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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

It is the "assume a perfect cow" problem as with anyone purporting to invoke absolute truth.

[TerraPrime]

In my view, Libertarianism doesn't just ask people to assume a perfect cow. Rather, it is asking people to assume a perfect unicorn that breathes fire and shits gold nuggets.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

In my view Marxism does the same.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

In my view Marxism does the same.

And when Marxism enjoys the same degree of mainstream political acceptance then we will have a thread dedicated to that political ideology, too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

It had more than libertarianism for almost a century. There are many who still buy into it.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

It had it for almost a century. There are many who still buy into it.

Had.

Past tense.

Further, it is also not repeated rounds of discussion of Marxism that derails and distracts from the U.S. Politics thread.

[BloodRider]

And I don't think any non-Libertarian will stand to argue that the governments are doing 100% of all the stated goals with 100% effectiveness.

This brings up another massive failing of Libertarianism. Those of us who are not tied to the ends justifying the means have the luxury of examining the process and trying to improve it, or perhaps even do away with it, should it be outdated or completely ineffectual. But to Berts the process itself is the problem, and thus there is never any examination of the process - just calls for it to be torn down. For Berts, the most damning thing you can say about a process is not that it doesn't work but that the gubmn't was involved. It's actually really anti-intellectual, and I think its super lazy.

Berts start with the idea that the gov't can not accomplish anything, and the free market can accomplish all. From that premise they circularly arrive at two conclusions 1) Any support of a process that is not 100% free market is only supported by people who always support the gov't no matter what they do, which they equate to Stalinists; and 2) any process that has any gov't involvement if it hasn't already failed, it is going to. Why? See their initial premise.

Aemon,

Yup. The real argument is about where, when, and what form of coersion is proper. I think too much control imposed by the State is a bad thing. Learning the hard way is very effective instruction. Conversely, if somone is harmed so badly or killed the lesson will not much matter.

Where do we draw the line, the eternal question.

I think the Berts demand much more than that. I wouldn't mind so much if this were really a discussion about where to draw the line, but there is an undercurrent the Libertarianism of burning everything to the other side of the line to the ground, salting the earth, and poisoning the wells. They are like the Taliban tearing down statues of Buddha. And they seem to have relative success in doing this. Glass Stegal, FTC monoply statues, EPA budgets to where they can no longer enforce laws, literally fucking the Mining Regulators. Its like vaccines - once that shit is gone, it's hard to get it back in place. Meanwhile we get to endure the sandstorm that sweeps in in place of thier mindless regulatory clear-cutting.

Robert Bolt in A Man for All Seasons put it well

Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Do you generally feel it necessary to use demeaning short hand names for philosophies you disagree with? Do you recognize that if you claim the most extreme itteration of any political philosophy to be the standard for measurment it will look stupid?

TP,

There aren't many with power who still buy into Marxist theories of economics and history?

[Jo498]

Marxism has the edge because it is meant as a theory about history (where there is some idealization but also some good points, even more about the analysis of the situation in the mid/late 19th century) and what's unrealistic is a subsequent utopia Marxists admit is not here yet. Marx was tendentious in his history, pretty sharp in his analysis of his recent past and present, but not very good as a prophet (although this is a very frequent failure).

Libertarianism reduces a fairly modern conception of humans and society by abstraction to an extremely unrealistic picture and claims that this is a timeless truth.

[Kalbear]

The problem is that it isn't the 'most extreme iteration'. It's any iteration. There is no iteration of libertarianism that is functional in any meaningful way. It starts from the fundamental assertion that is completely flawed and wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jo,

What do you mean "the Edge"? Has there been a Marxist government that hasn't disolved into tyrannical oligarchy or dictatorship?

Kalbear,

So, libertatianism would not work in a small homogenious community where everyone knows everyone else?

[TerraPrime]

TP,

There aren't many with power who still buy into Marxist theories of economics and history?

In the world? Yes.

In the U.S.? I can't think of any right off the top of my head.

Jo,

What do you mean "the Edge"? Has there been a Marxist government that hasn't disolved into tyrannical oligarchy or dictatorship?

At least communism has small-scale communes that function. Does Libertarianism offers similar small-scale successes?

[Jo498]

Yes. For smaller communities I don't see why Libertarianism cannot work, provided that the community is homogenous. Say, up to a few hundred people at a time.

Communism has worked for communities of that size, I guess...

In any case, I think that in reality such small communities are based on structures and obligations that are not taken into account by neither libertarian nor marxist theorizing. I am not an expert on this, but in Graber's "Debt" there are a few examples of the social and economic interactions and structures of some such small communities described by anthropologists. Very different from the abstractions of libertarians. Probably closer to what communitarian philosophers have suggested.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

I'm not limiting my discussion to the US. I think that extremism on either side of the political fence generally leads to poor outcomes on the large scale.

[TrackerNeil]

TP,

I'm not limiting my discussion to the US. I think that extremism on either side of the political fence generally leads to poor outcomes on the large scale.

Well, if there are lots of Marxists causing problems in Istanbul (not Constantinople), then like the song says, that's nobody's business but the Turks.

[Kalbear]

Jo,

What do you mean "the Edge"? Has there been a Marxist government that hasn't disolved into tyrannical oligarchy or dictatorship?

Kalbear,

So, libertatianism would not work in a small homogenious community where everyone knows everyone else?

who the fuck cares?

[Jo498]

The edge was probably a bad expression. While I consider libertarianism an extremely shallow "ethics" and completely unrealistic proposal for the regulation of human affairs, Marxism has at least to offer some interesting findings about economic and social history. I am talking about the theories or intellectual systems here, not about some 20th century dictatorships that were presumably Marxist. If one forgets about revolution and killing the rich, Marxism can even today offer a lot of insights into societal and economic conditions, with respect to alienation, power structures etc. Marxism has history and dialectics "built in", so there is at least a chance for reflection, criticism and advancing to better understanding.

Libertarianism seems to me a claim completely divorced from any understanding of history, the human condition etc. It exalts something that never existed (and is probably simply impossible, as it is just an abstraction like frictionless movement of pointlike particles in mechanics), a free market with perfect information and perfectly rational participants to the BIG IDEA that is supposed to rule everything (in reality).

[BloodRider]

BR,

Do you generally feel it necessary to use demeaning short hand names for philosophies you disagree with?

I like to give them an excuse to not discuss the substance, details and implications of my posts. In this way they can drill down on what they find offensive and avoid a discussion of reality, and implications of their philosophy. :cool4: But I never get appreciated for that sacrifice, it seems.

Seriously tho, why is Berts demeaning? And as I have said before, I use shorthand for all the parties I regularly discuss. Even the ones who are making points I happen to agree with. I call 'em Berts when they are talking about repealling drug laws, just the same as I do when they are talking about taxes are violence.

Do you recognize that if you claim the most extreme itteration of any political philosophy to be the standard for measurment it will look stupid?

I feel like my contention is that I did not outline the most extreme iteration. Not by a long shot. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see the Berts letting the EPA stick around if they should, God forbid, get it shut down. No - the goal is patently to do away with any 3rd party regulation or oversight that would have any legal power to take corrective actions. That's not how they might phrase it, but it doesn't take a super sleuth to sus that truffle nugget out.

This is what I mean by tearing down institutions that can not be easily rebuilt once we realize what a horrible mistake we made. Again, I don't think I am bringing up an example of extreme Libertarianism at all, YMMV, but I sure would like to see what the plan is for 3rd party auditing of business externalities in the absence of government regulation that ANY Bert is calling for.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Well, I do. I don't think any absolutist political philosophy will work well in a large State but with a group of people who have chosen to live by libertarian or Marxist political of their own will, that might be doable.

I wouldn't flush most philosophical POV's in total because they are unworkable on the large scale. Political philosophy is really like sausage making. You pick what works and see how it combines with other ideas.

But that's my POV.

[Kalbear]

Well, it's a kind of stupid thing. Tons of small-scale systems work. That is not what we're discussing. We're not discussing small-scale political units. We're not fucking discussing Marxism either, whcih makes it really weird that you're bringing that up. We're also not discussing secession or state's rights, so you can nip that fucking shit in the bud right the fuck now.

Plenty of communities can exist with things like cargo cults, cannibalism, worship of some supposed messiah or doing nothing but mescaline for days on end. This has fuck all to do with the efficacy of a political system.