Libertarianism

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

I can see how an appeal to human nature could be turned against me, but I think it would be difficult to argue that human nature's negative influence on tax-funded public services is as damaging to economic freedom as the "oligarchy of the wealthy" scenario that arises from the lack of wealth redistribution.

The inequality argument is a good one to bring up as well, but it's been brought up quite a bit already and the typical libertarian response seems to be "I don't care, I want to have the freedom to not help anyone." I think the freedom argument can be turned against libertarians, and that's what I attempted to do in my original post.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Evil?]

WHO CARES ABOUT MONEY WHEN YOU HAVE JESUS!

 

[Cythraul]

Goddamnit VG! I'm supposed to be working on term papers, but there's no way I'm going to be able to keep myself from participating in this thread. Thanks a lot. By the way, I don't think I'm an anarchist anymore. I am, however, still a wingnut. Aaaannnyyywayy...

it is a RETARDED philosophy that necessarily leads to a broken and undesirable society.

Those are fightin' words, buddy. You better have a damn good 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.

First of all, this first premise is incredibly vague. You have to spell out exactly what using wealth primarily for one's own benefit, etc. etc. is supposed to involve. Otherwise I'm not sure how to evaluate your claim. Here, I'll be vague too: I'm much more worried about the phenomena of regulatory capture and rent-seeking. The kind of economic power you worry about is way easier to exploit when you have a state powerful enough to run the economy in certain ways. Something that people tend to overlook is that big business is hardly a champion of free markets.

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.

Okay, so you're being a little less vague here, but please spell out how people are losing economic freedom in this situation. Define 'economic freedom.'

 

[AchrisK]

What on earth are you talking about?

I guess it seems to me that you are putting forth some level of economic equality as a desired situation, but to what end? If I re-read your statements it seems your "end" is "freedom in society". What does that mean? I assume your ultimate goal is the happiness of the citizens. Is that correct? So economic equality = freedom = happiness. That is what I am inferring from what you said, and that is what I am saying is not necessarily true.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Don't confuse economic equality with economic freedom now. I don't think anyone has endorsed taking the steps towards radical economic redistribution.

We should try to strive towards something like equality of opportunity. This should satisfy to some degree those who whine incessantly about freeloaders. A system with restrictive barriers to education and health services doesn't advance equality and doesn't reward actual hard work and skill.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Goddamnit VG! I'm supposed to be working on term papers, but there's no way I'm going to be able to keep myself from participating in this thread. Thanks a lot. By the way, I don't think I'm an anarchist anymore. I am, however, still a wingnut. Aaaannnyyywayy...



Those are fightin' words, buddy. You better have a damn good argument.



First of all, this first premise is incredibly vague. You have to spell out exactly what using wealth primarily for one's own benefit, etc. etc. is supposed to involve. Otherwise I'm not sure how to evaluate your claim. Here, I'll be vague too: I'm much more worried about the phenomena of regulatory capture and rent-seeking. The kind of economic power you worry about is way easier to exploit when you have a state powerful enough to run the economy in certain ways. Something that people tend to overlook is that big business is hardly a champion of free markets.



Okay, so you're being a little less vague here, but please spell out how people are losing economic freedom in this situation. Define 'economic freedom.'

I knew I could count on you to be thorough in pointing out where my argument was lacking in precision. I think I can clarify all of this for you, but I may need a couple days as I'm about to have a busy weekend. Sounds like that will be the better for you anyway, so let's hold those thoughts for now.

And yeah, I probably should have waited until I had some time to follow through on this thread before creating it, but I wanted to get my ideas out while they were fresh in my mind.

I guess it seems to me that you are putting forth some level of economic equality as a desired situation, but to what end? If I re-read your statements it seems your "end" is "freedom in society". What does that mean? I assume your ultimate goal is the happiness of the citizens. Is that correct? So economic equality = freedom = happiness. That is what I am inferring from what you said, and that is what I am saying is not necessarily true.

Not so much. I realise I may have started this debate on a rather strange foot, but I'm trying to speak in terms of the "freedom from obligation" that seems to form the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy. I certainly don't equate freedom with equality or happiness, and I don't feel a need to frame this particular argument in terms of equality or happiness.

Anyway, as Cythie pointed out, I have some gray areas to clear up, but I probably won't get around to it until the end of the weekend.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I classify myself as a political independent, but have voted for libertarian candidates since 2000. There seems to me to be 2 factions within the libertarian movement, and that is basically the "haves" vs the "have-nots". The "haves", of course, advocate what is often labeled as corporate libertarianism, in which a company has all the rights and privileges of an individual, but none of the responsibilities. This is already in full effect in American society, IMO. It is also a libertarianism which I takes issue with as I believe as it is a gross distortion of libertarian philosophy.
This schism is covered with limited detail on Wikipedia, and as for the official stance of the Libertarian Party, their official policies can be viewed on their website.
My personal take on the subject is that all humans have a fundamental right to autonomy. While I oppose the government taking a direct stake in social infrastructure, they must contribute it's functionality and existence. Basically, I feel the government serves 3functions: 1)to defend the populace, 2)To maintain infrastructure, and 3)represent all constituencies with equality (which makes a 2 party system unusable). Anything else is up to the individual person or community.
Sorry, that was rambling and long winded, but I was trying to cover all I know about libertarianism and juxtapose it with all my opinions on the subject. Hope it made some sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm interested in seeing where this thread goes. It's a good topic to discuss.

I'm not sure I'll be as cogent or relevant as Cyth or Ozz. I've always been more attracted to the theoretical and philosophical rather than economic aspects of libertarianism. In short, I feel that libertarianism is the philosophical/economic belief that best suits the nature of human beings in this era of time. As far as our consciousness and understanding of being goes, I don't think humanity is prepared to do away with libertarian ideals. I'll contribute more as the discussion developes, but for now I'll leave it at that.

 

[sadistik necrofiend]

Im suprised Dakryn hasn't shown up here yet.

 

[just metal]

very interesting debate so far, i was very clueless when it came to this subject before.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay Cythie, here is your response as promised:

First of all, this first premise is incredibly vague. You have to spell out exactly what using wealth primarily for one's own benefit, etc. etc. is supposed to involve. Otherwise I'm not sure how to evaluate your claim. Here, I'll be vague too: I'm much more worried about the phenomena of regulatory capture and rent-seeking. The kind of economic power you worry about is way easier to exploit when you have a state powerful enough to run the economy in certain ways. Something that people tend to overlook is that big business is hardly a champion of free markets.

Using wealth primarily for one's own benefit includes things like buying luxury items for oneself, bribing public officials to overlook illegal behavior, or donating to politicians in order to win support for legislation that unfairly benefits a company one owns. I realise that there have been magnanimous business moguls throughout history who give much of their money back to the community, but they appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "regulatory capture and rent-seeking" (I'm not familiar with these terms), but if by that you basically mean the act of manipulating legislators and laws for personal profit and/or an unfair competitive advantage, you're going to have to do some explaining to convince me that a more regulated government, as a rule, tends to favor such a thing. Do you mean to say that certain types of regulation (i.e. graduated income tax, inheritance tax, or anti-trust laws) will result in more corruption, that each act of corruption will tend to be more more damaging, or both of the above? I think we agree that the economy has to be competitive in order to be beneficial to the greatest number of people, but how can it be competitive if there's nothing stopping a handful of people from hoarding away the majority of the country's wealth?

Okay, so you're being a little less vague here, but please spell out how people are losing economic freedom in this situation. Define 'economic freedom.'

I would define "economic freedom" as the ability to make a living that doesn't amount to indentured servitude or slavery. Economic freedom in this sense requires that someone has enough disposable income and enough career opportunities to live a comfortable and fulfilling life. When the vast majority of wealth in a society is controlled by a tiny minority of people whose aim is to keep themselves in control, the economy becomes less competitive, which results in higher costs of living and fewer career opportunities for the average person, therefore less economic freedom.

I assume that economic freedom in this sense is a key aim of a libertarian state as well as a 'social safety net' state (which is why I'm making it the focus of this argument), but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing that might shed some light on this is to compare the combined wealth of a nation's top earners to the portion of that nation's tax budget not being distributed among its citizens, since it could be argued that an ineffectively libertarian society would have an excessive top-earner share of wealth whereas an ineffectively socialist society would have an excessive tax budget share. I'm not sure where to find good stats for this off the top of my head though.

Hopefully that clears up my argument enough for you. If so, I look forward to your rebuttal when you have time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Using wealth primarily for one's own benefit includes things like buying luxury items for oneself, bribing public officials to overlook illegal behavior, or donating to politicians in order to win support for legislation that unfairly benefits a company one owns. I realise that there have been magnanimous business moguls throughout history who give much of their money back to the community, but they appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

I'd like to take a stab at this until Cyth returns.

First of all, I'd suggest that it's not an economic system's responsibility to prevent criminal acts such as bribery. And as far as buying luxury goods and donating monies, those are completely legal. Whether a politician receives ample funds from a company or not, it's still that politician's choice to support it in legislation.

I would define "economic freedom" as the ability to make a living that doesn't amount to indentured servitude or slavery. Economic freedom in this sense requires that someone has enough disposable income and enough career opportunities to live a comfortable and fulfilling life. When the vast majority of wealth in a society is controlled by a tiny minority of people whose aim is to keep themselves in control, the economy becomes less competitive, which results in higher costs of living and fewer career opportunities for the average person, therefore less economic freedom.

The issue here, though, is that the average person is still free to do everything that the "above average" person is able to do; his inherent freedoms aren't being taken away. If he was given, or earned, the means to do so he would be completely allowed. Libertarianism, by definition, does not deprive people of freedoms.

As I said before, in a completely blank slate society, libertarianism is an ideal system that awards its citizens accordingly. In a society such as ours, where the wealthiest and the poorest have already been determined, libertarianism seems much more like a plot to allow the wealthy to maintain their wealth. However, libertarianism actually was conceived by the Enlightenment era thinkers and burgeoned from a rapidly growing concern for individuality.

I assume that economic freedom in this sense is a key aim of a libertarian state as well as a 'social safety net' state (which is why I'm making it the focus of this argument), but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing that might shed some light on this is to compare the combined wealth of a nation's top earners to the portion of that nation's tax budget not being distributed among its citizens, since it could be argued that an ineffectively libertarian society would have an excessive top-earner share of wealth whereas an ineffectively socialist society would have an excessive tax budget share. I'm not sure where to find good stats for this off the top of my head though.

I'd like to see this as well. I have no idea what the statistics on this are.

 

[Dak]

Sorry for jumping in this 2 weeks late.

It seems that the only arguement made against libertarianism is that the poor will stay poor/get poorer and the rich will stay rich/get richer.

However, this has been the case in Communist and Facist societies. While there may have been equality, it was that the large majority of the population was permenantly equally poor, with only the previously wealthy/members of the controlling party living well.

In modern "successful" socialist societies that cookie loves to mention, what is not covered is the mountain of national debt over these countries, the US included (although much of our debt has been due to "world policing). The only way that "modern socialism" could possibly function in the black, would be to basically take every dime from the "rich" once they hit probably more than a few hundred thousand in earnings. The problem with this, is that by taxing someone on such a un-just scale, you remove the desire to work past the level at which you began to be taxed 100%, just like handing someone a paycheck for doing under a certain amount of work removes the desire to move past that level.

The disagreement over what "equality" is, or should be, I think is the first thing that should be agreed upon, before discussing a form of government.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The only way that "modern socialism" could possibly function in the black, would be to basically take every dime from the "rich" once they hit probably more than a few hundred thousand in earnings.

Actually it would function just fine if the government set realistic budgets for its programs and didn't get sucked into the orgy of back-scratching, favor-currying, and voter-appeasement that leads to the kind of disaster we have now (and keep in mind, the US federal budget was balanced for a while under Bush I / Clinton). In order to stay out of the debt orgy, though, we'd need a culture that actually understands the importance of electing responsible and ethical people into office rather than just whoever makes the best sales pitch.

The unlikelhood of that happening may just be the best justification for libertarianism out there, but of course the (lack of) leadership problem would probably keep us just as far from "ideal libertarianism" as it would from "ideal socialism". If we could somehow miraculously achieve responsible leadership in our governments then we might as well continue on with socialism.

 

[Dak]

Actually it would function just fine if the government set realistic budgets for its programs and didn't get sucked into the orgy of back-scratching, favor-currying, and voter-appeasement that leads to the kind of disaster we have now. In order to do that, though, we'd need a culture that actually understands the importance of electing responsible and ethical people into office rather than just whoever makes the best sales pitch. The unlikelhood of that happening may just be the best justification for libertarianism out there, but of course the (lack of) leadership problem would probably keep us just as far from "ideal libertarianism" as it would from "ideal socialism", so if we can somehow miraculously achieve responsible leadership then we might as well implement socialism.

Good post. I think one of the biggest appealing factors though about libertarianism is it's lack of dependence on leadership as it depends heavily on individual responsibility, instead of masses being led around by the nose.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'd like to take a stab at this until Cyth returns.

First of all, I'd suggest that it's not an economic system's responsibility to prevent criminal acts such as bribery.

Maybe not, but it sure makes the bribery problem a hell of a lot worse when the system allows a handful of people to have that kind of vast influence over the government.

And as far as buying luxury goods and donating monies, those are completely legal.

That doesn't mean it should be encouraged without reservation.

Whether a politician receives ample funds from a company or not, it's still that politician's choice to support it in legislation.

You forgot the part about most politicians being easily corruptible. If it was "the politician's choice" to decide whether to represent his constituents or just the few rich assholes who pay him off the most, we wouldn't have any need for corruption / conflict of interest laws at all. That's not the cast, though.

The issue here, though, is that the average person is still free to do everything that the "above average" person is able to do; his inherent freedoms aren't being taken away. If he was given, or earned, the means to do so he would be completely allowed. Libertarianism, by definition, does not deprive people of freedoms.

As I said before, in a completely blank slate society, libertarianism is an ideal system that awards its citizens accordingly. In a society such as ours, where the wealthiest and the poorest have already been determined, libertarianism seems much more like a plot to allow the wealthy to maintain their wealth. However, libertarianism actually was conceived by the Enlightenment era thinkers and burgeoned from a rapidly growing concern for individuality.

Um, yeah thanks for pointing that out. In a perfect world everyone would have equal opportunity and therefore libertarianism would work perfectly. We're supposed to be talking about reality, though.

 

[Dak]

Well so far, a question that no one has wanted to answer, or in my mind has answered satisfactorily is: What is equal opportunity? Because I think very often people say opportunity but what they mean is outcome.

By default we are not all born with equal abilities, so it stands to reason that even with an "equal opportunity", people will end up with vastly different life outcomes, which seems to bother the more jealous among us.

Education is the basic necessity of course, and then some way to employ the knowledge to earn a living. Anything past this though is not "equal opportunity", but theft.

If someone is not as gifted, or not as industrious, or has made selfish/self defeating choices in life, they should not be forcibly buoyed by others.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Good post. I think one of the biggest appealing factors though about libertarianism is it's lack of dependence on leadership as it depends heavily on individual responsibility, instead of masses being led around by the nose.

I guess this is the point that just boils down to our 'gut feelings' on politics rather than something we can easily debate, but as for my side of the coin: I really don't think libertarianism would make us to any significant degree less dependent on leadership. If the Libertarian Party somehow gained control over the White House and Congress, we would still have rich assholes bribing the politicians to implement "libertarianism for the masses" while robbing us blind of economic opportunities.

So, unless you can explain in detail how libertarianism will help free us from government corruption, I will continue to believe that the solution to our problem is not to abandon socialism but rather just try to educate people better on politics.

 

[Dak]

Well to start with, less faith in any party and it's members is a huge step. I personally would love to see parties done away with, because it becomes to easy to vote without doing any research once you become as party "homer".

Libertarianism is at it's heart, personal responsibility. Socialism is government responsibility (in action) and by default, personal apathy.

A form of government can't stop corruption, since corruption happens on a personal level. What it removes is the ability for corrupt politicians/corporations to legally steal from the populace, not to mention, take away individual freedoms.

The more theft occurs, the more freedoms can be taken away.