What's the deal with Libertarianism?

[Moonbeam]

You get the impression there's a bunch of Libertarians on ATOT here and I sort of assumed it was a serious, if out of the mainstream sort of pursuit. Well the other day I got into a discussion with Amused about free trade and his analysis went skin deep and this morning I hear that the Lieutenant Governor of CA Libertarian candidate's plank is about legalizing ferrets. About all I know is that a high school buddy went off the deep end after reading Ian Rand who was apparently some egotistical nut case with an apparently catching disease. The other thing I know is that on the political test that went around a while back I choose keep everything exactly like it is on all questions but one, because the test wouldn't let you vote a perfect keep it the same, and I got 100 % Democrat, !00% libertarian, and 100% some other thing. Well if keep everything like it is Libertarian and Democrat 100% what good is Libertarianism.

Where I got with Amused was down to his claim for personal rights and private ownership which doesn't make much sense. Can anybody explain the principles that underlay this political philosophy?

 

[Ulfwald]

Libertarian Party.

 

[klah]

Go to the library (or Amazon) and look for a book titled "The Libertarian Reader". It is a collection of essays from the likes of Tocqueville, Locke, Adam Smith and of course Milton Friedman. After reading that you will have a good idea of the concept.

Just remember the the Libertarian Political Party in the US and Libertarianism are two seperate things.

 

[yellowperil]

Basically, they want the government as small as possible, a laissez-faire approach to the economy and no regulation of morality. They're closer to liberals on social issues (except for social welfare which they're against) and closer to conservatives on economic issues. Predominantly white and middle-class. They take a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[glenn1]

The Libertarian Party isn't a monolithic movement, people with somewhat varying viewpoints on subjects can and do call themselves Libertarians. The common thread which (in theory anyway) unifies Libertarian thinking is a belief in the rights of all people to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, which the party platform defines as "the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

The devil is in the details, however. Maximum freedom is a result of both government non-interference in our lives, and certain beneficial contributions and roles played by the government for the benefit of all citizens (national defense being one example). Where that line gets properly drawn is what often distinguishes the beliefs of one Libertarian from another, while both are still acting in good faith according to their conscience.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Where I got with Amused was down to his claim for personal rights and private ownership which doesn't make much sense.

So you're against personal rights and private ownership? Remind me not to have anything to do with a country run by people like you. klah has it down pretty well. True Libertarians are basically the last of the Laissez-Faire Capitalists from what I can tell.

ZV

 

[Squisher]

Come on Moony, this is the first time you ever decided to look into the principles of Libertarians? Yea right.



Pardon my cynicism, I think this is a test.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

I think he's saying that personal rights and private ownership contradict each other.

 

[JellyBaby]

Libertarians believe in minimal government bound to constitutional limits. And where government seeks to go beyond the law set forth by the constitution, it would force it to amend said document.

Libertarians put personal responsibility and freedom above all else and prefers the free market approach to excess regulation. Libertarians look to private enterprise to solve problems before government because by-and-large government generally messes up and seeks to grow in size and scope resulting in a costly, chaotic, unworkable end.

You'll find they're for privatizing many things currently handled by government. They'd end the War on Drugs, get government out of health care before it's completely FUBAR, privatize schools and would return our military to a defensive role.

In the coming years I predict libertarianism will grow in appeal as people notice government increasingly becomes too costly and fails too often. However, I don't for a moment believe America will or should return to bare-bones 1800s life because people are happy with government assuming some roles not defined by the constitution.

 

[Moonbeam]

The thread was here.
--------
It was basically about when should a government intervene in the market, if at all and went something like this:

--------------------

"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries." (His quote marks)

A free market's no good

Example?

Enron. Some GOV control is necessary.

Why?

Hands off leads to abuse. A society without laws is no society at all.

Laws cannot, by their very nature, prevent crime. They can only punish those who commit it. The laws DID work. The people have been caught, and are being punished. Laws against fraud are not business regulations, they are laws protecting individual rights. Yes, laws against fraud should be enforced. Who said a free market is a society without laws?

Business bribes GOV not to enforce. or Is the US a "Free Market" economy? Depends on who you ask. It certainly has been moving in that direction, with decreased regulation and self-regulation, but overall governments control all markets to some degree.

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jew; in America, it is the businessmen.

Now let's not kid ourselves, some governmental control *is* necessary. Without controls corps would dump all kinds of harmful substances into rivers(much more than what they do now), air quality would be much worse, and product safety would also be much worse. There are too many examples of corporate irresponsibility to trust in the idealism that is the "Free Market". It doesn't truly exist and can never truly exist. (Or MY Question)-------->Why is it called a free market? You have to pay. You say beyond theft, forced labor, and fraud regulations are contrary to a free market. Why? Why can't I just take what I need? What freedom do I have if the most fundamental of my rights is violated. I want it, I take it. Any of those three means are fine. Anything less would be tyranny.

Because your supposed "right" to just take what you want/need violates the rights of others. If you are entitled to the fruits of their labor or their rightful property, they become your slave. If I own a thing, it is my right to give it away, set a price and sell it, or refuse to sell it. Your rights end where someone else's begin. Anything else would be anarchy. The cornerstone of capitalism, and freedom is individual private property. One cannot be free if they cannot own property.


We were talking about rights, the rights to be free, my rights to be free. How did you and your rights get involved. I thought the market was based on competition, the guy with the best thingi wins. You say that my rights end where yours begin. Really. Not if I have the better thingi and can just take what I want. It's all about competition. What you call anarchy, isn't that just unregulated capitalism. What you want is a regulated market so your inferior product can hide behind meaningless assumptions. There is no law that does not rest on naked power. And as for private property. What bunk. Compared to nomadic peoples you are a slave. You claim title to something that has no title. It is all a figment of your imagination. A man owns what he can take with him after a shipwreck. On the other hand, the entire universe exists only in my mind. It is there in my mirror, my consciousness. Everything belongs to me. Oh my beloved, wherever I look, it appears to be Thou.

At that point Amused retreated into the usual drug charge that Moonbeam is intoxicated. I'm left with the conclusion that Libertarianism just rests on unexamined assumptions or assumptions that libertarians don't want to admit to, that rights must be inalienable or are just arbitrary and based on power, and not the power of the individual, but the power of the group, exactly contrary to the notion that the individual is of any relevance.

Does Libertarianism offer other answers, or is it a deliberate avoidance here because real facts don't fit the philosophy?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
would return our military to a defensive role.

our military has hardly ever been defensive in its role...

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry squisher, I hope how the question arose helps with the skepticism. I don't know much about it, seem to agree instinctively with a lot of it, but find this strict hands off thing counterintuitive. I like ideas and analysis of fundamentals. I'm not really interested in getting a Doctorate in the subject just to explore the basics when others may know them well. I don't think much of ANY political philosophy because none of them have much insight into what's wrong with people. It's nice to get some concrete understanding of what's wacky with any of them just for one's personal edification.

 

[Maetryx]

I recently registered Libertarian because I was disappointed that I couldn't count on the Republican party to represent me anymore. I am in favor of limited government. The current administration gives me the Homeland Defense Department.

My political philosophy starts where all my other philosophy starts: the belief in objective truth and the basic reliability of my sense perceptions. In other words, I behave like the truck coming at me head on is a reality, and that the truth of the matter is I'd better get out of the way. It's not much more complicated than that.

In my opinion, the Libertarians are motivated to CHANGE the system that we have inherited. It appears that the Republicans will not. I want a government that isn't afraid to try something, and change it back (or again) if it doesn't work. I'd love to see all drugs legalized for 18 months to see if that is a better solution, for example.

So the reason I chose the Libertarian party was motivated from the negative by my disappointment with the Republican party. But it was motivated from the positive by my love of freedom. I'm often caught between my conservative and libertarian leanings. But I have an easier time leaning within the Libertarian party.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Is Ian Rand, Ayn Rand's brother?

 

[Squisher]

Sorry again for the cynicism, Moonbeam, but you seem awfully well read to be asking about the principles of a political party here at OT. Oh well, I stand corrected.

 

[JellyBaby]

I don't think much of ANY political philosophy because none of them have much insight into what's wrong with people.

Plan to found the Psychology Party, Beamer? Or is that just crazy talk?

recently registered Libertarian because I was disappointed that I couldn't count on the Republican party to represent me anymore.

Maetryx, I used to think the Rs adhered more to their party platform than the Ds. Rs are for small government? Government size exploded under Reagan, Bush '88 and Bush 2000. Rs aim to eliminate social program waste? Farm bill, perscription drugs. The Rs want to fix tax policy? They can't or won't simplify the tax system. The list goes on.

They've compromised their principles. There's not much to "conserve" anymore. Rs now think it terms of reelection-to-reelection just like Ds.

Is the LP salvation? Who knows? I find I agree with them on quite a few issues and I guess that's how I want to vote -- by conscience not by short-term gain.

 

[ElFenix]

ayn rand ripped off yevgeny zamyatin

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ayn rand ripped off yevgeny zamyatin

So did Huxley and Orwell.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ayn rand ripped off yevgeny zamyatin

So did Huxley and Orwell.

yep. orwell admitted to it. huxley claimed he was original.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Come on Moony, this is the first time you ever decided to look into the principles of Libertarians? Yea right.



Pardon my cynicism, I think this is a test.

You're right. I mean REALLY, moon-a-rama!

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sorry squisher, I hope how the question arose helps with the skepticism. I don't know much about it, seem to agree instinctively with a lot of it, but find this strict hands off thing counterintuitive. I like ideas and analysis of fundamentals. I'm not really interested in getting a Doctorate in the subject just to explore the basics when others may know them well. I don't think much of ANY political philosophy because none of them have much insight into what's wrong with people. It's nice to get some concrete understanding of what's wacky with any of them just for one's personal edification.

Liberty, pure and simple. Individuals have it, The Collective does not. Libertarianism focusses much on natural law, almost like anarchy with structure, just enough law to keep things civil but nothing intrusive that would injure our individual sensibilities. Libertarianism is beautiful because it is very consistent, unlike Democrats who want to control your money and Republicans who want to control your soul. Both of the major parties are control freaks and that doesn't go well with Libertarians.

 

[Moonbeam]

Squisher, I'm glad you said 'seemed well read'. Most of the assumptions people make about me they seem to actually believe. It cracks me up, but then I actually AM me. In the case of books, for example, I would say I'm almost illiterate. I am not well read at all. If it seems like I know something it's from somewhere else than books. I?ve got the garden variety of info on Libertarianism and that's it. I was curious, since Amused bailed out of the thread, what others might have to say in Libertarian philosophy's defense on the issue I raised.

Mithrandir, when I began this post you're second post wasn't showing. Thanks for taking a crack at an answer.
----------------------

Liberty, pure and simple. Individuals have it, The Collective does not. Libertarianism focuses much on natural law, almost like anarchy with structure, just enough law to keep things civil but nothing intrusive that would injure our individual sensibilities. Libertarianism is beautiful because it is very consistent, unlike Democrats who want to control your money and Republicans who want to control your soul. Both of the major parties are control freaks and that doesn't go well with Libertarians.
--------------------------------

Well how are libertarians any different. They talk about liberty, but they want to not to take what I want even if I'm strong enough to do it. That may be what you call civil, but in the first place civil certainly does imply the Collective, not the individual, and secondly, what do I care about civil if I want to be free. True liberty is taking what you want, if you can. What Ls like Ds and Rs want to do is control too. And when you say our individual sensibilities, don't you mean our communal sensibilities, because taking what I want doesn't bother me. Right?

So there you have an example of how, even though I don't understand Libertarianism and haven't studied it, it doesn't seem to make sense in its own terms.

 

[Zenmervolt]

huxley claimed he was original.

Actually, Huxley only claimed that he never read Zamyatin's book IIRC. IMO, Huxley's book is sufficiently different that Huxley was likely being truthful. "We" is a great book, though in all honesty I prefer "Anthem". ("We" comes in at number two out of the four.)

ZV

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Squisher, I'm glad you said 'seemed well read'. Most of the assumptions people make about me they seem to actually believe. It cracks me up, but then I actually AM me. In the case of books, for example, I would say I'm almost illiterate. I am not well read at all. If it seems like I know something it's from somewhere else than books. I?ve got the garden variety of info on Libertarianism and that's it. I was curious, since Amused bailed out of the thread, what others might have to say in Libertarian philosophy's defense on the issue I raised.

Mithrandir, when I began this post you're second post wasn't showing. Thanks for taking a crack at an answer.
----------------------

Liberty, pure and simple. Individuals have it, The Collective does not. Libertarianism focuses much on natural law, almost like anarchy with structure, just enough law to keep things civil but nothing intrusive that would injure our individual sensibilities. Libertarianism is beautiful because it is very consistent, unlike Democrats who want to control your money and Republicans who want to control your soul. Both of the major parties are control freaks and that doesn't go well with Libertarians.
--------------------------------

Well how are libertarians any different. They talk about liberty, but they want to not to take what I want even if I'm strong enough to do it. That may be what you call civil, but in the first place civil certainly does imply the Collective, not the individual, and secondly, what do I care about civil if I want to be free. True liberty is taking what you want, if you can. What Ls like Ds and Rs want to do is control too. And when you say our individual sensibilities, don't you mean our communal sensibilities, because taking what I want doesn't bother me. Right?

So there you have an example of how, even though I don't understand Libertarianism and haven't studied it, it doesn't seem to make sense in its own terms.

Having Liberty doesn't mean you can steal. Libertarians believe in keeping a small efficent government that keeps the peace and provides a level playing field. The government today wants to micromanage everybody's life. The womb to the tomb mindset is to intrusive and does NOT work. The governments job should be to protect the borders, deliver the mail (of course this could be privatized as well) and settle disputes.

Income Tax: To complicated and even the smartest accountants don't fully understand the tax code. How about a simple National Sales Tax.......never do income taxes agian.

Social Security: It's only 17 trillion in debt.....the mother of all pyramid schemes.

medicare: 13 trillion in debt and proves socialize medicine would have been a huge failure.

Schools: public schools are huge failures, talk about red tape.......

 

[Moonbeam]

Well thanks, Mrburns, but the part that was central to me, 'Having liberty doesn't mean you can steal...." is just a statement as if it were fact. I'm trying to figure out why that's so. It seems to me that you want a competative market system, but you want to stiffle competition. If we are going to reward the iddividual, the strongest should just take what they want. Otherwise your system is simply contradictory and you have to appeal to principles that are very unpure for the libertarian point of view and point toward the much better logic of socialism or theocracy instead, or so it seems to me.