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

[Seli]

Meaning?

Traditionally I would say stable small communities run on a certain level behaviour one ought to have, supporting neighbours, lending a hand. A mix behind a social contract and game theory where you are expected to help others because you, your children, your ancestors will have ended up needing help or will in the future. A system that runs on some moral ledger, rather than an economical one.

I don't see a libertarian community, where the core is not that smeared out responsibility, but a more concrete individual one work that way. When one is so focussed on exact exchanges, and individual responsibility I cannot see that help and get helped system that keeps communities together work at all. Which means that an individual failure, which would be buffered in a more conventional community, will lead to a loss. Diminishing the libertarian community.

[Swordfish]

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.

Sure. but again, isn't this more or less true for the other two parties as well? The only different is that the current reservation is linear and not three dimensional because there are only really two ideologies at play.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Re: Ser Scot

This thread is about dissecting and discussing Libertarianism, with an overt focus on the U.S. version since that's what generated the interest. If your conclusion is that its faults are no different than Marxism's faults, or any other "extremist" political thoughts, then ok. But it doesn't push the discussion further. Rather, it stalls and short-circuits the discussion. I think the details of what assumptions Libertarianism need and the futility of such assumptions are precisely the right spots to focus on to debunk Libertarianism. The declaration that all political extremism is harmful is banal in its generality and boring in its lack of engagement. This is like saying "all authors have flaws in their writings, so let's not talk about the why's and the how's of these flaws in this book."

Wait, so is the purpose of this thread to discuss libertarianism or to debunk it? You seem to only be accepting criticisms of the philosophy as contributing to the discussion. This thread has just as many vague, meaningless statements and unquestioned assumptions from the anti-libertarian side yet you don't seem to be calling them out. If you want a left-wing circlejerk you should just rename the thread

Traditionally I would say stable small communities run on a certain level behaviour one ought to have, supporting neighbours, lending a hand. A mix behind a social contract and game theory where you are expected to help others because you, your children, your ancestors will have ended up needing help or will in the future. A system that runs on some moral ledger, rather than an economical one.

I don't see a libertarian community, where the core is not that smeared out responsibility, but a more concrete individual one work that way. When one is so focussed on exact exchanges, and individual responsibility I cannot see that help and get helped system that keeps communities together work at all. Which means that an individual failure, which would be buffered in a more conventional community, will lead to a loss. Diminishing the libertarian community.

So when you help your neighbors or friends, do you do so because the state forces you too? Come on. The idea that goodwill and charity among mankind would evaporate without a nanny state is bonkers.

"Individual responsibility and exact exchanges" seem to just be vague buzzwords - I haven't seen any libertarians here making arguments based on those concepts. Only Objectivists, a very small subset of libertarians, oppose private charity. And no libertarian, not a single one, opposes voluntary cooperative efforts by communities - capitalism would be impossible with that attitude :P

[TrackerNeil]

Wait, so is the purpose of this thread to discuss libertarianism or to debunk it? You seem to only be accepting criticisms of the philosophy as contributing to the discussion. This thread has just as many vague, meaningless statements and unquestioned assumptions from the anti-libertarian side yet you don't seem to be calling them out. If you want a left-wing circlejerk you should just rename the thread

So call out anything you see as vague or meaningless. Nothing wrong with that.

[TerraPrime]

Wait, so is the purpose of this thread to discuss libertarianism or to debunk it? You seem to only be accepting criticisms of the philosophy as contributing to the discussion. This thread has just as many vague, meaningless statements and unquestioned assumptions from the anti-libertarian side yet you don't seem to be calling them out. If you want a left-wing circlejerk you should just rename the thread.

I made no pretense in my dislike of Libertarianism. Others are welcome to defend that philosophy here. The thread is open to both sides.

You'll also note that I have stepped in and clarified what I think would be a more accurate description of Libertarianism, as well. I don't like the philosophy but I am going to depict it accurately, if not in a flattering light.

Plus, my critique on Ser Scot's comments wasn't that he was vague - it was that what he was asking for is essentially a cessation of discussion.

[Ramsay Gimp]

There is no iteration of libertarianism that is functional in any meaningful way. It starts from a fundamental assertion that is completely flawed and wrong.

Why don't you tell us what you think that assertion is?

I find reading this thread incredibly frustrating. As many people have pointed out, there are significant issues that make implementing a pure expression of libertarianism a complete non-starter. Leaving aside problems with the philosophy itself, there are far too many big systems with extreme inertia to ever allow such a thing to be put into practice. Given that, arguing against the concept of pure libertarianism seems like an inane and frankly unnecessary thing to do. What would be more interesting is to hear from people who believe in the tenets of libertarianism about how they would like to see society organised and go from there.

The number of times I've seen a "Libertarians say" or similar on this thread is enormous. As someone who does not know a single person in real life who professes these philosophies (I don't live in the US), this forum is one of the rare places where I get to actually interact with such people. Except that can't happen, because every time one of them raises their head above the parapet to speak they get shouted down in a torrent of "Your group believes X and X is clearly wrong!". Perhaps people will say that if I want to be exposed to Libertarians I should go somewhere else, but if I can't find any in the Libertarianism thread then I'm not sure where to look (I won't be heading out into the wider internet to satisfy that itch).

To be clear, I naturally incline away from the libertarian ideal and many of the points that people have made against it seem like solid arguments: the reactive rather than proactive nature of its conflict resolution, the reliance on arbitration methods with dubious authority to enforce their decisions, the variable definition of coercive force. But it seems to me that a much more interesting discussion could be had if we let the members of the board who profess to libertarian leanings try to present their arguments around these points of discussion rather than assuming that the answers are already known and shouting about how stupid they are.

ST

:agree: :cheers:

*EDIT: Agreement regarding your comments about this thread, not necessarily your stance on libertarianism

Well, sure. This is why I directly asked Ramsay questions about pollution and received a mises.org link about "courts!" If people wanted to engage, I'd be happy to discuss. ...

Incidentally, I have read a moderate amount of Mises and (more of) Rothbard, which is why the focus of "libertarian" I tend to talk about trends an-cappy. Also, Hoppe continues to write things that I occasionally read with mild horror.

What more did you want? You asked about the libertarian response to pollution, and I gave a brief overview followed by a link to an article by a prominent libertarian theorist.

People are engaging just fine, but that will probably cease if you keep dismissing all answers as "not engaging."

[Suttree]

@Ramsay

It's funny how much you are trying to deflect here. You quoted ST saying you agree and yet have not even begun to construct a plausible scenario in which this would work in the real world. Further you have pointedly ignored repeated references to where it has spectacularly failed.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Plus, my critique on Ser Scot's comments wasn't that he was vague - it was that what he was asking for is essentially a cessation of discussion.

Well, I disagree. You both made valid points. I think your rebuttal to Ser Scot's Marxist comparison was right; that ideology has already been pretty thoroughly discredited in the mainstream, while libertarianism still plays an important role in American politics (not nearly a big enough one, alas :P ). So no real reason to bring up Marxism/Communism specifically here

But Scot was right that libertarianism seems to be held to a standard few other political philosophies are, in that it is judged only by its most rigid and radical application. Its proponents are forced to constantly defend "Libertopia" with private police, courts, nuclear bombs, etc., rather than anything the majority of libertarians actually advocate in real life. This is illustrated by Bloodrider admitting that he's basically lumping all of us under the An-Cap umbrella. Anyone who has confessed to just being "libertarian-leaning" in this thread, rather than LIBERTARIAN, has been told that they have nothing to contribute.

[Kalbear]

The assertion which is fundamentally flawed is that coercion by the government is automatically immoral and should be avoided at all costs, while coercion by anyone else is completely natural and should be encouraged.

[Galactus]

in that it is judged only by its most rigid and radical application.

I think this has two simple reasons:

A) "Non-extreme" libertarianism would simply be... The mainstream of american politics. The liberal-democratic consensus that both republicans and democrats agree with. Therefore it has no point as a political designation per se. This leaves the term for those who are committed enough to radically oppose the governing consensus (IE: pretty much per definition extremists)

B) Libertarian thinkers (at least those who consciously identify as libertarian) have a tendency to go from first principles. This often can make them sound extremely uncompromising and bizzarre. (most "moderates" tends to start with "what is" and make adjustments according to whatever goal they have) Again, not universal, but fairly common.

This isn't jut a problem for libertarians of course: Marxists as mentioned tends to have similar issues.

[Seli]

...

So when you help your neighbors or friends, do you do so because the state forces you too? Come on. The idea that goodwill and charity among mankind would evaporate without a nanny state is bonkers.

"Individual responsibility and exact exchanges" seem to just be vague buzzwords - I haven't seen any libertarians here making arguments based on those concepts. Only Objectivists, a very small subset of libertarians, oppose private charity. And no libertarian, not a single one, opposes voluntary cooperative efforts by communities - capitalism would be impossible with that attitude :P

This isn't about charity, this is about humans living together in communities, working together to do those things that are too large for a single individual or family.* You help your neighbours and friends because we are a social species. And because our behaviour and societies have developed with mechanisms that punish those who don't comply, from a cold shoulder up to banishment from society or even death. The state is simply the tool we use at the large scale we have organized our modern societies.

I'll keep it in mind for the next time I see someone complaining about government subsidies for single parents, education, the poor, etc. saying that those people should hold up their own trousers and be responsible for their own lot. People who complain about that are clearly not libertarians ;)

*eta: think about Amish communities coming together to build houses

[TerraPrime]

I'll keep it in mind for the next time I see someone complaining about government subsidies for single parents, education, the poor, etc. saying that those people should hold up their own trousers and be responsible for their own lot. People who complain about that are clearly not libertarians ;)

I'm sure you're well aware that the standard Libertarian response is that they don't desire to see people suffer, but they do think that compelling others to help is wrong in the use of coercive force. That the outcome is good and moral is besides the point to them if the route to obtaining that outcome is the use of compulsion (by force of law or taxation). To them, if they absolutely have to choose, they'd rather see some people starve and suffer due to a lack of access to social services than to compel everyone in a community to help via taxation.

Of course, most of them would deny that some people will end up suffering in that scenario, or that they would minimize the impact, by citing that there'll always be charity around. Some might even argue that absence of compulsion people might be MORE willing to help because they'd use the savings from taxes! It's trickle-down economy writ large, in that case. Regardless, one common theme from the Libertarians is that the process is more important than the outcome. They prioritize the purity of the process over actual outcomes, for the most part.

[ThinkerX]

Ok, fine...my chief gripe with libertarianism....

The lives of those without property - which I assume will be the vast majority of the populace.

Thee people will be paying rent to a member of the propertied class, at whatever rate that person deems fit. If said landlord decides to charge tenant X double what he charges tenant Z for essentially identical apartments, there doesn't seem to be any recourse here.

Those without property get to go to work on toll roads - and again, the toll road owner can charge whatever fee he likes to whomever he chooses - even close the road on a whim if need be. Again, those without property appear to be without recourse here.

As I understand it, education in libertarian society is a 'you want it, you pay for it' type deal. I have a very strong suspicion that education beyond the most basic literacy and math - if that much - will somehow be perpetually priced just out of reach for those without property.

Those without property are most likely to work for those with property - and absent any regulation, those workplaces are almost certain to be hellholes, and the proffered wages downright lousy - the sort of conditions, in fact that led directly to the original labor union movement a hundred plus years ago. I imagine those with property in a libertarian society will allow for the theoretical possibility of unions, but do everything in their power, including force (which they WILL deny afterwards) to prevent said unions from ever being formed.

I cannot envision the un-propertied tolerating this sort of lifestyle long term. Eventually, they'd grow irked enough to vote to abolish the system - unless denied that opportunity.

[TerraPrime]

Thee people will be paying rent to a member of the propertied class, at whatever rate that person deems fit. If said landlord decides to charge tenant X double what he charges tenant Z for essentially identical apartments, there doesn't seem to be any recourse here.

Those without property get to go to work on toll roads - and again, the toll road owner can charge whatever fee he likes to whomever he chooses - even close the road on a whim if need be. Again, those without property appear to be without recourse here.

As I understand it, education in libertarian society is a 'you want it, you pay for it' type deal. I have a very strong suspicion that education beyond the most basic literacy and math - if that much - will somehow be perpetually priced just out of reach for those without property.

:casts Phantasm III: Market Forces:

:casts Circle of Protection: Reality Intrusion:

Rent - landlords who charge unreasonable prices for rent will soon find themselves out of tenants who could afford rent, and thus, harm their own profits. If government take tax money to subsidize rent, then it will artificially inflate and sustain higher rent. Without government subsidies, on the other hand, or any regulations really, the supply and demand of housing options will reach an equilibrium.

Road - toll road owners who charge unreasonable tolls will soon find themselves out of users who could afford the toll, and thus, harm their own profits. If government take tax money to subsidize roads, then it will artificially inflate and sustain higher tolls. Without government subsidies, on the other hand, or any regulation really, the supply and demand of road use will reach an equilibrium.

Education - there's nothing wrong with rich people being able to affrod better education - that's part of the perks of being rich. If somoene cannot pay for their children's education beyond the bare minimal, and thus, likely condemning their child to low-paying jobs in the future, then that's just the way life is. There will also be charities who would help these kids, like religious orders who run schools. So no harm, no foul.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The assertion which is fundamentally flawed is that coercion by the government is automatically immoral and should be avoided at all costs, while coercion by anyone else is completely natural and should be encouraged.

Bravo good ser, you clearly have a good grasp on what you're talking about :lol:

The state is simply the tool we use at the large scale we have organized our modern societies.

Yes, but it's a crude and dangerous tool that causes as many (if not more) problems as it solves. We can do better

I'll keep it in mind for the next time I see someone complaining about government subsidies for single parents, education, the poor, etc. saying that those people should hold up their own trousers and be responsible for their own lot. People who complain about that are clearly not libertarians ;)

*eta: think about Amish communities coming together to build houses

Whatever they call themselves, anyone who directs the majority of their outrage at the poor and sick, rather than the powerful and corrupt, is no ally of mine. Cops kicking in doors and murdering people/pets over plants, the NSA possibly monitoring me this very moment, the prison-industrial complex, endless war, government stepping in to help their cronies in company A at the expense of company B, those are the things that make me want to water the tree of liberty :devil:

BTW, there is nothing in Amish society that conflicts with libertarian principles (except the alleged domestic abuse that supposedly happens behind closed doors, but that is present in every political system where men, women and children live together)

[Jo498]

Sure. but again, isn't this more or less true for the other two parties as well? The only different is that the current reservation is linear and not three dimensional because there are only really two ideologies at play.

There is basically only one ideology at play in the Western world of today (liberal capitalism) and libertarians occupy an extreme point within this ideology, that's why they have to try so hard to distinguish themselves. Marxism/socialim does not really play any role in Western politics and traditional conservatism (think of Catholic parties in the early 20th century or defenders of traditional monarchy) matters even less despite some fringe neoreactionaries on the interwebs (many of whom are more libertarian leaning than conservative in the old sense).

[YoungGriff89]

:casts Phantasm III: Market Forces:

:casts Circle of Protection: Reality Intrusion:

Rent - landlords who charge unreasonable prices for rent will soon find themselves out of tenants who could afford rent, and thus, harm their own profits. If government take tax money to subsidize rent, then it will artificially inflate and sustain higher rent. Without government subsidies, on the other hand, or any regulations really, the supply and demand of housing options will reach an equilibrium.

Road - toll road owners who charge unreasonable tolls will soon find themselves out of users who could afford the toll, and thus, harm their own profits. If government take tax money to subsidize roads, then it will artificially inflate and sustain higher tolls. Without government subsidies, on the other hand, or any regulation really, the supply and demand of road use will reach an equilibrium.

Education - there's nothing wrong with rich people being able to affrod better education - that's part of the perks of being rich. If somoene cannot pay for their children's education beyond the bare minimal, and thus, likely condemning their child to low-paying jobs in the future, then that's just the way life is. There will also be charities who would help these kids, like religious orders who run schools. So no harm, no foul.

Well "unreasonable" is a debatable number. That's also assuming people realize they're being ripped off. Real world example: I live near a beach area with a lot of condos and a high rent on properties. There's no shortage of tourists to pay those high prices because they don't know better but there's hardly any work to be found that pays better than minimum wage for those like myself (who live 33 miles away from my job) who are losing opportunities and would benefit from renting in the area. Cost of living exceeds what a full time worker is likely to make in a month and initiatives to drop prices aren't just natural functions of economics in this case since there's more to the equation than just "well one group can't afford it then I might as well lower the price."

You're ignoring the capitalism x-factor here: some idiot will pay whatever is asked. It's up to you as a capitalist to find them. Nobody's feet are nailed to the floor if they have money, they can leave if people won't pay what they're asking and try again somewhere else. But those who need the opportunity to earn money, their options will become way more limited.

[TerraPrime]

Whatever the market can no longer sustain is what is "unreasonable." I cannot charge 5 billion dollars a month rent on a 2-bedroom apartment in Bloomington, Illinois, and expect to have anyone renting it. However, if I can fill the place with people paying $1500 a month, then I will, even though that's quite a bit above cost of comparable places that rent for about $800.

As a property owner, I am here to make a profit, not to provide affordable housing to people who work full-time. There will be business opportunities for someone else to build a set of apartments that are cheaper, with less space and fewer amenities, for the workers at a level of rent that they can afford and where the owner can still make a profit. If I get rent to tourist for weekly rent and make $10k profit a year, why should I rent to local workers at a rate they can afford and end up earning only $1k a year?

[YoungGriff89]

Whatever the market can no longer sustain is what is "unreasonable." I cannot charge 5 billion dollars a month rent on a 2-bedroom apartment in Bloomington, Illinois, and expect to have anyone renting it. However, if I can fill the place with people paying $1500 a month, then I will, even though that's quite a bit above cost of comparable places that rent for about $800.

As a property owner, I am here to make a profit, not to provide affordable housing to people who work full-time. There will be business opportunities for someone else to build a set of apartments that are cheaper, with less space and fewer amenities, for the workers at a level of rent that they can afford and where the owner can still make a profit. If I get rent to tourist for weekly rent and make $10k profit a year, why should I rent to local workers at a rate they can afford and end up earning only $1k a year?

Well without capital nobody is going to build anything that could compete with what you offer. If you started out rich, you'll end up rich and nobody else will even have an opportunity to compete. So if you're the only game in town you're essentially forcing outsourcing of labor only from different zip codes instead of different nations. The government simply staying out and not doing anything in this case isn't neutrality, they're taking your side as the property owner. There has to be regulation or else "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is just a cute catch phrase.

[TerraPrime]

Well without capital nobody is going to build anything that could compete with what you offer. If you started out rich, you'll end up rich and nobody else will even have an opportunity to compete. So if you're the only game in town you're essentially forcing outsourcing of labor only from different zip codes instead of different nations. The government simply staying out and not doing anything in this case isn't neutrality, they're taking your side as the property owner. There has to be regulation or else "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is just a cute catch phrase.

So, what is the actual complaint, here?

I also think you're shifting the context of the story. In the beginning, you didn't say that I have enough capital to monopolize the real estate market at a location. You told me that there are rental properties that are renting to tourists who would pay a rate that is higher than what local residents could afford, and that this creates a problem because the people who work in this area all have to live further out and drive in to work.