What is Libertarianism?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Libertarian morality is based on property law. So in a the classical sense, Libertarians are amoral. If some group of people die of starvation because they lack or lose property that is okay. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine, and we shall forever be free to take from each other so long as we can prevail in the end.

Can any resident Libertarians address the issue of aboriginal rights?

 

[fast]

Using the SWAG method, my bet would be that he doesn't know what it means, but that (it should be made clear) cannot be inferred from his post. He said, "before I start talking about." There can be (or rather, actually are) reasons (other reasons, that is) for waiting.

I understand you have your reasons. I don't deny that.

Yep, you lose your bet.

The reason is that I'm waiting for the irate ranter and other haters to wear themselves out beating up strawmen before I start.

I understand you have your reasons. I don't deny that.

- - - Updated - - -

Using the SWAG method, my bet would be that he doesn't know what it means, but that (it should be made clear) cannot be inferred from his post. He said, "before I start talking about." There can be (or rather, actually are) reasons (other reasons, that is) for waiting.

Yep, you lose your bet.

The reason is that I'm waiting for the irate ranter and other haters to wear themselves out beating up strawmen before I start.

I understand you have your reasons. I don't deny that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights, such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.

On the extreme end this becomes a very "un-free" system of feudalism. Nestle gets its way and water rights are privatized and traded as commodities.

Interesting you should say that when I live in California. The STATE has granted them first dibs on our dwindling water supply, and then told the rest of us to stop watering our lawns.

Feudalism, the first enemy of libertarians, is rapidly becoming the status quo.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

On the extreme end this becomes a very "un-free" system of feudalism. Nestle gets its way and water rights are privatized and traded as commodities.

Interesting you should say that when I live in California. The STATE has granted them first dibs on our dwindling water supply, and then told the rest of us to stop watering our lawns.

So what would the private solution be?

 

[Arctish]

Key Concepts of Libertarianism

I think this guy's list pretty much sums up the philosophy, and it sounds perfectly reasonable as these things go, but the practical applications of libertarianism can have some very unfortunate consequences.

As others have already pointed out, libertarianism allows the rich to make scarce resources their exclusive property, to the detriment of the rest of the populace. And some of what this guy wrote seems pretty much pie-in-the-sky, like the "Natural Harmony of Interests". People disagree all the time about what should be done with their natural resources or how their communities should grow. There is no inherent natural harmony between the interests of miners and fishermen, or farmers and real estate developers. I think competing interests are much more common than this guy is acknowledging. Harmonious interests exist, but usually only in the broadest sense.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who liked Atlas Shrugged should try reading the much shorter, much better written, and much more informative fiction The Wages of Humanity by Cixin Liu.

 

[untermensche]

Key Concepts of Libertarianism

I think this guy's list pretty much sums up the philosophy, and it sounds perfectly reasonable as these things go, but the practical applications of libertarianism can have some very unfortunate consequences.

As others have already pointed out, libertarianism allows the rich to make scarce resources their exclusive property, to the detriment of the rest of the populace. And some of what this guy wrote seems pretty much pie-in-the-sky, like the "Natural Harmony of Interests". People disagree all the time about what should be done with their natural resources or how their communities should grow. There is no inherent natural harmony between the interests of miners and fishermen, or farmers and real estate developers. I think competing interests are much more common than this guy is acknowledging. Harmonious interests exist, but usually only in the broadest sense.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that list.

There are competing interests not this fabrication of "natural harmony".

And there is the power of wealth that allows some to pursue their interests at the expense of others and allows some to exploit others.

 

[bigfield]

Key Concepts of Libertarianism

I think this guy's list pretty much sums up the philosophy, and it sounds perfectly reasonable as these things go, but the practical applications of libertarianism can have some very unfortunate consequences.

As others have already pointed out, libertarianism allows the rich to make scarce resources their exclusive property, to the detriment of the rest of the populace. And some of what this guy wrote seems pretty much pie-in-the-sky, like the "Natural Harmony of Interests". People disagree all the time about what should be done with their natural resources or how their communities should grow. There is no inherent natural harmony between the interests of miners and fishermen, or farmers and real estate developers. I think competing interests are much more common than this guy is acknowledging. Harmonious interests exist, but usually only in the broadest sense.

Thanks for that, it's much easier to follow than the Wikipedia article.

Two of the key concepts listed by Boaz stood out to me:

Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

Another important institution that developed without central direction is politics. Since prehistoric times, human societies have had politics: in the prehistoric family unit, the patriarch controlled the group; in tribes, one or more elders has control; in chiefdoms, a chief exerts controls with the support of the priesthood; in the modern state, a ruling elite controls the nation with an bureaucracy, a police force and an a military. These political structures all share the same common trait: central authority. Since there has never existed a large society without this apparatus, it is reasonable to conclude that the political apparatus is essential to the existence of such a society.

Jared Diamond suggests that the purpose of this political structure is to prevent conflict within a society. Small groups where each individual is familiar with all others tend to resolve conflict quickly and easily, whereas larger groups where any given individual is a stranger to most others tend to require conflicts to be resolved by some authority that can exert control over all parties. Without this level of control, the larger society would fragment.

It's difficult to ascribe a purpose to 'civil society' as society is an evolved characteristics of humans. And like all evolved characteristics, it imparts some survival benefits on those that 'have it' (or in this case, live in it). More complex societies have tended to be more successful than less-complex societies, in the sense that a person's lineage is more likely to continue long into the future if their descendants live in a complex society. So society's purpose is merely to continue existing, and it has evolved a centralised political structure to fulfill that purpose.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person’s individual plans — which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on — may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

Agree with the evaluation that this is pie-in-the-sky stuff and a gross misunderstanding of human nature and the sources of conflict.

How is it possible to have a society where people do not have conflicts and do not seek to exert control over others? Simply saying that politics is the problems is no different than saying that human nature is the problem.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society.

And this is can be said basically of any "ism" Very pie-in-the-sky.

 

[James Brown]

I had forgotten about Jared Diamond's ideas.

This ties in with Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. One of the factors in the decline in violence over the course of the last 5,000 years is the rise of a strong third-party to mediate conflicts. If you and your neighbors are fighting over who dumped a dead pig into the community well, the matter may escalate until people are dead. But with an impartial mediator to weigh the evidence and punish the guilty party, the disagreement is more likely to be resolved peacefully.

Of course, the trick is finding an impartial mediator, something we haven't worked out perfectly yet--and we may never figure it out given human nature. But to suggest that just because impartial mediation is hard, therefore we'd be better off without it entirely seems to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

I sympathize with many libertarian views. When I eat in a restaurant, it's not the threat of a police state that compels me to pay the bill. I'm able to freely engage in a business transaction with the restaurateur, and we both profit thereby. I'll wager that every single person reading this thread is the same way. But people steal from restaurants all the time, implicitly and explicitly. And part of my trust in the restaurateur stems from the knowledge that his menu offerings are certified to be safe by impartial mediator/inspectors.

Sure, in a perfect world, I can just take the restaurateur's word that his food is safe, his kitchens are sanitary, and his employees are treated ethically, and he can take my word that my money is good and that I won't skip out without paying. In a perfect world, we can engage with each other free of the trappings of regulation and control. But we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society.

And this is can be said basically of any "ism" Very pie-in-the-sky.

As one Socialist said back in the day, ~'There is an inherent flaw in the human mind that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

Libertarianism seems to be one of the last remaining naive utopian ideals. Kind of like the "free market".

 

[funinspace]

Fun with isms…

Yeah, I generally lean towards libertarian constructs, yet I don’t believe in any utopia.

Various leaders/countries have tried real hard to get towards 95-98% pure socialism. The results have been pretty consistent, eventual disaster.

A greenism utopia would seem to require the extermination of 2 to 3 billion people…sounds like a perfect ism.

A Libertarian ism would crash upon the opposite sea cliffs of socialism. I also consider the anarchism to be another animal, as one does need a legal/police system to be the arbitrator of disputes and deal with criminal activity, which implies a governmental system. I also think we need a full military, even if greatly shrunk from our current huge bloat. Costa Rica can rest comfortably w/o a military as a minor nation, but I don’t think the US could. Some like to lump libertarian constructs with anarchist constructs, I prefer lumpia.

Some areas would be really bad under most any form of strict libertarian construct, such as social welfare and the environment. Yet at the same time, there are differing ways to handle some environmental issues. One can have hundreds of laws and mandates from mandated catalytic converters to mileage standards; or one can simplify by just specifying tailpipe emission standards with no specified equipment, and one can raise fuel prices via taxes to make sure people prefer higher mileage cars. Though Social Security needs some modest adjustments, I think it is a necessary safety net against people’s lack of planning or just really shitty luck. I think having a lightly regulated recreational drug and sex market would make communities far safer than the current illegal markets. Gay marriage? It’s about time. I’m fine with abortion up thru 22-24 weeks, after that I would agree with increased restrictions/regulations.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is can be said basically of any "ism" Very pie-in-the-sky.

As one Socialist said back in the day, ~'There is an inherent flaw in the human mind that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

Libertarianism seems to be one of the last remaining naive utopian ideals. Kind of like the "free market".

So all the idealistic socialists are dead? Interesting news....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As one Socialist said back in the day, ~'There is an inherent flaw in the human mind that makes our cause a pathetic joke.'

Libertarianism seems to be one of the last remaining naive utopian ideals. Kind of like the "free market".

So all the idealistic socialists are dead? Interesting news....

No, we just know when we don't have a fucks chance of further change.

 

[Togo]

So all the idealistic socialists are dead? Interesting news....

No, we just know when we don't have a fucks chance of further change.

Not everyone agrees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34001305

One might argue that it is precisely the view that real change is impossible that is causing voter turnouts to remain so low.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, what is Libertarianism?

Before I begin to describe what it is, I must note this: it is a political belief. I shouldn't need to state the obvious, but I have to, because of all the ninnies who try to insist that it somehow is a life philosophy and make an unwarranted fallacious extension into describing it as a personal moral ethical belief. They then go on to say that it means that libertarians are personally selfish and refuse to ever cooperate with anyone. It is similar, but far sillier, than the creationist belief that accepting the reality of evolution leads to a belief in Social Darwinism.

Yet it is basically only libertarianism that gets this rather absurd fallacy applied to it. Nobody ever says "you believe in a social safety net yet you are not out robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" or "you believe in drug prohibition yet you are not out busing meth labs." This standard is never applied to conservoprogressives yet it is always applied to libertarians.

It is not a theory of morality, except insofar as theories of morality interact with theories of government. It is really only a theory of government, what the government should do and should not do. Perhaps people are confusing it with Objectivism, because while the politics of Objectivism are indeed libertarian Objectivism is not libertarian for the simple reason that libertarianism has nothing to say about Epistemology, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, and Morality outside of theory of government.

 

[untermensche]

It would be a lot more helpful if you referenced the claims you make.

For example. You say; "it is a political belief."

According to who is it only a political belief? Who said it is and where did they say it?

Otherwise all we have are your opinions about what Libertarianism is.

What is the intellectual history and who are the influential thinkers?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, what is Libertarianism?

Before I begin to describe what it is, I must note this: it is a political belief. I shouldn't need to state the obvious, but I have to, because of all the ninnies who try to insist that it somehow is a life philosophy and make an unwarranted fallacious extension into describing it as a personal moral ethical belief. They then go on to say that it means that libertarians are personally selfish and refuse to ever cooperate with anyone. It is similar, but far sillier, than the creationist belief that accepting the reality of evolution leads to a belief in Social Darwinism.

Yet it is basically only libertarianism that gets this rather absurd fallacy applied to it. Nobody ever says "you believe in a social safety net yet you are not out robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" or "you believe in drug prohibition yet you are not out busing meth labs." This standard is never applied to conservoprogressives yet it is always applied to libertarians.

It is not a theory of morality, except insofar as theories of morality interact with theories of government. It is really only a theory of government, what the government should do and should not do. Perhaps people are confusing it with Objectivism, because while the politics of Objectivism are indeed libertarian Objectivism is not libertarian for the simple reason that libertarianism has nothing to say about Epistemology, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, and Morality outside of theory of government.

So many words to say so little.

 

[bigfield]

Another one from Boaz:

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

How did libertarians intuit these particular rights but not other rights? Simply saying that something is 'intuitively right' is not a sound argument.

 

[Togo]

So, what is Libertarianism?

Before I begin to describe what it is, I must note this: it is a political belief. I shouldn't need to state the obvious, but I have to, because of all the ninnies who try to insist that it somehow is a life philosophy and make an unwarranted fallacious extension into describing it as a personal moral ethical belief. They then go on to say that it means that libertarians are personally selfish and refuse to ever cooperate with anyone. It is similar, but far sillier, than the creationist belief that accepting the reality of evolution leads to a belief in Social Darwinism.

Yet it is basically only libertarianism that gets this rather absurd fallacy applied to it.

Nah, it also gets applied to socialists, environmentalists, and idealists generally.

Nobody ever says "you believe in a social safety net yet you are not out robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" or "you believe in drug prohibition yet you are not out busing meth labs."

Yeah, they do.

That's why socialist politicians get followed around by photographers trying to catch them eating in a fancy restaurant*, and why environmentalist politicians get unprecedented scrutiny of their private life, as people try and find some lifestyle choice to berate them with,.

*Such John Prescott, a socialist politician who was photographed at a fancy dinner table, and given a caption in the Evening Standard 'champagne socialist'. The newspaper neglected to mention that it was a dinner for National Union of Journalists, that the commentators had been at the same event, and that they had carefully airbrushed a beer bottle out of then picture to give the false impression that he was drinking champagne.

I've not seen libertarians being treated differently from other political beliefs.

 

[Arctish]

Another one from Boaz:

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

How did libertarians intuit these particular rights but not other rights? Simply saying that something is 'intuitively right' is not a sound argument.

There's also the problem of property. Boaz says libertarians believe individuals have a right to be secure in their property, but he doesn't explain how a thing becomes someone's property, how individuals can recognize that a piece of property belongs to someone else, or what happens when 2 or more people lay claim to the same bit of property.

What happens if 10 people claim a tree or a rock outcropping as their property? Who gets to be secure and who doesn't? Without some kind of government authority empowered to grant titles and such, I guess they just fight it out.