So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 20 of 21
So, re-reading this, this is what I get out of the discussion:
As Mal4 pointed out, Geezer's entire contention is that if enough people (80% is the figure he put out) believe the way he believes, then the society will create a durable optimum for all.
There are serious problems with his contention. The first is whether a society can exist where 80% of people find his exact vision of utopia to be compelling.
The second is that even within the framework he posits, there are significant gaps and conflicts (for example the commons and the 'rights' of ownership regarding it), without invoking any other forces . He has no resolution for these inborn gaps and conflicts except to say he has faith 'the system will provide' (which frankly sounds like religion).
The third is that he has no understanding at all of a systematic drift that - even if slight - will dominate the end state of his utopia > given enough time <. It's the point that SignyM keeps bringing up over and over, and that Geezer is so completely unable to grasp that he can't address the question, let alone try to formulate an answer.
So I'll take a stab at describing it:
Assuming 80% of people believe in Geezer's utopia and are willing to do what it takes to maintain it
- to spend the extra money for the sole purpose of keeping a competitor in business rather than buy from the vendor with the lowest prices
- OR alternatively to develop your own item (assuming that's possible)
- OR alternatively to do without (assuming it's not a necessity)
- to keep the government as an honest broker rather than as a tool of the more monied by spending their own time, effort and money to investigate and publish the sources of money and influence, and the past dealings of people running for office as a minimum for a fair vote
- to be able to insist the government fairly resolves disputes between single individuals/ small groups vs large numbers of people and/or large and/or wealthy organizations, rather than succumb to a majority/ powerful side
- to voluntarily come together in sufficient numbers and expend sufficient resources to maintain the human, infrastructure and technological commons
- to adjudicate the use and maintenance of the environmental commons ...
- etc
So, at this point there is a large majority of people who will mind other people's business enough that they will use their time, effort and resources to take active steps to not let themselves or their neighbors be infringed on.
That leaves a 20% minority who don't follow the rules. Will they ALL be brought to heel by the power of the people? The answer is no, since nothing is perfect. So let's assume a failure rate of bringing those people in line of 0.1%, which most would consider a very small number. Therefore there wiil be 0.1% of 20%, which is is 0.02%, of people who will have accumulated a non-libertarian amount of property and/or power. At the next generation, there will be 80% - .02% base population, 20% of those will be slackers at libertarianism and 0.1% of them will get away with it ... and so on. It doesn't matter how gradually it happens, or how quickly - the endpoint is that there will come to be a population of rich powerful people who do NOT follow the libertarian model, and who will have accumulated enough to be beyond its strictures.
SignyM's question is a reasonable one - what then? If the libertarian model doesn't respond to that process of partial but repeated failure, it will eventually succumb to its imperfections. That's the second point where Geezer's argument fails, and he falls back on a very religious-sounding statement of faith that it just wouldn't happen. Amen.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to get back to the SYSTEMATIC problems of various economic/ social systems:
As I've posited a few times already, the very fact of an accumulation of resources by a very few is BY ITSELF the cause of a lot of social pathology. I think there's enough human and non-human studies that back that up as an idea for consideration.
To prevent that, I've proposed a system of taxation that will remove that accretion from individuals and organizations. The virtue of this proposal is that it's not extreme - it doesn’t propose the destruction of money, the dissolution of banks, stock markets etc ... instead it uses a very familiar mechanism to achieve the goal.
I'm curious what other people think.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Libertarianism is a stand against the Obama, O'rielly McCain BS
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Winner, winner chicken dinner. You're exactly right.
have you seen the latest from the alternative conspiracy heads and libertarians?
and
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481683-Europe-crumbles-und
er-the-devastating-Impact-of-Mass-Immigration
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wrong link for your immigrant post JANEZSTOWN
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
a better option than Green Party?
https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2022/07/08/nc-green-party-november
-election
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me too. I wouldn't have come to what I think is the essential conundrum about libertarianism if ppl hadn't hung with me while I re-approached the discussion many times from many angles, asking the same or similar questions with different emphasis. I especially appreciated GEEZER's posts bc he clearly favored libertarianism but didn't devolve to a flame war as he responded to my many examples and honed my thoughts.
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
How's life down under, MAGON's? It's early winter there for you. Life and weather treating you well?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Me too. I wouldn't have come to what I think is the essential conundrum about libertarianism if ppl hadn't hung with me while I re-approached the discussion many times from many angles, asking the same or similar questions with different emphasis. I especially appreciated GEEZER's posts bc he clearly favored libertarianism but didn't devolve to a flame war as he responded to my many examples and honed my thoughts.
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
How's life down under, MAGON's? It's early winter there for you. Life and weather treating you well?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
It’s mid winter here and pretty cold for this neck of the woods. Waiting for my bulbs to start coming out and the early wattle to open.
Life is busy - we were in lockdown on and off for 2 years which was tough and now the covid spike is back again - everyone is sick with it or the flu - not so much fun
We voted out the jerk that was PM and this government seems more functional - for now anyway.
Hope you are on the mend
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME