Libertarianism - the perpetual motion machine of U.S. politics thread

[Gertrude]

Sure, I have time to vet every little thing in my life. And I know exactly where to go to get reliable, useful and true information. Oh wait? You mean those spec sheets and comparisons I poured over and glowing reviews I found were all fabricated and now my TV has caught fire? Guess I'll sue the manufacturer. Sounds totally doable.

[paddington]

I guess it sounds better the more money you have.

[Bluemangosteen]

My local Libertarians want to do away with taxes on income and wages and implement a 23% consumption tax on whatever you buy. To make it "Fair" they will send everyone a monthly check to cover the taxes that you will pay on basic necessities.

[Swordfish]

This whole line of conversation is kind of silly to me to be honest.

I wouldn't want to live in a 'utopia' where any political movement got 100% of what it wanted. Libertarian or otherwise.

But in the category of 'where do they fall on shit that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening', it seems to me that libertarians and democrats are natural philosophical allies on a lot of the big ones, which makes the over the top vitriol form the left kind of odd, TBH.

Naturally they don't agree on everything. Taxes, for example, but I don't think those differences really rise to the level of reaction that the party seems to get from the left.

[Ramsay Gimp]

This whole line of conversation is kind of silly to me to be honest.

I wouldn't want to live in a 'utopia' where any political movement got 100% of what it wanted. Libertarian or otherwise.

But in the category of 'where do they fall on shit that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening', it seems to me that libertarians and democrats are natural philosophical allies on a lot of the big ones, which makes the over the top vitriol form the left kind of odd, TBH.

Naturally they don't agree on everything. Taxes, for example, but I don't think those differences really rise to the level of reaction that the party seems to get from the left.

But but Koch brothers!!!

[Galactus]

This whole line of conversation is kind of silly to me to be honest.

I wouldn't want to live in a 'utopia' where any political movement got 100% of what it wanted. Libertarian or otherwise.

But in the category of 'where do they fall on shit that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening', it seems to me that libertarians and democrats are natural philosophical allies on a lot of the big ones, which makes the over the top vitriol form the left kind of odd, TBH.

Naturally they don't agree on everything. Taxes, for example, but I don't think those differences really rise to the level of reaction that the party seems to get from the left.

Well, there's a couple of different issues with this.

For starters, just like with all other things, people aren't neccessarily talking about the same groups: The theoretical philosophical libertarian and the libertarian "movement" are very different things. (not to mention the general tendency for nuttery among libertarians, although I guess that's mainly due to them being a fringe group, eco-warriors or communists tends to get similarily nutty)

The issue is that the US is, by and large, a liberal (in the true sense of the word) country. (there are virtually no socialists, and even the conservatives are fairly liberal) Everyone is operating within a fairly narrow liberal sphere. Which means that in order for the libertarians to distinguish themselves they have to go, way, way off the reservation.

[peterbound]

My perception is that the majority of Americans who call themselves "libertarian" (especially with a lower case "l") are really just using the term as shorthand for holding positions on economic issues have been considered "conservative" within the last several decades and positions on social issues (especially those concerning sex and drugs) that have been considered "liberal." In other words, believing in cutting taxes and legalizing pot. I don't think a lot of those people have thought deeply about political philosophy and really don't subscribe to the more stringent views of the Libertarian Party.

And even among committed Libertarians there would certainly be a range of views. As I understand it, it's only a radical fringe group among Libertarians who advocate for policing to be a completely privately owned and operated function in society. If I remember correctly, even Ayn Rand thought that idea was crazy. So the minimal government most Libertarians wish for would include locally funded police as well as that defensive national military. I suspect that the radical Libertarians who want to get rid of the police get a lot more attention than they warrant.

Boom.

You summed that up nicely.

[BloodRider]

Sure, I have time to vet every little thing in my life. And I know exactly where to go to get reliable, useful and true information. Oh wait? You mean those spec sheets and comparisons I poured over and glowing reviews I found were all fabricated and now my TV has caught fire? Guess I'll sue the manufacturer. Sounds totally doable.

Nope sorry. You signed away your right to sue. You have to enter into mandatory arbitration which is conducted by the company we chose, in the location we chose. We have set the arbitration for next week in our International HQ in Japan. Hope you can make it. And if you don't well you forfeit your right to arbitration.

Think I am kidding - look at the contracts for these companies:

* DirecTV

* Verizon

* Comcast

* Sprint

* Time Warner Cable

* Wells Fargo

* JPMorgan Chase

* Sallie Mae

* Citibank

* EA

* Ticketmaster

* Netflix

[maarsen]

Living in a libertarian state is really easy. If you want little or no government interference in your life choose any of the failed states in Africa. At least the weather is nice in Chad, Liberia, The Congo. The Central Africa Republic...

[Ramsay Gimp]

Obviously I'm not going to convince anyone here to see the light, but hopefully I can help clarify a few things about libertarian thought

The basic assumption seems to be that individual people can be informed enough about everything they'll ever meet to make rational decisions on the choices they make.

Ever heard of rating/review agencies? The media? Consumer reports? Especially in this age of the internet, the idea that a company could consistently screw its customers and get away with it seems willfully blind, unless that company had government protection (think Comcast).

I think they're aiming for a bit further back than that. Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were into trust busting, and they're not too keen on McKinley's foreign policy or trade policies. You'd be looking at Grover Cleveland.

Yes to all this; Cleveland was about the best you could hope for in a U.S. President, and McKinley was basically George W. Bush a hundred years earlier.

Want to read about an awesome Left-Right alliance in American history? Check out the Anti-Imperialist league. Its membership included militant socialists, wealthy captains of industry, and famous figures like Mark Twain, all united in opposing the birth of an American empire.

doubtful. henry clay's 'american system' probably ain't consistent, nor are the various restrictions on the franchise, nor is coverture, nor is chattel slavery, nor is genocide contra indigenes.

Thank you (really) for not parroting the lame cheap-shot that libertarians just want a "return to chattel slavery".

But to answer Free Northman's question, the U.S. has never been a libertarian state (such a thing will likely never exist) but there has always been strong currents of libertarianism in its politics. This current has ebbed and flowed over time

We talked about this in the other thread, but it's so loosely defined as to be meaningless. Different people mean too many things when they say "libertarian."

I would still like an answer from self-professed libertarians who think the government should only be involved in property rights enforcement, or in the military, or in just those two things: what makes that so special? Why do they want government involved in those things, versus the total laissez-faire of anarchism?

-As others have pointed out, this could be said about any political label. How many flavors of "socialist" can you think of?

-Because the only justifiable use of force is in reaction to other force. That's just a first principle, can't really explain further than that. If we are to have a state, therefore, it's duties should be limited to protecting the property and persons of the public from aggression/fraud.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And even among committed Libertarians there would certainly be a range of views. As I understand it, it's only a radical fringe group among Libertarians who advocate for policing to be a completely privately owned and operated function in society. If I remember correctly, even Ayn Rand thought that idea was crazy. So the minimal government most Libertarians wish for would include locally funded police as well as that defensive national military. I suspect that the radical Libertarians who want to get rid of the police get a lot more attention than they warrant.

You're basically on-point here, but there is something the Left and those curious about libertarianism need to understand:

Ayn Rand is not the patron saint of libertarianism, except in the minds of Progressives. She just happens to be the most widely-read libertarian philosopher among the general public. But within the actual movement she was a controversial figure. First, she hated the "libertarian" label and never used it for herself. She called her philosophy Objectivism and rejected any sort of alliance with non-Objectivist libertarians (i.e. the majority of them). Second, Objectivist philosophy takes aggressive stances on all sorts of issues that standard libertarianism has no comment on: art, music, religion, sexuality, etc. Third, her current followers have policy views that are rejected by most libertarians. Objectivists are usually even more militant on foreign policy than neocons, for example - not exactly in line with Ron Paul.

[sologdin]

Thank you (really) for not parroting the lame cheap-shot that libertarians just want a "return to chattel slavery".

hey, nothing to be gained from misrepresenting the content of the philosophy. my belief is that libertarians, socialists, and basically everyone else who is not pre-modern would've stormed the barricades as one to destroy chattel slavery.

[Commodore]

My local Libertarians want to do away with taxes on income and wages and implement a 23% consumption tax on whatever you buy. To make it "Fair" they will send everyone a monthly check to cover the taxes that you will pay on basic necessities.

yes, the FairTax has been around awhile

advantages include

-easy/efficient to collect as nearly every state already collects sales taxes

-zero invasion of personal privacy

-everyone gets a check for the amount of tax up to the cost of living, so the poor pay no net tax

-will be paid by illegals/tourists not currently paying any income tax

the rate itself is too high, but that's a function of government spending being too high

[Aemon Stark]

Obviously I'm not going to convince anyone here to see the light, but hopefully I can help clarify a few things about libertarian thought

Ever heard of rating/review agencies? The media? Consumer reports? Especially in this age of the internet, the idea that a company could consistently screw its customers and get away with it seems willfully blind, unless that company had government protection (think Comcast).

[...]

-As others have pointed out, this could be said about any political label. How many flavors of "socialist" can you think of?

-Because the only justifiable use of force is in reaction to other force. That's just a first principle, can't really explain further than that. If we are to have a state, therefore, it's duties should be limited to protecting the property and persons of the public from aggression/fraud.

1) Rating agencies are not exactly infallible. Like, oh, Standard and Poor in the 2008 subprime crisis. Certainly it's good that there is some attempt at accountability after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that rating agencies - as non-governmental regulators - acted in a corrupt, collusive manner to help bring about a major - and costly - crisis.

2) The problem with libertarian principles is that "protecting" property and persons from aggression/fraud can have much, much broader readings than libertarians are keen to admit. What's more, the interpretation is to a real extent arbitrary, and tends to be informed not by higher principles but by a priori beliefs about how far "protection" should extend.

3) The world's a complex place. We live under rules because dealing with other people is a complex, multi-faceted process that fit with neat ideas about "justifiable" force or "coercion". We also run into a lot of situations where everyone is worse off in the absence of certain rules and better off with them. And we have market failures, prisoner's dilemmas, and frauds and harms that must not only be dealt with after the fact but prevented.

To take a real world example, say you have a community of 100 people who are to be considered for immunization against measles. Let's go through a couple scenarios:

1) Vaccination is mandatory except for those in whom it's medically contra-indicated. In this case, it means 94 people are vaccinated, leaving 2 infants below the age of 1 who cannot receive the MMR vaccine, 2 pregnant women, and 2 people who are severely immuno-compromised. No one gets measles or is exposed to it.

2) Vaccination is offered to everyone and strongly encouraged and there is widespread consensus about it. While not strictly mandatory, everyone gets immunized together at the town meeting in view of everyone else. This time 90 people are vaccinated, leaving the same 6 exemptions as before. One family of 4 opts out because they don't think measles is a serious illness and, in any case, they don't think they'll get it since almost everyone else got the vaccine. No one gets measles or is exposed to it, but the opt-out family is widely criticized for their "selfish" position by the rest of the community.

3) Vaccination is not mandatory and there is a significant minority who are opposed to vaccines in general, and others who don't believe in their value. This time 60 people are vaccinated, with the same 6 automatic exemptions as before. But this time 14 people think vaccines are harmful and are concerned about "reactions" that they heard about from family outside the community. The remaining 20 people think that enough other people got vaccinated that they aren't at risk. No one gets measles, but 18 people get rubella including the two pregnant women. One baby is stillborn and the other is born with several congenital anomalies including deafness, a heart defect, and cataracts.

Now, the first two scenarios are similar, even if vaccination is only strictly enforced in the first case. In the second, it is enforced by strong social norms and a community ethos that penalizes the opt-outs; they are seen as essentially "anti-social". One might imagine that the people in the second scenario would look at making vaccination mandatory in the future - it does, after all, already fit with the widespread consensus.

In the third, the externalities of ignorance and selfishness cause clear, measurable harm. And death.

[felice]

Naturally they don't agree on everything. Taxes, for example, but I don't think those differences really rise to the level of reaction that the party seems to get from the left.

Except taxes are necessary to pay for most of the stuff that the left considers to be important.

[BloodRider]

Obviously I'm not going to convince anyone here to see the light, but hopefully I can help clarify a few things about libertarian thought

Ever heard of rating/review agencies? The media? Consumer reports? Especially in this age of the internet, the idea that a company could consistently screw its customers and get away with it seems willfully blind, unless that company had government protection (think Comcast).

Thank you for more examples of inter-corporate corruption.

By the way, it is a total strawman to say that our position is that companies "consistently screw its customers and get away with it ". The issue is that companies get away with it until they completely shit the bed, than get consumers and taxpayers to lie down in their mess.

[Gertrude]

Ever heard of rating/review agencies? The media? Consumer reports? Especially in this age of the internet, the idea that a company could consistently screw its customers and get away with it seems willfully blind, unless that company had government protection (think Comcast).

I agree that there will be companies that care about their reputation and produce quality goods. There will also be a ton who don't. You're assuming perfect information in a world where there really is no such thing. Like I said, right now to investigate one item it takes a good chunk of time. I need to determine where to find the right information, sift through the comparisons and then judge the reliability of customer reviews. If it's a big product, I'll take the time to do it.

If it's shampoo, I might not. I could go for the name brand I recognize. If I want to save a little money, however, I might try a new one. If it stings my eyes, well, then, I'll try another (which, by the way, is also crappy - possibly sold by the same company but with different packaging). Basically it's a crap shoot unless I buy into a known quantity. The next time I see a new shampoo on the shelves, I'm probably going to say screw it, been burned before - unfortunately, this new cheaper shampoo really is awesome and could be the next big thing, but my consumer habit is now to be very wary of the unknown.

And this is all assuming, by the way, that I have access to the information I need anyway. If I live in a more rural area, no internet services are going to find it profitable to hook me up. Again, assuming I could even afford it even if I had access to it. What level of education do you think a person should have in order to function in this society. Is there just no room for the people on the margins? Too poor, too uneducated, too sick... bye-bye. Survival of the fittest don't you know?

Yes, I know our current government is not perfect and it's bloated and slow and corrupted. Any government is going to be. I'd much rather have this version that a version that wasn't trying to protect me, as misguided as it might seem a lot of the time.

[BloodRider]

I agree that there will be companies that care about their reputation and produce quality goods. There will also be a ton who don't. You're assuming perfect information in a world where there really is no such thing.

This is exactly why I claim Berts do not understand game theory. When collusion has such huge benefits, it is hard for a company to stand on principle and remain in business. Thus a race to the lowest common denominator ensues. All it takes it one company to cut corners in such a way that they are not immediately caught, and it provides them with a sufficient competitive advantage.

[MerenthaClone]

Consumer reports will protect us from the FDA? Okay. Cool. I really, really want to spend all of my time, every time I want to buy anything, checking out that a) the product I want to buy is on Consumer Reports B) it isn't falsified c) checking whether the version of Consumer Reports I'm using also isn't shitty. Its Consumer Reports all the way down! Inception the fuck out of those reports. Yeah. Woooo. Fun.

Like, I want to hit up a water fountain because I'm thirsty. I really, really don't want to have to trace the supply chain back to the water, through a myriad of competing companies, to find out whether its been purified and how. I don't have the time, knowledge, or training to become a water purifier and pipe inspector (or to evaluate the efficacy of the independent company I hire to do said investigation). I don't trust companies to actually want to provide me with good information. I do trust them to cut every single damn corner they can get away with while trying to stay competitive and I consider it one of the most wonderful things about modern society that I don't have to worry about what is in my water. And not just my water, water in nearly every public and private building. I just don't have to worry about it.

In Libertopia, I do. And not just water. Food. Gas. Basic fucking amenities I have to personally inspect and stay on top of, just to avoid getting a string of things that aren't necessarily going to be directly traceable back to a specific company that I can sue/leave a bad review on. You want to replace the FDA with Yelp when it comes to basic life-required substances. I'm sure my scathing review will completely cure my fucked liver, and there's no way I'm winning that legal fight (because if everything I ingest is fucked, how can I prove it was them?) and that's assuming the courts can even do anything in the first place.

[Commodore]

Consumer reports will protect us from the FDA? Okay. Cool. I really, really want to spend all of my time, every time I want to buy anything, checking out that a) the product I want to buy is on Consumer Reports B) it isn't falsified c) checking whether the version of Consumer Reports I'm using also isn't shitty. Yeah. Woooo. Fun

You hear leftists complain about the drug war, but they are perfectly ok with the FDA performing the same prohibitory function.

What if we changed the law so the FDA does everything it does now, except it is only a certification, which people are free to ignore or not.