News Any of you define yourselves as Libertarians?

[arildno]

As a follow-up:

CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENCY OF "SLAVISHNESS" vs. "LOVE OF FREEDOM":

If the vast majority of humans can be expected to prefer death to a miserable slavish existence, then Rand's conception of society could be a stable one (disregarding issues about how pleasant/good society it would be).

People would rather starve to death than accept personally disgraceful contracts of work (say, that they are to get the job on condition that their bodies are to be sexually penetrable for their employer at any time of his choosing).

But what if the willingness to live, however badly, is way more frequent than the commitment to ideas of personal dignity?

In that case, the Rand model has too few checks&balances in-built to prevent the evolution of an effective master/slave-society.

Now, what we DO have evidence about is that the vast majority of societies in history has been extremely abusive of what we would call basic human rights, and those societies cannot be regarded as less stable than the others.

We have a number of pitiful contracts, for example, from the merovingian period of the early middle ages, of people selling themselves into slavery in order to gain a small measure of material security.

To expect on a theoretical level, that sufficient numbers of people by themselves will refuse to undignify themselves is a wholly unargued-for position, and its truth is highly suspect.

Yet, it remains a basic, unstated premise in Rand's conception that the willingness to be free is a naturally widespread emotion/attitude.

Now, one might try to modify this by saying:
"Oh, we need not assume such a necessary love of freedom existing in sufficient frequency, rather, it will blossom in some manner".

In that case, one might legitimately ask:
a) Should such an attitude be INCULCATED in the population? Can we trust the parents to do so?
Or must we start public, "free" schools in order to make our propaganda stick?
In that case, the minimalist state conception of Rand is already..destroyed.

b) Or, who is the more freedom-loving lowlife:
The one taking a lousy job at Burger King, or the one developing himself into a..Burglar King?

 

[BobG]

I'd let the party define itself, as they have http://www.lp.org/platform".

There's a lot of things I believe in, but most are cribbed from most parties, including Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independants. It's sort of a "take the best and forget the rest" approach to government.

In fact, I've already given it a title: The Whatever Works Best Party.

I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.

 

[Proton Soup]

Nonsense. If you used to be a "card carrying libertarian", you must have not read the motto on the card. It reads "No force, No fraud".

yeah, so? doesn't change the fact that it attracts swindlers eager to be free of the shackles of regulations that keep them in check.

How about the most libertarian nation in history going from literally nothing to the greatest power in the history of the world in less than 150 years with virtually no economic regulation or income taxes?

Are you unaware that the U.S. was the biggest and most successful libertarian experiment in history?

i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.

 

[turbo]

I think this is the most healthy approach to politics.

A candidate is a 'product' to be chosen or rejected and political parties are the 'stores' from which the 'products' are chosen. Being a loyal Republican or a loyal Democrat is a silly as being a loyal K-Mart shopper.

Or being a loyal reader of Newsweek vs Time, or a loyal consumer of Coke vs Pepsi. In both cases, neither choice is good for you, or sufficient. Pick your poison.

 

[Al68]

i'm aware that we used the government to fund building a railroad across the continent. to bring power and telephone to rural populations. to build sewers and water works. police, fire, and infantry. nuclear power. the interstate highway system. satellites and the first internet. some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

yes, we're very successful at what we do. but no, we are not very libertarian, especially on the "no force" part.

LOL. I was referring to the U.S. economy during its first ~150 years. And I was using the term "libertarian" relatively, ie relative to other nations historically.

Sure there are "swindlers" that will always take advantage of freedom. But it's absurd to say that the purpose of economic freedom is to allow swindlers to take advantage of it.

 

[Al68]

Rand makes the same mistake as communists:

She doesn't take into account grubby, dirty reality:

Communists fantasized about strictly altruistic human beings who didn't bother about who happens, at a particular transaction to get "the most", being equally willing to pull the shortest straw the next time.

Rand fantasizes about the strictly rational, self-serving individual, unfrightened by the individuality of The Other, and makes her philophy on basis of that.


To both of these movements, the following line is most apt:
It ain't necessarily so.

You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.

 

[turbo]

LOL. I was referring to the U.S. economy during its first ~150 years. And I was using the term "libertarian" relatively, ie relative to other nations historically.

Sure there are "swindlers" that will always take advantage of freedom. But it's absurd to say that the purpose of economic freedom is to allow swindlers to take advantage of it.

Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?
Face-palm moment.

 

[Al68]

Citing economic "freedom" in such cases is silly. If there are loopholes, there will always be a huge population of crooks to benefit from them. US laws are written by lobbyists whose only mission in life is to create such loopholes. Do you not know this?

What are you talking about? Citing economic freedom is silly? This thread is about libertarianism.

I was responding to a claim that libertarianism is beneficial to "swindlers". Did you misread my post?

What "loopholes" are you even referring to? I wasn't talking about crooks benefiting from any loopholes, I was referring to them taking advantage of the same economic freedom that everyone else would have in a libertarian society. And my point was that that was no justification for depriving everyone of such freedom.

 

[Max™]

Technically I fall pretty close to libertarian positions, but I am a naive anarchist. The individual is the most important part of society, the good of the one, collectively, would naively be expected to lead to good for all.

If everyone followed the golden rule, anarchy might be functional.

I recognize that this isn't likely to happen, so I grumble, and rant now and then when prodded.

Re: Rand

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

[arildno]

You forget a very important part of this: Communism's success is dependent on the premise of everyone being completely altruistic, while free-market capitalism's success is not dependent on everyone being completely self-interested and rational.

If society happens to be a mixture of semi-altruistic and self-interested individuals, which it is, that completely precludes the success of communism, but as can be seen around the world, capitalism thrives. And it's not hard to see why that's the case.

While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.

And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.

 

[CAC1001]

To expect on a theoretical level, that sufficient numbers of people by themselves will refuse to undignify themselves is a wholly unargued-for position, and its truth is highly suspect.

Yet, it remains a basic, unstated premise in Rand's conception that the willingness to be free is a naturally widespread emotion/attitude.

An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."

 

[CAC1001]

Communism, IMO, is just a fantasy system that does not take into account reality. Even if everyone had a heart of gold and was of solid moral character, communism still would not work, because there would be no way to know how to ration anything for the economy.

All attempts at a communist society degenerate into a socialist system, with a centrally-planned economy. And a centrally-planned economy is highly inefficient. In a market, you have millions of interconnected prices, representing supply and demand. Prices constantly fluctuate. If one price shifts, this automatically causes millions of other prices to change as well. Of course, EACH of those millions of other prices fluctuating influences one another and even more prices.

A central planner in an economy must mathematically try to figure out the same things that a freely-fluctuating price system does automatically in a free-market, and thus the task is impossible. The calculations become insanely complex.

It would take a monumental bureaucracy alone just to allocate food to a city like London or New York, if done with central planning (and that's just one city!). When Gorbachev visited London, he asked Margaret Thatcher, "How do you see to it that people get food?" Of course she didn't, the price system and private sector did that.

This lack of allocation also leads to the individual enterprises within a centrally-planned system producing a lot of unnecessary stuff. Imagine for example Sony producing its own tires, trucks, tools, machine parts, etc...simply because it knows it cannot rely on the parts of the economy responsible for these things to produce them in quantity needed.

This leads to shoddy quality everything, including the things they are charged with building originally (say televisions and cameras).

So even with hearts of gold, any attempt at a communist system, which leads to a socialist system, is still going to be highly inefficient. And that's also ignoring that to create a socialist system, you need force. At most, a centrally-planned economy with everyone having hearts of gold just would lack the massive corruption systems like the Soviet Union experienced.

 

[CAC1001]

Some would even claim that the primary function of our military is pump money into the high tech sectors of our economy to stimulate industrial innovation.

I would argue/claim that. A lot of the high-tech stuff we have today ultimately came from discoveries from research funded by DARPA, which the free-market was then able to take advantage of to build into all of the goodies we have today.

 

[mheslep]

Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton: Let's have a another look at the degree of government involvement in history US development. Though state and federal government of course funds much of the public works and contributes heavily to R&D, government itself builds (your word) little or nothing in the US, relative to the size and scope of US infrastructure. That includes sewers and water works. Commercial nuclear power in the US was almost completely constructed by Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and the like and most of the plant funding came from the utility companies; the first commercial reactor in the US (Shippingport) was managed by Duquesne Light Company in 1957. Most of the satellites are built by and launched on rockets built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing or their ancestors, not NASA.

now you're just being tedious.

 

[arildno]

An interesting quote I once read is, "Only a few prefer liberty. The majority desire nothing more than kind masters."

Hmm..I'd rather say that the vast majority of us prefer life to death, non-pain over pain.

Precisely because most of us wish to be mostly free, we would prefer to submit to a master we thought was kind (i.e, someone who let's us do what we want to do. Mostly), rather than risk death or a lot of pain by not submitting in that manner.

 

[mheslep]

now you're just being tedious.

Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.

 

[Proton Soup]

Maybe so, if you mean your larger point was that government has had some roll in many aspects of US infrastructure and technology development. But if by that response you mean that your larger point is, well, the government has done most of the important things and the private sector, well, it sells t-shirts and rips people off, then your larger point is wrong, not even close.

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite. my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

 

[mheslep]

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite.

Fair enough, I'm with you on most of that.

my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

Depends I suppose on the definition of a 'project'. If one looks at the scope of 'big' enterprises in the US, certainly the government has had its share, certainly all the military operation, but then so does private enterprise, collectively. The internet as we know it today for instance was far from either being constructed by or funded by a central authority. Every decade or so Boeing or the like comes out with another aircraft far more advanced than prior models and requiring $10-20 billion in development, etc, etc.

 

[Al68]

While capitalism might be said to be a necessary condition for democracy/rights-based state, the converse is by no means true.

You can have quite autoritarian&undemocratic societies that still can be said to have a free-market economy.

A free-market economy by definition is not economically authoritarian. If you mean authoritarian on social issues, then I agree, but don't see the relevance. And historically, social oppression tends to accompany economic oppression, not economic libertarianism.

And, it is NOT the latter type of society Rand advocates, but the type of society her vision of society will easily degenerate into in practice.

Thus, her vision is self-destructive.

Any evidence to support such an absurd claim that history does not support?

And you seem to have a huge conceptual misunderstanding of what Rand, and economic libertarians advocate. We do not advocate a particular type of society, or changing, shaping, or controlling society. That's the whole point. We believe in peaceful co-existence, not government coercion to shape society into whatever mold is preferred.

But both history and basic logic tell us that economic freedom leads to prosperity, and economic oppression leads to poverty.

 

[Al68]

i mean this: i reject the notion of idealized libertarianism just as i reject communism. there are roles for government and private enterprise, collectivism and individualism. somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that balances out the benefits of the extremes. some cultures may place a bit more value on one end of the spectrum versus the other, and that is OK, too.

but libertarianism itself is a unicorn. and my rejection of it is certainly no reason to assume that i support the notion of its opposite. my point is simply that big things tend to get done by central authorities. these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

It sounds to me like you are using the term "idealized libertarianism" to refer to anarchism instead of what most call libertarianism.

Your examples of the interstate hwy system and railroad are not examples of communism, or "somewhere in the middle". In fact, building roads is probably the most libertarian thing government does, since they are funded by the road tax (fuel tax), which is only required to be paid when buying fuel for on-road use, or by tolls. Providing a service for a fee is not communism or "somewhere in the middle". It's what libertarian governments do.

Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

 

[Max™]

Technically anarchist ideologies cover a pretty broad spread, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-capitalist, naive anarchists such as myself, and more.

It is definitely something of a unicorn idea though.

 

[CAC1001]

these big projects tend to provide an environment in which free enterprise is able to thrive. the boondoggle of the transcontinental railroad and the interstate hwy system are a couple of my favorites. to me, they are like previous versions of the internet.

If you study the history of American railroads, you will find a lot of the really crappy (for lack of a better word) lines were the ones funded to some degree by government (in terms of how the tracks were laid out, their quality, etc...); the more quality rail lines were the strictly private ones.

 

[mheslep]

Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.

President Madison, veto of the Internal Improvements Bill, March 3, 1817:
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.

You surely recognize that those positions are compatible?

 

[Gokul43201]

Your examples of the interstate hwy system and railroad are not examples of communism, or "somewhere in the middle". In fact, building roads is probably the most libertarian thing government does, since they are funded by the road tax (fuel tax), which is only required to be paid when buying fuel for on-road use, or by tolls. Providing a service for a fee is not communism or "somewhere in the middle". It's what libertarian governments do.

I think what is a good solution for road use is a little difficult to extend to other services provided by the Government. What's an appropriate way to seek payment for providing a national defense, or a fire service?

 

[mheslep]

You surely recognize that those positions are compatible?

Surely not. One can't have the word 'government' in a positive sense, especially not a Federal one, in the opening description of anarchism, despite all its variations.

 

[Al68]

Someone who is against government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Anarchist? Hardly. Someone who argues against such action by the US federal government argues for federalism in the original form, at the least.

Sure, but that's an argument about which government has jurisdiction, not whether government should build roads. The states are the government.

Madison's argument was just what [STRIKE]-is-[/STRIKE] should be obvious to anyone who ever read the constitution: The U.S. is a nation of states, not a nation state. The federal government legally has only the powers delegated to it by the states.

But I'll rephrase my statement: Someone who is against any government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

 

[mheslep]

But I'll rephrase my statement: Someone who is against any government building roads is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Fair enough

 

[CRGreathouse]

Surely not. One can't have the word 'government' in a positive sense, especially not a Federal one, in the opening description of anarchism, despite all its variations.

Your statement involved the Federal government, the other didn't.