamental on that level, but rather as a possible "first amendment" or something. Property is a cultural and social invention, not a natural given or constant. At least not to the extent we usually draw it in modern society.
This would be where the valid arguments lie, in my opinion. The issue of rights is definitely a place where a lot of people can look at Liberatrianism and say that it is too narrow or ill-defined.
Anyway, you did soften it up a bit for me, but I won't accept it still. For me it is a way too individualistic way of thinking that disregard our traditional collective and social ways of living in favour of self.
Hehe...you won't accept it? How dare you pretend that you can think and determine for yourself
I think you missed the point here. Libertarians believe in society and social forces. Libertarians do not believe, however, that social forces can be greater than simply the sum of the individuals involved. They certainly recognize the "consequences" of these forces, but Libertarians would argue that those consequences and their causes only make sense when considered on the individual scale. Societies do not live in poverty. Individuals do. Societies do not commit crimes -- individuals and social bodies do. Societies do not have rights -- individuals do. Societies cannot follow through on obligations -- individuals do.
Societal forces, influences and trends often don't seem to add up while going from the individual up. However, social scientists can't make a good fit from the top and down either. Society can well be more or at least different than just "all the individuals together". And how individuals act is certainly in part determined by the society, which is in turn influenced by it's people and so on. It's complicated, but there seem to be reason for the time being to at least to a degree seperate society and the individual for some purposes, since we dont know how it all goes together.
Furthermore, individuals can come together and accomplish great things. Libertarianism isn't built around the island man concept. Libertarians are often great supporters of cooperation and community. Just because they don't believe in a community's right to trump an individual right doesn't mean they don't believe in working with others and meeting problems on the "aggregate level".
Certainly. I didn't say libertarians are bad people. I just question their principles and politics.
Libertarians would take real issue with all these principles. First, they would reject the notion that today's system is "capitalistic". Secondly, they would reject the idea that "doing away with government just gives power to those with the most money", since Libertarians would reject the logic that simply transferring aggressive power from one sector of society to another can be called an accomplishment and that much of today's corporate power is explained by corporate involvement with government to begin with. Furthermore, they're not proposing to "do away with government" anyway. They believe government should exist to protect the rights of all, not create and then violate the rights of some.
OK, I might be confusing libertarianism and anarchism again.
The "consequence" of Libertarianism would be a small government tasked only with protecting life, liberty, and property. It would not be a government tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor (welfare), nor would it be a government tasked with protecting corporate interests (corporate welfare). It would protect both rich and poor from rights violators.
That sounds nice. Until the difference between classes becomes large enough and the poor become poor enough for tensions to soar, increase hostility to a point where the elite either wall themselves off violently, until the inevitable overthrow, or they start welfare programs to placate the poor masses. A bit bleak perhaps, but that's roughly how the welfare state happened in the first place. Coupled with christian morality as well, of course.
Not saying it can't happen, but seems unlikely.
Again, this would be inconsistent with Libertarian ideology. To make a blanket statement that all money gets its value from an undefinable system doesn't sit well with Libertarians. Libertarians would argue that governmental systems have done more to devalue money than they have ever done to give it value. Money, to a Libertarian, simply represents the exchange value of labor between conscious individual actors and groups of those actors. The taxation issue, yes, is an individualistic position in some sense. But so is universal health care, in some sense. Obviously all governmental actions and services affect individuals, right? If we were only concerned about a "system" why would it matter that some individuals are poor or oppressed or whatever if the "system" could be judged healthy? If you seperate the concept of individual from society, you've rendered the latter term meaningless in the eyes of a Libertarian.
My point is that money is irrelevant outside it's system. Your paycheck and what digits it holds is irrelevant, unless you also consider all other factors in society, work, ideology, beliefs and so on. Hence, a narrow focus on the tax subtracted from one's paycheck is rather meaningless. The point is that we have an amount of goods, labour and people, which is somehow gonna work out to the degree that it is maintained. In practice, how much I'm deducted in taxes is irrelevant, if it is enough on top of various public programs to get by decently for a decent input into society. As for the "health" of a system, I would look at how many it cares for adequately, making that portion as large as possible, and then have welfare and other measures to secure those that fall outside the system.
It is really about completely different ways to look at this. But that's no surprise, is it?
This would be where the valid arguments lie, in my opinion. The issue of rights is definitely a place where a lot of people can look at Liberatrianism and say that it is too narrow or ill-defined.
Indeed. I would say just that, actually.
Hehe...you won't accept it? How dare you pretend that you can think and determine for yourself
Don't confuse me for Ahnimus, my friend. Besides, if I were to argue determinism (which I dont, or at least not to A's extent) it would merely be given that I would think and determine the way I do. It could not have been otherwise with my genes, background and experiences, even if I use my mind and reason to arrive at it. This is of course unprovable either way, and in my view, pretty irrelevant.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Don't confuse me for Ahnimus, my friend. Besides, if I were to argue determinism (which I dont, or at least not to A's extent) it would merely be given that I would think and determine the way I do. It could not have been otherwise with my genes, background and experiences, even if I use my mind and reason to arrive at it. This is of course unprovable either way, and in my view, pretty irrelevant.
Hehe...wasn't intending to invoke determinism here, but rather just slyly pointing out that you were, in the process of evaluating Libertarianism, acting out the highest of Libertarian ideals -- reasoned, individual thought. But it works this way too
Good stuff above. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow.
Societal forces, influences and trends often don't seem to add up while going from the individual up. However, social scientists can't make a good fit from the top and down either. Society can well be more or at least different than just "all the individuals together". And how individuals act is certainly in part determined by the society, which is in turn influenced by it's people and so on. It's complicated, but there seem to be reason for the time being to at least to a degree seperate society and the individual for some purposes, since we dont know how it all goes together.
When you say "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by your society", you're saying, to a Libertarian, "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by other individuals". And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, Libertarian or otherwise.
A demonstration that society can somehow exist outside of individuals or could somehow be independent of them would be interesting to see.
That sounds nice. Until the difference between classes becomes large enough and the poor become poor enough for tensions to soar, increase hostility to a point where the elite either wall themselves off violently, until the inevitable overthrow, or they start welfare programs to placate the poor masses. A bit bleak perhaps, but that's roughly how the welfare state happened in the first place. Coupled with christian morality as well, of course.
Meh...no political system doesn't live under the threat of revolution. I mean, to opposite of Libertarianism is fascism, and fascism faces the same problems. Revolutions happen when social structures no longer represent the culture of the people. It's not unique to anything Libertarian.
My point is that money is irrelevant outside it's system. Your paycheck and what digits it holds is irrelevant, unless you also consider all other factors in society, work, ideology, beliefs and so on. Hence, a narrow focus on the tax subtracted from one's paycheck is rather meaningless.
That's like saying "a narrow focus on the guy who was murdered down the street from me is rather meaningless". Or "a narrow focus on the guy who is poor down the street from me is rather meaningless". Certainly my paycheck is relevant to the society I live in, but its relevance lies in the exchange value it has with other individuals.
The point is that we have an amount of goods, labour and people, which is somehow gonna work out to the degree that it is maintained. In practice, how much I'm deducted in taxes is irrelevant, if it is enough on top of various public programs to get by decently for a decent input into society.
Not invalid, but this would require a very insipid morality, IMO. It's basically saying that a bribe is only wrong when the amount is wrong, or that a kidnapping is only wrong when the ransom is too high. Libertarians (and myself) aren't likely to find morality in amounts.
As for the "health" of a system, I would look at how many it cares for adequately, making that portion as large as possible, and then have welfare and other measures to secure those that fall outside the system.
Again, this requires the individual and the sum-of-individual theory, which seem to contradict what you say above.
It is really about completely different ways to look at this. But that's no surprise, is it?
When you say "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by your society", you're saying, to a Libertarian, "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by other individuals". And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, Libertarian or otherwise.
Well, yeah, but I was trying to show the importance, nature and power of those forces outside the self. But formally and fundamentally, sure.
A demonstration that society can somehow exist outside of individuals or could somehow be independent of them would be interesting to see.
It doesn't exist outside of individuals, but may well be out of the individuals' control and "behave" quite differently from the people in it. Hence being something more or something else than merely adding up the parts.
Meh...no political system doesn't live under the threat of revolution. I mean, to opposite of Libertarianism is fascism, and fascism faces the same problems. Revolutions happen when social structures no longer represent the culture of the people. It's not unique to anything Libertarian.
Oh, I know. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
That's like saying "a narrow focus on the guy who was murdered down the street from me is rather meaningless". Or "a narrow focus on the guy who is poor down the street from me is rather meaningless". Certainly my paycheck is relevant to the society I live in, but its relevance lies in the exchange value it has with other individuals.
Not invalid, but this would require a very insipid morality, IMO. It's basically saying that a bribe is only wrong when the amount is wrong, or that a kidnapping is only wrong when the ransom is too high. Libertarians (and myself) aren't likely to find morality in amounts.
I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I'm saying that the amount on the check in itself is meaningless for the individual involved, unless one factors in the societal, economical and welfare context around the individual. Instead of having the narrow focus on your own income, the focus should be on what your income gets you, and the societal context in which you get it. Libertarians seem to focus too much on the amount deducted in my view.
As for the morality and bribes thing, come again? I was just saying that if you look fundamentally on our system and society, it is basically about how we are to organize, how we are to distribute goods and how to do that "fairly" or at least to the extent that the system is maintained. It's about stepping back and focusing on the bigger picture and what the system is and how and why it works. It is about looking at it holistically, not exclusively from an individual perspective. Such an individual perspective also often posits a particular kind of individual as well, but that's another debate.
Again, this requires the individual and the sum-of-individual theory, which seem to contradict what you say above.
How does it contradict what I say above? It's one thing to analyze the system parts of society as just that, but the point of it all is after all the individuals' welfare. So our meauring rod should be on the individual level most certainly. No contradiction. Going for collective solutions for (all) the individuals' gain, is what socialism is about, or at least should be about. Just because it seems to me that libertarians are too individualistically focused, doesn't mean I dismiss individuals altogether.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It doesn't exist outside of individuals, but may well be out of the individuals' control and "behave" quite differently from the people in it. Hence being something more or something else than merely adding up the parts.
I'm confused as to why this means it is greater than its parts. Certainly some things are out of an individual's control, but those are still real, tangible things that can be ascribed to some individual.
I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I'm saying that the amount on the check in itself is meaningless for the individual involved, unless one factors in the societal, economical and welfare context around the individual. Instead of having the narrow focus on your own income, the focus should be on what your income gets you, and the societal context in which you get it. Libertarians seem to focus too much on the amount deducted in my view.
That's kind of saying the same thing. Obviously "the amount deducted" affects "what your income gets you". And Libertarians would counter this with discussions of inflation and waste and decreased competition that are a common product of the systems they (and I) dislike.
Libertarians do not believe they have a right to a specific labor value, they simply believe they have a right to exchange whatever value their labor is judged having as they see fit with anyone who will trade for it. So telling a Libertarian he or she "should be thankful" would be a tough proof.
As for the morality and bribes thing, come again? I was just saying that if you look fundamentally on our system and society, it is basically about how we are to organize, how we are to distribute goods and how to do that "fairly" or at least to the extent that the system is maintained. It's about stepping back and focusing on the bigger picture and what the system is and how and why it works. It is about looking at it holistically, not exclusively from an individual perspective. Such an individual perspective also often posits a particular kind of individual as well, but that's another debate.
How does it contradict what I say above? It's one thing to analyze the system parts of society as just that, but the point of it all is after all the individuals' welfare. So our meauring rod should be on the individual level most certainly. No contradiction. Going for collective solutions for (all) the individuals' gain, is what socialism is about, or at least should be about. Just because it seems to me that libertarians are too individualistically focused, doesn't mean I dismiss individuals altogether.
ffg, can you list any working examples of libertarian cities, states, or nations?
I am not aware of any purely Libertarian cities, states or nations. The argument exists for many, but there are always flaws (as with any pure political ideology). America itself, if one had to assign a pure ideology to its unpure founding principles, would have been closest to Libertarianism, IMO.
There are many small towns and regions in the United States and Austrailia where Libertarianism is effectively practiced, but often more because of geographical and resource restrictions (governing small, disparate populations often is not worth that trouble) as by Libertarian choice.
Others have argued that historical societies such as some Native Americans, Norsemen, or some 20th century S American societies were largely Libertarian, but I have trouble finding a lot of truth in those arguments.
The standard for the question is fairly simple: finding populations that exist based on the three axioms I detailed above in my response to Dan. While many populations match to some or majority extent, I'm not aware of any to which strong counter arguments do not exist. And once one applies a more formal standard of nation/state, that standard largely contradicts Libertarian thought, thereby making the standard counterproductive.
All that said, I've never taken on a truly active study on historical instances of the practice, since that doesn't interest me much.
I am not aware of any purely Libertarian cities, states or nations. The argument exists for many, but there are always flaws (as with any pure political ideology). America itself, if one had to assign a pure ideology to its unpure founding principles, would have been closest to Libertarianism, IMO.
There are many small towns and regions in the United States and Austrailia where Libertarianism is effectively practiced, but often more because of geographical and resource restrictions (governing small, disparate populations often is not worth that trouble) as by Libertarian choice.
Others have argued that historical societies such as some Native Americans, Norsemen, or some 20th century S American societies were largely Libertarian, but I have trouble finding a lot of truth in those arguments.
The standard for the question is fairly simple: finding populations that exist based on the three axioms I detailed above in my response to Dan. While many populations match to some or majority extent, I'm not aware of any to which strong counter arguments do not exist. And once one applies a more formal standard of nation/state, that standard largely contradicts Libertarian thought, thereby making the standard counterproductive.
All that said, I've never taken on a truly active study on historical instances of the practice, since that doesn't interest me much.
I'm surprised the topic doesn't interest you. It interested me and I don't subscribe to all the libertarian beliefs. I asked the question, because I tried to find a working example, but could not and I was hoping maybe you had other examples.
It's interesting to me that many other ideologies have put their money where their mouths are, if not their lives. I can list many examples. Yet you and others like you want us to risk what many consider the best nation in the world with your untested beliefs.
As far as 'unpure founding principles' of the US, I disagree with this. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises (something you are not fond of) among the founding fathers, therefore, the 'unpure founding principles' would vary among them. The founding fathers explicitly specified that we look to the court for interpretation.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The past interests me very little. It's not Libertarian history that I'm disinterested in, it's history I'm largely disinterested in.
It interested me and I don't subscribe to all the libertarian beliefs. I asked the question, because I tried to find a working example, but could not and I was hoping maybe you had other examples.
I don't believe there are good ones. I mean, Libertarian beliefs are fringe beliefs and have been so (though to varying degrees) throughout history. Few nations have even come close to being defined primarily by a belief in individual rights, history being so dominated by empires, collectivism and religion.
Libertarians tend to focus, in practical examples, on constructs like corporations and other social institutions that tend to be defined by similar principles. However, these examples are obviously tainted by their typical existence within non-Libertarian constructs.
It's interesting to me that many other ideologies have put their money where their mouths are, if not their lives. I can list many examples. Yet you and others like you want us to risk what many consider the best nation in the world with your untested beliefs.
I don't think any Libertarian would tell you to risk what you consider best, if that means your non-Libertarian ideology. Rather, they would simply tell you that you have no right to risk their lives and rights to achieve it, which would put you in agreement, not opposition.
Libertarians don't believe that society has to be full of Libertarians and slaves to Libertarianism. That kind of defeats the purpose. If you were some kind of hard-core socialist, Libertarians wouldn't tell you that, in the event that the US government suddenly became a Libertarian construct, you had no right to build collective structures. They would simply tell you that you have no right to enslave the unwilling in the process. The reverse, however, would not be true. In socialistic societies, Libertarian action becomes illegal.
Here's a very practical example of this: about two weeks ago, as a Libertarian, I participated in a protest here at a local commune whose land is being threatened by annexetion by my town. The people who live there are extreme communists and their political ideals could not run much more opposite to my own. But I participated in that protest because I am a Libertarian who believes that the people there have every right in this world to live how they choose, even if the choices they make are what I consider incredibly foolish and counter to their own stated purposes.
As far as 'unpure founding principles' of the US, I disagree with this. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises (something you are not fond of) among the founding fathers, therefore, the 'unpure founding principles' would vary among them. The founding fathers explicitly specified that we look to the court for interpretation.
I don't disagree with this at all. The founding principles of the US were compromises. Hence "upure" in that they did not follow any single political ideal.
I don't fervently share the Constitutionalist outlook of many Libertarians, since I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution to begin with. I simply tend to agree with the Libertarian interpretation of the document moreso than the alternatives. Because of the rather superficial agreement, I have trouble representing their arguments here. Since Constitutionalism and Libertarianism often run hand-in-hand, you can find a lot Libertarian arguments on the intent of the Constitution on the web. Most of these arguments are pretty weak, as are the arguments on a document others proclaim to be "interpretive" while at the same time telling people its fundamental nature is prescriptive.
The past interests me very little. It's not Libertarian history that I'm disinterested in, it's history I'm largely disinterested in.
I don't believe there are good ones. I mean, Libertarian beliefs are fringe beliefs and have been so (though to varying degrees) throughout history. Few nations have even come close to being defined primarily by a belief in individual rights, history being so dominated by empires, collectivism and religion.
Libertarians tend to focus, in practical examples, on constructs like corporations and other social institutions that tend to be defined by similar principles. However, these examples are obviously tainted by their typical existence within non-Libertarian constructs.
I don't think any Libertarian would tell you to risk what you consider best, if that means your non-Libertarian ideology. Rather, they would simply tell you that you have no right to risk their lives and rights to achieve it, which would put you in agreement, not opposition.
Libertarians don't believe that society has to be full of Libertarians and slaves to Libertarianism. That kind of defeats the purpose. If you were some kind of hard-core socialist, Libertarians wouldn't tell you that, in the event that the US government suddenly became a Libertarian construct, you had no right to build collective structures. They would simply tell you that you have no right to enslave the unwilling in the process. The reverse, however, would not be true. In socialistic societies, Libertarian action becomes illegal.
Here's a very practical example of this: about two weeks ago, as a Libertarian, I participated in a protest here at a local commune whose land is being threatened by annexetion by my town. The people who live there are extreme communists and their political ideals could not run much more opposite to my own. But I participated in that protest because I am a Libertarian who believes that the people there have every right in this world to live how they choose, even if the choices they make are what I consider incredibly foolish and counter to their own stated purposes.
I don't disagree with this at all. The founding principles of the US were compromises. Hence "upure" in that they did not follow any single political ideal.
I don't fervently share the Constitutionalist outlook of many Libertarians, since I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution to begin with. I simply tend to agree with the Libertarian interpretation of the document moreso than the alternatives. Because of the rather superficial agreement, I have trouble representing their arguments here. Since Constitutionalism and Libertarianism often run hand-in-hand, you can find a lot Libertarian arguments on the intent of the Constitution on the web. Most of these arguments are pretty weak, as are the arguments on a document others proclaim to be "interpretive" while at the same time telling people its fundamental nature is prescriptive.
ffg, I appreciate this post, it is very thoughtful. I will be back later to expound on my thoughts. I will just say it would be silly for me to oppose libertarians on such issues as freedom and rights, however, I do feel it's necessary to point out that there are effective alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks. I believe history provides excellent examples as to what works and what does not, so I think it is important.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ffg, I appreciate this post, it is very thoughtful. I will be back later to expound on my thoughts. I will just say it would be silly for me to oppose libertarians on such issues as freedom and rights, however, I do feel it's necessary to point out that there are effective alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks. I believe history provides excellent examples as to what works and what does not, so I think it is important.
Sure, though "effective" and "works" beg a whole lot of questions and imply a whole lot of concepts. Regardless, for every effective political ideal you can find, there was a time and place in history where someone could have easily said "hey, it's never been done, so why should we try it". Why we do things should primarily be a question of values and purposes, not just precedent. Precedent, absent values and purposes, is just brainwashing or past-worship.
But I don't disagree that history provides a good guide. It is a useful tool.
I'm confused as to why this means it is greater than its parts. Certainly some things are out of an individual's control, but those are still real, tangible things that can be ascribed to some individual.
Not necessarily. And I did say greater or different than it's parts. The point is that in sociological theory, you can't just multiply the assumed actions and behaviour of the individuals (rational actor or what have you) and multiply into a bigger, but same structure on societal level. Neither can you start with the macro theory, and make it fit the individuals in a satisfactory way. Since none of these approaches seems to be working, there must be something going on in between that alters it. Hence being something else or more than it's parts.
That's kind of saying the same thing. Obviously "the amount deducted" affects "what your income gets you". And Libertarians would counter this with discussions of inflation and waste and decreased competition that are a common product of the systems they (and I) dislike.
Libertarians do not believe they have a right to a specific labor value, they simply believe they have a right to exchange whatever value their labor is judged having as they see fit with anyone who will trade for it. So telling a Libertarian he or she "should be thankful" would be a tough proof.
I am bad at wording I'm afraid. What I said there was another way of saying what I said later which you understood better.
And obviously, from my socialist position, I don't think people should be held hostage to their "market value" for being able to sustain themselves. (Mind you "market value" probably means something different to each of us. In my view that is just new-speak for "the rich will pay what they see fit". I know that is not libertarianism, but that's how I see it.) Our society and organization should be geared towards the welfare of all, with whatever contributions they are capable of. Yes, this is "give what you can, take what you need" marxism more or less. But, as I said before, and you agreed, they are just completely different ways of looking at it.
Ok, these make more sense to me now.
So at least I didn't stumble over my own words there then.
Anyway, I won't be a libertarian any time soon, just thought I'd mention my reservations against it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Not necessarily. And I did say greater or different than it's parts. The point is that in sociological theory, you can't just multiply the assumed actions and behaviour of the individuals (rational actor or what have you) and multiply into a bigger, but same structure on societal level. Neither can you start with the macro theory, and make it fit the individuals in a satisfactory way. Since none of these approaches seems to be working, there must be something going on in between that alters it. Hence being something else or more than it's parts.
Fair enough. But if that's the case, we better be open to the idea of society being less than it's parts, or even completely non-existent.
And obviously, from my socialist position, I don't think people should be held hostage to their "market value" for being able to sustain themselves. (Mind you "market value" probably means something different to each of us. In my view that is just new-speak for "the rich will pay what they see fit". I know that is not libertarianism, but that's how I see it.)
Newspeak is not euphamistic. Newspeak is when the application of a word destroys its definition. "War is peace" is newspeak for that reason. "Property is theft" is newspeak for that reason. The common socialistic applications of the terms "cooperation" and "contract" are newspeak. Neo-conservative applications of the term "compassion" are newspeak.
"Market value" is not newspeak, since both values and markets are upheld and required by the application of the term. And to say "market value" is almost to say "the rich will pay what they see fit". More accurately, however, it is "anyone will pay what they see fit". The poor are not somehow immune from market value considerations in their purchases or sales -- they simply make less of them. Certainly a poor man in America will not sell his labor for $.01 / day -- he understand the market value of his labor and that salary. He might, however, sell his labor for $25 / day based on the same considerations. A socialist would call this robbery. I'd simply ask what is being stolen?
Our society and organization should be geared towards the welfare of all, with whatever contributions they are capable of. Yes, this is "give what you can, take what you need" marxism more or less. But, as I said before, and you agreed, they are just completely different ways of looking at it.
They are different ways of looking at it. However, Libertarians would simply counter the above by questioning what your idea of "welfare" truly is, and at what cost it would come.
Sure, though "effective" and "works" beg a whole lot of questions and imply a whole lot of concepts. Regardless, for every effective political ideal you can find, there was a time and place in history where someone could have easily said "hey, it's never been done, so why should we try it". Why we do things should primarily be a question of values and purposes, not just precedent. Precedent, absent values and purposes, is just brainwashing or past-worship.
But I don't disagree that history provides a good guide. It is a useful tool.
ffg, I think you misunderstood me or maybe I was not clear (which was probably the case). I, in no way, feel something should not be done simply because it has not been done before. But what you propose is quite an over-haul in our current system and I'd at least like to see some success or benefits, even if small scale. You are talking about privatizing the roads, schools, libraries, police, abolishing property taxes, zoning, anything not required by the state. I don't think one has to go 100% libertarian to show marked benefits. An example of even a small town would be of some help.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Newspeak is not euphamistic. Newspeak is when the application of a word destroys its definition. "War is peace" is newspeak for that reason. "Property is theft" is newspeak for that reason. The common socialistic applications of the terms "cooperation" and "contract" are newspeak. Neo-conservative applications of the term "compassion" are newspeak.
How about this one.....'Self government' is libertarian newspeak for 'everybody ought to be able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only they believe in the power of libertarianism.'
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How about this one.....'Self government' is libertarian newspeak for 'everybody ought to be able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only they believe in the power of libertarianism.'
Self-government isn't newspeak because one does govern one's self to some extent, regardless of the implementation of social bodies. Government, as a function, is an inseperable concept to the word "Self". If "government" only referred to a social body, then yes "self government" would be newspeak. Libertarians simply see the purposes of the social body available on the self-level.
Your language above is also not correct -- libertarians do not live or want to live as if they are the only human in the universe. The reverse is true -- Libertarians must recognize the inherent freedoms and rights of others to have any themselves. Otherwise, it's like suggesting that the slave-owner is a Libertarian and by extension suggesting that "slavery is freedom", another classic example of newspeak.
Self-government isn't newspeak because one does govern one's self to some extent, regardless of the implementation of social bodies. Government, as a function, is an inseperable concept to the word "Self". If "government" only referred to a social body, then yes "self government" would be newspeak. Libertarians simply see the purposes of the social body available on the self-level.
Your language above is also not correct -- libertarians do not live or want to live as if they are the only human in the universe. The reverse is true -- Libertarians must recognize the inherent freedoms and rights of others to have any themselves. Otherwise, it's like suggesting that the slave-owner is a Libertarian and by extension suggesting that "slavery is freedom", another classic example of newspeak.
It is newspeak, ffg. Like I mentioned before it's a utopian ideal like those of 'communism' that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work.
'Self government' is the idea that other people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would like to be free of such regulation, I think 'laws' that regulate the behavior of others is practical. This is not to say that there are laws that are ridiculous or unnecessary. I know you want the first so much, that you would be willing to forgo the second. But most feel that both are necessary (and that it would be hypocritical or stupid to want just one.)
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It is newspeak, ffg. Like I mentioned before it's a utopian ideal like those of 'communism' that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work.
The latter is a certainly a fair criticism of some Libertarian "utopia", but that doesn't make it newspeak. You're just trying to merge two criticisms here. There is nothing that precludes people from governing themselves in the true sense of simply governing their own actions in some direction -- people have to do this. However, there are plenty of reasons people don't do that and won't do that in a direction towards the principles Libertarians hold dear. When a Libertarian talks about a utopia achieved through "self-government", they are simply talking about a foolish ideal, not a newspeak ideal.
Look, here's the same idea from the other side. Many communists in fact believe in a utopian ideal where communist ends are possible without forceful means. When such a communist uses the term "cooperation" then, it isn't newspeak since their utopian ideal believes that people will willingly come together and act on their communistic standards. The term, in that application, remains logical even if the overall ideal is naive and utopian.
'Self government' is the idea that other people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would like to be free of such regulation, I think 'laws' that regulate the behavior of others is practical. This is not to say that there are laws that are ridiculous or unnecessary. I know you want the first so much, that you would be willing to forgo the second. But most feel that both are necessary (and that it would be hypocritical or stupid to want just one.)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you addressing me personally here? I'm not a proponent of "self government" in the way some Libertarians are. This is where the Libertarian movement branches into moral territory, and my morality comes from Objectivist views much moreso than Libertarian ones. Whether or not you "govern yourself" doesn't matter to me.
ffg, I think you misunderstood me or maybe I was not clear (which was probably the case). I, in no way, feel something should not be done simply because it has not been done before. But what you propose is quite an over-haul in our current system and I'd at least like to see some success or benefits, even if small scale. You are talking about privatizing the roads, schools, libraries, police, abolishing property taxes, zoning, anything not required by the state. I don't think one has to go 100% libertarian to show marked benefits. An example of even a small town would be of some help.
I totally understand, and understood you before.
To understand the positives and negatives of Libertarian implementations, just look for places in your society where the grasp of government is not strong. Furthermore, apply reason to the ideals. If you find them lacking, that's perfectly cool.
To understand the positives and negatives of Libertarian implementations, just look for places in your society where the grasp of government is not strong. Furthermore, apply reason to the ideals. If you find them lacking, that's perfectly cool.
But that makes it sound as if though "lack of government" is the primary cause. If you are indeed an owner of a business, there is plenty of "government" going on within your business to make it run. "Government" need not be a dirty word.
But that makes it sound as if though "lack of government" is the primary cause. If you are indeed an owner of a business, there is plenty of "government" going on within your business to make it run. "Government" need not be a dirty word.
Actually, if you are an owner of a business you know that there is plenty of government going on withing your business to keep it from running efficiently. The trick for the business owner is to navigate around government to make the business function in spite of the intervention.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Actually, if you are an owner of a business you know that there is plenty of government going on withing your business to keep it from running efficiently. The trick for the business owner is to navigate around government to make the business function in spite of the intervention.
I meant that, strictly speaking, "government" is management. It is a boss, and it is workers, and all the levels in between. A good businessman/woman actively "governs" his/her business.
Actually, if you are an owner of a business you know that there is plenty of government going on withing your business to keep it from running efficiently. The trick for the business owner is to navigate around government to make the business function in spite of the intervention.
doesn't your government also protect you on an international scale and defends your interests at WTO for example?
What's to say that tomorrow, with no american government behind the businesses, foreign businesses come and completely strangle yours?
I don't disagree with this at all. Most Libertarians (and myself) would not consider the concept of government negative. But at this point you're stretching "government" beyond concepts like democracy and the social institution known as Government.
A business owner "governs" his employees. An employee "governs" his abilities. They both may "govern" lots of things separately or together. Consumers "govern" them both. But that concept is not necessarily equal to a social institution that "governs" all men. Libertarians would argue that "good" governance is founded upon contracts, whereas bad government is founded upon force and/or coersion. Libertarians would not differentiate between corporate governance and social Government if both were founded upon force or if both were founded upon contracts. They (and I) tend to see, however, some fundamental differences in the means that define the two modes of governance.
I don't disagree with this at all. Most Libertarians (and myself) would not consider the concept of government negative. But at this point you're stretching "government" beyond concepts like democracy and the social institution known as Government.
A business owner "governs" his employees. An employee "governs" his abilities. They both may "govern" lots of things separately or together. Consumers "govern" them both. But that concept is not necessarily equal to a social institution that "governs" all men. Libertarians would argue that "good" governance is founded upon contracts, whereas bad government is founded upon force and/or coersion. Libertarians would not differentiate between corporate governance and social Government if both were founded upon force or if both were founded upon contracts. They (and I) tend to see, however, some fundamental differences in the means that define the two modes of governance.
That's a nice post. That seems kind of simplified, though. I think the US government, right now, is top heavy with Liberty. And I mean that in the way that you describe the root of Libertarianism.
Comments
As Malcolm X said - “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.”
Can the ideal of voting and this pseudo-plutocracy they call western democracy be reconciled with true libertarian ideology? Surely Libertarians should be oppposed to the ideal of the 'vote'...is'nt true libertarianism really anarchy - an archos - without the state ? I think so. Without a state, a goverment, who can tell us what to do, what to pay, and when to pay it? States enslave, states make us 'subjects', or 'citizens', or 'taxpayers'.
There seems to be some sizeable movement in the US for Libertarianism getting on the ballots in some states, and being in a country where there is jack shit of the sort, is the ballot box the way to go about bringing true liberty to the people? I dunno.
http://thedesiremachine.blogspot.com/
You're not way off to me. That's how I see it as well, only you say it so much better.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You're always welcome!
The first two statements are right on, per Libertarianism. The last, not so much. Libertarians certainly agree that society exists -- the existence of society as a potential oppressive force is intrinsic in Libertarian ideology. Furthermore, Libertarians certainly believe problems, successes, and many things exist because of social forces and conditions. It's not that "all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings". Rather, it's that all responsibilities and rights can be ascribed to individual existence, rather than social circumstance.
Again, Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things. Few Libertarians believe that "government is the opposite of liberty". Rather, they believe that individual rights simply precede government. And Libertarians have a narrow view of individual rights, typically limited to life, liberty, and property. When government violates those rights, or pretends to be their determinant, only then does "government become the opposite of liberty".
"Money equals amount of freedom" is an anti-Libertarian statement and few, if any, Libertarians would agree with that. That is more a concept left to the socialists and anarchists who believe that property is an oppressive force. Libertarians view property as an individual right. The amount of property (or lack thereof) doesn't determine your freedom. The ability to pursue that property, in whatever form, does.
For the most part, yes. Libertarians typically believe that taxation is a violation of the individual rights of liberty, property and life itself (though the last is more an Objectivist view).
The predominant Libertarian axioms are more along the line of this:
1. All men are created equal.
2. All men have equal rights to life, liberty, and property.
3. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another.
OK. But even after that slight correction, it seems I was on the money then. With a libertarian position that does not really consider anything beyond an individual perspective, any concessions that they may be aware of "social forces and conditions" seems hollow, as they don't seem to take the consequence of them. If there are problems created by social forces on an aggregate level, that's where they should be met, not by somehow finding the individuals whose responsibility it (arguably) is.
OK, I see what you mean
Well that's the principal anyway. But in our current context, given a capitalistic system as of today, doing away with government just gives the power to those with the most money. And money makes money, driving differences until there are widely seperated classes in society. I wasn't suggesting that money equals freedom is what libertarians say, but I am arguing that it's a consequence under current circumstances.
Well, I tend to take the large view on those things. We are part of a system or rather system of systems. Our salaries come from the system, and the system also supports us in many ways. Thus, getting caught up in the taxation issue is a trait of a very individualistic position where the money you make is seperate from the rest of society and owing only to yourself for having it. Tax=theft falls apart the moment the individualistic position is abandoned.
No problems with these ones here in themselves, particularly 1 and 3, although I must say that the right to liberty is issue enough to go to town with. The precise interpretation of that point is the critical issue. Life is obvious, liberty is very fuzzy, and property should not be mentioned as a fundamental on that level, but rather as a possible "first amendment" or something. Property is a cultural and social invention, not a natural given or constant. At least not to the extent we usually draw it in modern society.
Anyway, you did soften it up a bit for me, but I won't accept it still. For me it is a way too individualistic way of thinking that disregard our traditional collective and social ways of living in favour of self.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think you missed the point here. Libertarians believe in society and social forces. Libertarians do not believe, however, that social forces can be greater than simply the sum of the individuals involved. They certainly recognize the "consequences" of these forces, but Libertarians would argue that those consequences and their causes only make sense when considered on the individual scale. Societies do not live in poverty. Individuals do. Societies do not commit crimes -- individuals and social bodies do. Societies do not have rights -- individuals do. Societies cannot follow through on obligations -- individuals do.
Furthermore, individuals can come together and accomplish great things. Libertarianism isn't built around the island man concept. Libertarians are often great supporters of cooperation and community. Just because they don't believe in a community's right to trump an individual right doesn't mean they don't believe in working with others and meeting problems on the "aggregate level".
Libertarians would take real issue with all these principles. First, they would reject the notion that today's system is "capitalistic". Secondly, they would reject the idea that "doing away with government just gives power to those with the most money", since Libertarians would reject the logic that simply transferring aggressive power from one sector of society to another can be called an accomplishment and that much of today's corporate power is explained by corporate involvement with government to begin with. Furthermore, they're not proposing to "do away with government" anyway. They believe government should exist to protect the rights of all, not create and then violate the rights of some.
The "consequence" of Libertarianism would be a small government tasked only with protecting life, liberty, and property. It would not be a government tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor (welfare), nor would it be a government tasked with protecting corporate interests (corporate welfare). It would protect both rich and poor from rights violators.
Again, this would be inconsistent with Libertarian ideology. To make a blanket statement that all money gets its value from an undefinable system doesn't sit well with Libertarians. Libertarians would argue that governmental systems have done more to devalue money than they have ever done to give it value. Money, to a Libertarian, simply represents the exchange value of labor between conscious individual actors and groups of those actors. The taxation issue, yes, is an individualistic position in some sense. But so is universal health care, in some sense. Obviously all governmental actions and services affect individuals, right? If we were only concerned about a "system" why would it matter that some individuals are poor or oppressed or whatever if the "system" could be judged healthy? If you seperate the concept of individual from society, you've rendered the latter term meaningless in the eyes of a Libertarian.
This would be where the valid arguments lie, in my opinion. The issue of rights is definitely a place where a lot of people can look at Liberatrianism and say that it is too narrow or ill-defined.
Hehe...you won't accept it? How dare you pretend that you can think and determine for yourself
Certainly. I didn't say libertarians are bad people. I just question their principles and politics.
OK, I might be confusing libertarianism and anarchism again.
That sounds nice. Until the difference between classes becomes large enough and the poor become poor enough for tensions to soar, increase hostility to a point where the elite either wall themselves off violently, until the inevitable overthrow, or they start welfare programs to placate the poor masses. A bit bleak perhaps, but that's roughly how the welfare state happened in the first place. Coupled with christian morality as well, of course.
Not saying it can't happen, but seems unlikely.
My point is that money is irrelevant outside it's system. Your paycheck and what digits it holds is irrelevant, unless you also consider all other factors in society, work, ideology, beliefs and so on. Hence, a narrow focus on the tax subtracted from one's paycheck is rather meaningless. The point is that we have an amount of goods, labour and people, which is somehow gonna work out to the degree that it is maintained. In practice, how much I'm deducted in taxes is irrelevant, if it is enough on top of various public programs to get by decently for a decent input into society. As for the "health" of a system, I would look at how many it cares for adequately, making that portion as large as possible, and then have welfare and other measures to secure those that fall outside the system.
It is really about completely different ways to look at this. But that's no surprise, is it?
Indeed. I would say just that, actually.
Don't confuse me for Ahnimus, my friend. Besides, if I were to argue determinism (which I dont, or at least not to A's extent) it would merely be given that I would think and determine the way I do. It could not have been otherwise with my genes, background and experiences, even if I use my mind and reason to arrive at it. This is of course unprovable either way, and in my view, pretty irrelevant.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Hehe...wasn't intending to invoke determinism here, but rather just slyly pointing out that you were, in the process of evaluating Libertarianism, acting out the highest of Libertarian ideals -- reasoned, individual thought. But it works this way too
Good stuff above. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow.
Best,
-Jeff
When you say "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by your society", you're saying, to a Libertarian, "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by other individuals". And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, Libertarian or otherwise.
A demonstration that society can somehow exist outside of individuals or could somehow be independent of them would be interesting to see.
Meh...no political system doesn't live under the threat of revolution. I mean, to opposite of Libertarianism is fascism, and fascism faces the same problems. Revolutions happen when social structures no longer represent the culture of the people. It's not unique to anything Libertarian.
That's like saying "a narrow focus on the guy who was murdered down the street from me is rather meaningless". Or "a narrow focus on the guy who is poor down the street from me is rather meaningless". Certainly my paycheck is relevant to the society I live in, but its relevance lies in the exchange value it has with other individuals.
Not invalid, but this would require a very insipid morality, IMO. It's basically saying that a bribe is only wrong when the amount is wrong, or that a kidnapping is only wrong when the ransom is too high. Libertarians (and myself) aren't likely to find morality in amounts.
Again, this requires the individual and the sum-of-individual theory, which seem to contradict what you say above.
Definitely!
It doesn't exist outside of individuals, but may well be out of the individuals' control and "behave" quite differently from the people in it. Hence being something more or something else than merely adding up the parts.
Oh, I know. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I'm saying that the amount on the check in itself is meaningless for the individual involved, unless one factors in the societal, economical and welfare context around the individual. Instead of having the narrow focus on your own income, the focus should be on what your income gets you, and the societal context in which you get it. Libertarians seem to focus too much on the amount deducted in my view.
As for the morality and bribes thing, come again? I was just saying that if you look fundamentally on our system and society, it is basically about how we are to organize, how we are to distribute goods and how to do that "fairly" or at least to the extent that the system is maintained. It's about stepping back and focusing on the bigger picture and what the system is and how and why it works. It is about looking at it holistically, not exclusively from an individual perspective. Such an individual perspective also often posits a particular kind of individual as well, but that's another debate.
How does it contradict what I say above? It's one thing to analyze the system parts of society as just that, but the point of it all is after all the individuals' welfare. So our meauring rod should be on the individual level most certainly. No contradiction. Going for collective solutions for (all) the individuals' gain, is what socialism is about, or at least should be about. Just because it seems to me that libertarians are too individualistically focused, doesn't mean I dismiss individuals altogether.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm confused as to why this means it is greater than its parts. Certainly some things are out of an individual's control, but those are still real, tangible things that can be ascribed to some individual.
That's kind of saying the same thing. Obviously "the amount deducted" affects "what your income gets you". And Libertarians would counter this with discussions of inflation and waste and decreased competition that are a common product of the systems they (and I) dislike.
Libertarians do not believe they have a right to a specific labor value, they simply believe they have a right to exchange whatever value their labor is judged having as they see fit with anyone who will trade for it. So telling a Libertarian he or she "should be thankful" would be a tough proof.
Ok, these make more sense to me now.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I am not aware of any purely Libertarian cities, states or nations. The argument exists for many, but there are always flaws (as with any pure political ideology). America itself, if one had to assign a pure ideology to its unpure founding principles, would have been closest to Libertarianism, IMO.
There are many small towns and regions in the United States and Austrailia where Libertarianism is effectively practiced, but often more because of geographical and resource restrictions (governing small, disparate populations often is not worth that trouble) as by Libertarian choice.
Others have argued that historical societies such as some Native Americans, Norsemen, or some 20th century S American societies were largely Libertarian, but I have trouble finding a lot of truth in those arguments.
The standard for the question is fairly simple: finding populations that exist based on the three axioms I detailed above in my response to Dan. While many populations match to some or majority extent, I'm not aware of any to which strong counter arguments do not exist. And once one applies a more formal standard of nation/state, that standard largely contradicts Libertarian thought, thereby making the standard counterproductive.
All that said, I've never taken on a truly active study on historical instances of the practice, since that doesn't interest me much.
I'm surprised the topic doesn't interest you. It interested me and I don't subscribe to all the libertarian beliefs. I asked the question, because I tried to find a working example, but could not and I was hoping maybe you had other examples.
It's interesting to me that many other ideologies have put their money where their mouths are, if not their lives. I can list many examples. Yet you and others like you want us to risk what many consider the best nation in the world with your untested beliefs.
As far as 'unpure founding principles' of the US, I disagree with this. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises (something you are not fond of) among the founding fathers, therefore, the 'unpure founding principles' would vary among them. The founding fathers explicitly specified that we look to the court for interpretation.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The past interests me very little. It's not Libertarian history that I'm disinterested in, it's history I'm largely disinterested in.
I don't believe there are good ones. I mean, Libertarian beliefs are fringe beliefs and have been so (though to varying degrees) throughout history. Few nations have even come close to being defined primarily by a belief in individual rights, history being so dominated by empires, collectivism and religion.
Libertarians tend to focus, in practical examples, on constructs like corporations and other social institutions that tend to be defined by similar principles. However, these examples are obviously tainted by their typical existence within non-Libertarian constructs.
I don't think any Libertarian would tell you to risk what you consider best, if that means your non-Libertarian ideology. Rather, they would simply tell you that you have no right to risk their lives and rights to achieve it, which would put you in agreement, not opposition.
Libertarians don't believe that society has to be full of Libertarians and slaves to Libertarianism. That kind of defeats the purpose. If you were some kind of hard-core socialist, Libertarians wouldn't tell you that, in the event that the US government suddenly became a Libertarian construct, you had no right to build collective structures. They would simply tell you that you have no right to enslave the unwilling in the process. The reverse, however, would not be true. In socialistic societies, Libertarian action becomes illegal.
Here's a very practical example of this: about two weeks ago, as a Libertarian, I participated in a protest here at a local commune whose land is being threatened by annexetion by my town. The people who live there are extreme communists and their political ideals could not run much more opposite to my own. But I participated in that protest because I am a Libertarian who believes that the people there have every right in this world to live how they choose, even if the choices they make are what I consider incredibly foolish and counter to their own stated purposes.
I don't disagree with this at all. The founding principles of the US were compromises. Hence "upure" in that they did not follow any single political ideal.
I don't fervently share the Constitutionalist outlook of many Libertarians, since I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution to begin with. I simply tend to agree with the Libertarian interpretation of the document moreso than the alternatives. Because of the rather superficial agreement, I have trouble representing their arguments here. Since Constitutionalism and Libertarianism often run hand-in-hand, you can find a lot Libertarian arguments on the intent of the Constitution on the web. Most of these arguments are pretty weak, as are the arguments on a document others proclaim to be "interpretive" while at the same time telling people its fundamental nature is prescriptive.
ffg, I appreciate this post, it is very thoughtful. I will be back later to expound on my thoughts. I will just say it would be silly for me to oppose libertarians on such issues as freedom and rights, however, I do feel it's necessary to point out that there are effective alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks. I believe history provides excellent examples as to what works and what does not, so I think it is important.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Sure, though "effective" and "works" beg a whole lot of questions and imply a whole lot of concepts. Regardless, for every effective political ideal you can find, there was a time and place in history where someone could have easily said "hey, it's never been done, so why should we try it". Why we do things should primarily be a question of values and purposes, not just precedent. Precedent, absent values and purposes, is just brainwashing or past-worship.
But I don't disagree that history provides a good guide. It is a useful tool.
I am bad at wording I'm afraid. What I said there was another way of saying what I said later which you understood better.
And obviously, from my socialist position, I don't think people should be held hostage to their "market value" for being able to sustain themselves. (Mind you "market value" probably means something different to each of us. In my view that is just new-speak for "the rich will pay what they see fit". I know that is not libertarianism, but that's how I see it.) Our society and organization should be geared towards the welfare of all, with whatever contributions they are capable of. Yes, this is "give what you can, take what you need" marxism more or less. But, as I said before, and you agreed, they are just completely different ways of looking at it.
So at least I didn't stumble over my own words there then.
Anyway, I won't be a libertarian any time soon, just thought I'd mention my reservations against it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Fair enough. But if that's the case, we better be open to the idea of society being less than it's parts, or even completely non-existent.
Newspeak is not euphamistic. Newspeak is when the application of a word destroys its definition. "War is peace" is newspeak for that reason. "Property is theft" is newspeak for that reason. The common socialistic applications of the terms "cooperation" and "contract" are newspeak. Neo-conservative applications of the term "compassion" are newspeak.
"Market value" is not newspeak, since both values and markets are upheld and required by the application of the term. And to say "market value" is almost to say "the rich will pay what they see fit". More accurately, however, it is "anyone will pay what they see fit". The poor are not somehow immune from market value considerations in their purchases or sales -- they simply make less of them. Certainly a poor man in America will not sell his labor for $.01 / day -- he understand the market value of his labor and that salary. He might, however, sell his labor for $25 / day based on the same considerations. A socialist would call this robbery. I'd simply ask what is being stolen?
They are different ways of looking at it. However, Libertarians would simply counter the above by questioning what your idea of "welfare" truly is, and at what cost it would come.
ffg, I think you misunderstood me or maybe I was not clear (which was probably the case). I, in no way, feel something should not be done simply because it has not been done before. But what you propose is quite an over-haul in our current system and I'd at least like to see some success or benefits, even if small scale. You are talking about privatizing the roads, schools, libraries, police, abolishing property taxes, zoning, anything not required by the state. I don't think one has to go 100% libertarian to show marked benefits. An example of even a small town would be of some help.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How about this one.....'Self government' is libertarian newspeak for 'everybody ought to be able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only they believe in the power of libertarianism.'
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Self-government isn't newspeak because one does govern one's self to some extent, regardless of the implementation of social bodies. Government, as a function, is an inseperable concept to the word "Self". If "government" only referred to a social body, then yes "self government" would be newspeak. Libertarians simply see the purposes of the social body available on the self-level.
Your language above is also not correct -- libertarians do not live or want to live as if they are the only human in the universe. The reverse is true -- Libertarians must recognize the inherent freedoms and rights of others to have any themselves. Otherwise, it's like suggesting that the slave-owner is a Libertarian and by extension suggesting that "slavery is freedom", another classic example of newspeak.
It is newspeak, ffg. Like I mentioned before it's a utopian ideal like those of 'communism' that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work.
'Self government' is the idea that other people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would like to be free of such regulation, I think 'laws' that regulate the behavior of others is practical. This is not to say that there are laws that are ridiculous or unnecessary. I know you want the first so much, that you would be willing to forgo the second. But most feel that both are necessary (and that it would be hypocritical or stupid to want just one.)
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The latter is a certainly a fair criticism of some Libertarian "utopia", but that doesn't make it newspeak. You're just trying to merge two criticisms here. There is nothing that precludes people from governing themselves in the true sense of simply governing their own actions in some direction -- people have to do this. However, there are plenty of reasons people don't do that and won't do that in a direction towards the principles Libertarians hold dear. When a Libertarian talks about a utopia achieved through "self-government", they are simply talking about a foolish ideal, not a newspeak ideal.
Look, here's the same idea from the other side. Many communists in fact believe in a utopian ideal where communist ends are possible without forceful means. When such a communist uses the term "cooperation" then, it isn't newspeak since their utopian ideal believes that people will willingly come together and act on their communistic standards. The term, in that application, remains logical even if the overall ideal is naive and utopian.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you addressing me personally here? I'm not a proponent of "self government" in the way some Libertarians are. This is where the Libertarian movement branches into moral territory, and my morality comes from Objectivist views much moreso than Libertarian ones. Whether or not you "govern yourself" doesn't matter to me.
I totally understand, and understood you before.
To understand the positives and negatives of Libertarian implementations, just look for places in your society where the grasp of government is not strong. Furthermore, apply reason to the ideals. If you find them lacking, that's perfectly cool.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Actually, if you are an owner of a business you know that there is plenty of government going on withing your business to keep it from running efficiently. The trick for the business owner is to navigate around government to make the business function in spite of the intervention.
I meant that, strictly speaking, "government" is management. It is a boss, and it is workers, and all the levels in between. A good businessman/woman actively "governs" his/her business.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What's to say that tomorrow, with no american government behind the businesses, foreign businesses come and completely strangle yours?
I don't disagree with this at all. Most Libertarians (and myself) would not consider the concept of government negative. But at this point you're stretching "government" beyond concepts like democracy and the social institution known as Government.
A business owner "governs" his employees. An employee "governs" his abilities. They both may "govern" lots of things separately or together. Consumers "govern" them both. But that concept is not necessarily equal to a social institution that "governs" all men. Libertarians would argue that "good" governance is founded upon contracts, whereas bad government is founded upon force and/or coersion. Libertarians would not differentiate between corporate governance and social Government if both were founded upon force or if both were founded upon contracts. They (and I) tend to see, however, some fundamental differences in the means that define the two modes of governance.
That's a nice post. That seems kind of simplified, though. I think the US government, right now, is top heavy with Liberty. And I mean that in the way that you describe the root of Libertarianism.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.