Libertarianism

[zabu of nΩd]

I am creating this thread out of a sudden renewed ambition to convince the libertarians of GMD (mainly Cythraul since he defends it pretty well, but also Ozzman, Einherjar and whoever else who tend to buy into it but take a back seat in debates) that it is a RETARDED philosophy that necessarily leads to a broken and undesirable society.

I have two lines of argument in mind, but I'm going to stick with my more promising-looking one for now.

NOTE: I will be using "libertarianism" to mean a political philosophy in which the government takes a minimal role in running the country (i.e. mainly defending it from attackers and maintaining legal freedoms and order) and engages in no form of wealth redistribution between citizens (i.e. unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care, public housing, etc.).

Here is the argument:


1) Humans by nature are self-serving enough that any society in which they are given the opportunity to amass wealth with minimal interference (that is, a level of interference consistent with libertarian philosophy) will produce a small class of people who control a vast majority of the society's wealth and use that wealth primarily for their own benefit and to perpetuate the social order that has put them and those close to them at the top stratum of power. This trend is clearly evident in just about every society around the world.

2) The social order described in (1) is one in which the majority of people have so little economic freedom that the relative lack of freedom resulting from tax-funded public services that redistribute wealth is unlikely to ever compare as equal to or greater than that of (1), or even close to equal.

3) Because of (2), the implementation of libertarian philosophy in government is more likely than not to produce results that run counter to the goal of improving freedom in society.


So, I invite any libertarian who feels like taking that on to do so.

 

[AchrisK]

Does common Libertarianism really advocate zero redistribution of wealth?

 

[no country for old wainds]

more like libertarianisgay am i right

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Does common Libertarianism really advocate zero redistribution of wealth?

Probably not, but I already explained what kind of libertarianism I'm targeting in this thread, and I'm not interested in addressing all the various "flavors" of libertarianism ranging from the Republican Party to anarchy.

 

[AchrisK]

aight.

I will not be taking part in this discussion. I wouldn't mind trolling it, but I don't think that would be well received.

 

[-CC-]

Wait wait wait..

I thought Libertarianism was all about legalizing it?

 

[AchrisK]

I thought it was people who loved books!

 

[Badbird]

Does anyone think we will have a libertarian party president sometime?
It seem like they are always ignore and the Democrats and the republicans are the ones who are the runners for the office usually.

 

[-CC-]

I will not be taking part in this discussion. I wouldn't mind trolling it, but I don't think that would be well received.

An hour later:

I thought it was people who loved books!

 

[AchrisK]

^Couldn't help myself

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Please, someone with interesting political opinions, come save this thread!

 

[Badbird]

^ Do you think a libertarian party president will happen?

 

[AchrisK]

Save me Tom Brady, you're my only hope.... *

Save me Tom Brady, you're my only hope.... *

Save me Tom Brady, yo....

 

[False Joe]

Can't be doing with liberals, all my pals and jews be them.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think Libertarianism is a very flawed ideology but I don't think appealing to human nature is a very good debate tactic because both sides can claim that it supports them.

Libertarians assume that the smaller government is, the more freedom people will have. With this freedom people will be able to rise and fall on their on merits without the obstruction of the state. The government would then only provide collective security against those who would threaten this security whether form within or without. Correct me of I'm wrong forum libertarians.

The problem with this philosophy is that having a complete freedom to rise and fall on your own merits produces massive inequality. We only need to look at the 19th Century world of Libertarianism's ideological forefather Classical Liberalism to see this. Government intervention was relatively low and the gap between the rich and poor grew huge. I would expect that a libertarian would argue that inequality is not inherently bad and that it merely represents that some people are better and dedicated workers and that if they achieve wealth they are reward for their work.

While I agree inequality is not bad per se, it is also not the rosy picture that libertarians paint. If you are part of the working class, without government assistance in the form of health care, education, labor laws and such, how could you be expected to succeed. Is a person born wealthy enough to afford private education truly more deserving than the son of a factory worker who cannot afford college and is thus forced to continue that kind of work? How can a person who is forced to spend their life savings on health care be blamed for being poor? Is it truly more freedom if a large sector of the population are economically disadvantaged?

There is also the facts that more egalitarian societies are healthier and have less crime. Modern Scandinavia and Western Europe would be good examples. As such I think it makes sense for the government to provide social services.

I do agree with libertarians that drugs and abortion need to be legalized and that other socially conservative things like opposing same sex marriage are dumb.

Sorry for the novel. I hope someone reads it.

Cliffs: Libertarianism is flawed because it promotes inequality which, while not inherently bad, has negative social effects.

 

[skeptik]

I am going to be staying out of this thread barring some kind of emergency lest this happen.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'll do my best to prevent that.

 

[Evil?]

Good post Cookie. I will be staying out of this as well because I know jack shit about the subject, but I would say I agree with everything you posted.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Libertarianism strikes me as if someone sat down to create the Un-Communism.

 

[AchrisK]

I think there is a factor that people miss in these discussions, and that is that rich/poor/educated/blue collar/well/sick are not the things that define happiness and success in life. Society and the media would have you believe otherwise, but they are wrong. We see them prove themselves wrong continually, yet they keep lying, and we keep believing them. We prove it wrong for ourselves, and still we swallow the lie.