Is libertarianism too rational?

[acriticalcookie]

You are regurgitating the same argument over and over again, based on the premise that humanity naturally wants to control others. (You can try to say you aren't but that's what a state is, a controlling collective.)

Remember, during the Qin dynasty, there were most likely individuals who said "Slavery can't be eliminated, it has existed in the world and will continue to exist!"

Meanwhile, slavery has culturally been abolished in most of the world. (You can argue that states did this, but it really was a cultural trait.)

I believe that humanity can change and that history isn't exactly a great argument to disprove anarchism. Evolution constantly allows humans to change and evolve, and certain ideals may be picked up through cultural changes, and eventually, the people will come to the conclusion that theft, coercion, tyranny, and force is not an intelligent way to run a society.

 

[Gardener]

I'm all for corporations, but limited liability is a shield for some truly abhorrent behavior. Why shouldn't shareholders have risk beyond their investment? If you're making money from a company's activities, shouldn't you be responsible for cleaning up after them?

Yes and yes, but how do you propose policing "abhorrent behavior", outside of a state entity.

I welcome Werepossum to respond too.

 

[acriticalcookie]

Uhmm, except for all the states currently in existence. Did you think this through?



You are free to go live outside of a state right now if you want. There are many areas of the world that may be claimed by states but that they exert no effective control over. All of those are available to live out your anarchist ideal in. Now you're probably thinking that none of those places are somewhere you want to live, which might then send you back to why states are a good thing.

As far as states and anarchists living together, this is continuing to illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of how the world works and the reasons for anarchism's continual failure. States exist precisely because other people don't play by the non-aggression principle or only voluntary association. I'm sure that being able to just wave away the primary failure of your political philosophy sounds nice to you, but that's the only way this could work and sadly the world doesn't work that way.

Again, this argument can go for either party. There are several places in the world with oppressive states (I'd argue every state is oppressive, but you can measure levels of oppression in this instance). You could move to North Korea, or Cuba, where the government is fairly controlling of your life by violating the NAP and not using voluntary interaction.

If I am an anarchist, I DO NOT want to form a society like Somalia.

If you want a state, you DO NOT want to form a country like Soviet-era USSR, Cuba, etcera.

You want to live in a society that you see fit. This is YOUR choice, not mine to make.

 

[fskimospy]

You are regurgitating the same argument over and over again, based on the premise that humanity naturally wants to control others. (You can try to say you aren't but that's what a state is, a controlling collective.)

Remember, during the Qin dynasty, there were most likely individuals who said "Slavery can't be eliminated, it has existed in the world and will continue to exist!"

Meanwhile, slavery has culturally been abolished in most of the world. (You can argue that states did this, but it really was a cultural trait.)

I believe that humanity can change and that history isn't exactly a great argument to disprove anarchism. Evolution constantly allows humans to change and evolve, and certain ideals may be picked up through cultural changes, and eventually, the people will come to the conclusion that theft, coercion, tyranny, and force is not an intelligent way to run a society.

Well at least you're admitting that anarchism can't work in the world we currently live in.

The rest of your argument is basically 'maybe someday people will magically change in a way that makes anarchism feasible'. That's not really an argument based in logic or facts so there's nothing to argue against there.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, this argument can go for either party. There are several places in the world with oppressive states (I'd argue every state is oppressive, but you can measure levels of oppression in this instance). You could move to North Korea, or Cuba, where the government is fairly controlling of your life by violating the NAP and not using voluntary interaction.

If I am an anarchist, I DO NOT want to form a society like Somalia.

If you want a state, you DO NOT want to form a country like Soviet-era USSR, Cuba, etcera.

You want to live in a society that you see fit. This is YOUR choice, not mine to make.

This argument does not go both ways at all. I want to live in a state and I do so. You do not want to live in a state but refuse to go to places where you can effectively live state-free. Forget Somalia, there are all sorts of parts of the back woods of Canada, huge swaths of Russia, etc where the state will never bother you. Sure it might technically be part of a state still, but it will be a de facto state free existence.

In terms of setting up a larger anarchist society however, I'm sorry to tell you that you don't have that choice and you never will.

 

[OverVolt]

Well... crazy as I suspected. Good luck libertarians.

 

[acriticalcookie]

This argument does not go both ways at all. I want to live in a state and I do so. You do not want to live in a state but refuse to go to places where you can effectively live state-free. Forget Somalia, there are all sorts of parts of the back woods of Canada, huge swaths of Russia, etc where the state will never bother you. Sure it might technically be part of a state still, but it will be a de facto state free existence.

In terms of setting up a larger anarchist society however, I'm sorry to tell you that you don't have that choice and you never will.

Alright then, get back to me when a state works on a large scale, as well. Stopping crime, creating new things, keeping people from murdering, etcetera.

 

[acriticalcookie]

Well at least you're admitting that anarchism can't work in the world we currently live in.

The rest of your argument is basically 'maybe someday people will magically change in a way that makes anarchism feasible'. That's not really an argument based in logic or facts so there's nothing to argue against there.

That argument is regurgitated whenever someone wants to make a major change to society.

Oh, I forgot to mention in a post! I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist.

"Throughout history, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision." -Ayn Rand. (I quote her a lot, but oh well, she was a fantastic writer and she defended her philosophy quite well.)

 

[fskimospy]

Alright then, get back to me when a state works on a large scale, as well. Stopping crime, creating new things, keeping people from murdering, etcetera.

Again, I don't know why I need to keep reminding you that the relative merits of statism vs. anarchism are irrelevant because anarchism can't exist in the real world at any significant scale. This is like comparing apples to unicorns.

 

[OverVolt]

Alright then, get back to me when a state works on a large scale, as well. Stopping crime, creating new things, keeping people from murdering, etcetera.

When corruption is at a minimum, pretty damn well.

 

[fskimospy]

That argument is regurgitated whenever someone wants to make a major change to society.

Oh, I forgot to mention in a post! I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist.

"Throughout history, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision." -Ayn Rand. (I quote her a lot, but oh well, she was a fantastic writer and she defended her philosophy quite well.)

Ayn Rand's philosophy is vacuous and relies on a hilariously unrealistic estimation of how people behave. She is also an atrocious writer. Like, truly bad. Her characters are one-dimensional and the dialogue and characterization is so bad that if you cover up the names of people engaging in dialogue it is impossible to tell which character is saying what because they are all so similar.

As for the rest of it, I'm just pointing out the weakness in your argument. Your position is reliant upon a fundamental change in humanity and the only way you seem to be able to support how that would work is to simply declare humanity changed. It's vapid and naive.

Not that the validity of your arguments is dependent on your age or anything, but I get the impression that you are quite young.

 

[acriticalcookie]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is vacuous and relies on a hilariously unrealistic estimation of how people behave. She is also an atrocious writer. Like, truly bad. Her characters are one-dimensional and the dialogue and characterization is so bad that if you cover up the names of people engaging in dialogue it is impossible to tell which character is saying what because they are all so similar.

As for the rest of it, I'm just pointing out the weakness in your argument. Your position is reliant upon a fundamental change in humanity and the only way you seem to be able to support how that would work is to simply declare humanity changed. It's vapid and naive.

Not that the validity of your arguments is dependent on your age or anything, but I get the impression that you are quite young.

I'm off to play Smite, I have to practice jungling tonight.
Have fun, minarchists! I'll still peacefully advocate for a society in which I want to live.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes and yes, but how do you propose policing "abhorrent behavior", outside of a state entity.

I welcome Werepossum to respond too.

Your question is ridiculous. When did I say anything about it being done outside of a state? Stop regurgitating the party line.

 

[brycejones]

Give anarchism a chance. Anarchism has not been seriously tried. Statism, on the other hand, has, and it fails every time.

So short story, you can't cite any examples.

I don't have a problem with you and people who feel the same way you do giving it a try. But you seem to unrealistically expect 300 million people to suddenly buy into your way of thinking.

If it hasn't been seriously tried before find someplace in the world where you can seriously try it and attempt to prove to the world you have a better way.

 

[werepossum]

Very much so. Libertarianism is actually one of the least rational political philosophies as it is reliant on unsound principles that have no bearing on reality in order to work.

Libertarians are so irrational as to actually deny that government adds magic when it takes money from one person and gives it to another. Imagine!

 

[fskimospy]

Libertarians are so irrational as to actually deny that government adds magic when it takes money from one person and gives it to another. Imagine!

Well there's definitely no arguing with that kind of amazing logic!

 

[werepossum]

Yes and yes, but how do you propose policing "abhorrent behavior", outside of a state entity.

I welcome Werepossum to respond too.

Libertarians aren't anarchists. We don't deny that government has a place; we just disagree that place is everywhere. Where an individual or a corporation is damaging someone else, we have no problem with a state entity policing them.

Government exercises its power for its own benefit most times though. This is why we have government prohibiting people from purchasing a Big Gulp yet we also have government not only not holding big corporations liable but actually taking money from others to bail them out. Even worse, "too big to fail" was allowed to become "too big to not get our contractually deserved bonuses" AND to become even bigger by snapping up those little companies beneath government's notice with their healthy bailed-out coffers.

 

[blankslate]

Extreme libertarianism is just as much a utopian ideal as extreme socialism.


The recent West Virginia chemical spill illustrates this when it comes to regulations concerning hazardous materials and regulations.

Libertarians, as far as I know from seeing self proclaimed libertarian representative being interviewed, would assert that regulations inhibit a corporation from acting in the best interests of everyone involved, including the community that it is part of or geographically close to.

According to some news reports the facility which was right next to a river wasn't not subject to inspection by any agency other than the company that owned the storage facility.

Now after a week or so of serious contamination of water used by a community close to the facility the company is filing for bankruptcy to protect it's assets.

No this company should have its assets and shares liquidated to pay for the costs of the chemical spill. Anyone who bought those shares well it's a rather sad they for them but their other assets aren't in any danger of being taken as a result of the spill.
How much neglect would the storage facility have to endure for a spill to happen? One thing is pretty much certain inspections of facility to prevent a spill would have cost less money than cleaning it up after the fact.

There are sensible regulations that can, and should, be implemented when the consequences of failure can have as severe an impact and cost as this chemical spill did.

Libertarianism, like any other worldview, is not always rational.




....

 

[ElFenix]

One of the reasons libertarians believe what they do that the ability of an individual to cause harm is far less than either a corporation or government, and they don't trust either one, because they both have a history of causing disaster, whether economic or the death of millions.

Many have the misconception that libertarians are corporate pawns, but powerful corporations don't exist without powerful government protecting them. Government gives massive contracts to connected friends in the private sector, pass favorable legislation to keep those same friends entrenched in their industries. We see big corporations rise and fall all the time, but many of the worst are those that have special status with the government.

So as for the bad decisions of others affecting society, we handle those poorly in this country. We bail out banks (those people causing systemic risk) who then use the bailout money to buy competitors, consolidate the market further, and get even richer doing so. Politicians could have bailed out homeowners and let it trickle down to the banks, but they chose to do it the other way instead.

libertarians in this country are corporate pawns. they didn't intend it, and a lot of them don't know it's going on, but it's what's happening.


libertopia can't exist because people are always going to take advantage of others in order to accumulate wealth and power for themselves. always have, always will. it will quickly devolve into rival factions and fiefdoms with people swearing allegiances up and down a chain until we get kings and finally some written laws that everyone agrees to abide by and some central enforcer we all agree upon. it's basically england from when the romans left to the assizes of clarendon.

 

[BoberFett]

libertarians in this country are corporate pawns. they didn't intend it, and a lot of them don't know it's going on, but it's what's happening.

libertopia can't exist because people are always going to take advantage of others in order to accumulate wealth and power for themselves. always have, always will. it will quickly devolve into rival factions and fiefdoms with people swearing allegiances up and down a chain until we get kings and finally some written laws that everyone agrees to abide by and some central enforcer we all agree upon. it's basically england from when the romans left to the assizes of clarendon.

LOL, you just described American politics. Good thing we don't have those damn libertarians screwing things up, otherwise there'd be people trying to gain power! Democrats and Republians are such gullible stooges, you fit in well.

 

[Vic]

I decided to wait until there were more posts to see how the thread went. Looking at what followed your response I'd say that perhaps it's not so much a matter of protection but identifying with a group so that one can attack another. The "ists" seem to take their "isms" and wield it as a club. It's like watching monkeys flinging poo.

Yeah but it's fun to watch.

 

[woolfe9998]

Libertarians are so irrational as to actually deny that government adds magic when it takes money from one person and gives it to another. Imagine!

The converse of "the state has magical powers" is "the state does virtually nothing right." One of those statements is an extremely hyperbolized representation (or actually, parody) of a real world argument. The other is a pretty accurate representation of a different real world argument.

I'll believe that the state messes up everything it touches when someone bothers to prove it with anything other than anecdotal evidence. As libertarians are wont to point out, we have vast government, millions of government employees, and thousands of government departments, at the federal, state and local levels. Why anyone thinks an article in the news about an act of state malfeasance proves their point about the systemic dysfunction of so much government when the vast majority of government activity isn't newsworthy enough to report - because people doing their jobs competently isn't news - is beyond me.

This faith-based, unproven premise, along with the already discussed unfeasibility of either anarchy or minarchy in the real world, are the core fallacies of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is not rational. No ideology which paints every issue with the same broad brush - as opposed to analyzing each on its own separate merit, has any serious connection to the real world. It's ideological mirror is full blown totalitarian communism, not mainstream American liberalism. Libertarians can paint liberals as communists to their heart's content. It only makes them look foolish. They are clearly unable to see any ideological gradation in between their extreme positions and the extreme opposite positions. Viewing the world in bi-polar extremes is a cognitive and emotional weakness.

 

[woolfe9998]

Libertarians aren't anarchists.

It's more accurate to say that "all libertarians aren't anarchists." Anarchism is a well recognized sub-set of libertarianism. The other major subset seems to believe in extremely minimalist government, a tiny fraction of what we have now.

 

[sandorski]

The result of Anarchism is Feudalism. Masses of the poor huddled around islands of a few Rich families.

People recognize that Cooperation gives advantages. So the moment Government ends, people will begin to form new smaller groups. These groups will compete against each other, often through violence. That will continue until one group dominates and subdues other groups, all along more people and more land will come under the command of the dominant group.

As the dominant group grows, its' leader goes from Chief, to Monarch, then eventually Prime Minister/President. Then the Teen boys will come talking about the wonders of Anarchism and what a wonderful world it will be.

re-read from beginning.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The result of Anarchism is Feudalism. Masses of the poor huddled around islands of a few Rich families.

People recognize that Cooperation gives advantages. So the moment Government ends, people will begin to form new smaller groups. These groups will compete against each other, often through violence. That will continue until one group dominates and subdues other groups, all along more people and more land will come under the command of the dominant group.

As the dominant group grows, its' leader goes from Chief, to Monarch, then eventually Prime Minister/President. Then the Teen boys will come talking about the wonders of Anarchism and what a wonderful world it will be.

re-read from beginning.

Problem is, your opening sentence is incorrect. Anarchism does not lead to feudalism. Perhaps you are thinking of chaos?