So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 4 of 21
Quote:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?
RAPPY- Waving the word "freedom" like a flag isn't an explanation. Is it possible that you could come up with an answer to this question, and more?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves."
Seems like a fair summary.
I have questions - LOTS of questions - that I haven't asked b/c I didn't want to abort any glimmer of any potentially possible nascent coversations with our self-proclaimed 'libertarians'. But it's not in the nature of the self-proclaimed 'libertarians' who are here to discuss their - beliefs. Or notions. Or incohate yearnings. Or unadmitted goals. Or hatred of liberals. Or desire for the South to rise again - and the North to be crushed. Or whatever is driving them. No, they just spew random slogans and sound bites and dive back into ... wherever they come from.
Anyway, enough about them.
When I read very general derscriptions like what little rappy posted I start coming up with scenarios and wonder - according to a true believer - who wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award?
So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?
Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.
I've also noticed that one thing 'libertarians' seem to abhor is the idea that people should come together freely - out of their own and their shared self-interest, and mutual interest in each other's well-being - and act as a group towards a common goal. Isn't freedom of association one of the rights of libertarianism - as long as no one is being 'forced' into it? I suppose I'll never get an ajudication on that either, from any of our self-proclaimed 'libertarians'.
I wonder about what they think is a 'libertarian' society. I took the time to dig out Geezer's references and at least glance through them. NONE of them had modern technology, which calls for a great deal of coordination and cooperation between many specialized groups. NONE of them had a capitalist economy, which requires that certain sacrifices be made by the society at large and by individuals (ownership of public goods for example, as well as a captive labor market) in order to function at all. Imagine a perfectly free labor market, especially economically free, able to accept or reject typical capitalist-economy jobs - McDonald's or piecework --- How long would capitalism survive that freedom? ALL of them had a high degree of social control. Some had socially-enforced slavery. Some had socially-required sacrifice that be made for the good of the group. What exactly does he think these examples have to do with the kind of 'libertarianism' he claims he wants? (I also note that when people freely try to organize themselves for mutual benefit to have a community they mutually desire, he sides against them in favor of corporations and large government - which speaks volumes about what he's REALLY for - and against.) But the end result is that none of his grudgingly-referenced explanations for 'libertaria
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?
Indeed, this is exactly the issue. I can't recall who I was talking to, but on some thread here it became clear to me that this lawless world libertarians dream of relies on human beings all suddenly and magically agreeing on what is right and wrong and abiding by those uniform ideals.
Libertarian: "If only everyone had the same morality and wanted the same way of life as me, then we wouldn't need a govt and everyone would be happy!"
There seems to be no realization that people are and always will be very different from each other. I've yet to see that satisfactorily addressed.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:Quote:
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?
Indeed, this is exactly the issue. I can't recall who I was talking to, but on some thread here it became clear to me that this lawless world libertarians dream of relies on human beings all suddenly and magically agreeing on what is right and wrong and abiding by those uniform ideals.
Libertarian: "If only everyone had the same morality and wanted the same way of life as me, then we wouldn't need a govt and everyone would be happy!"
There seems to be no realization that people are and always will be very different from each other. I've yet to see that satisfactorily addressed.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way. But that have freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as it's what everybody else wants, too. And as long as it benefits the corporations and doesn't benefit anyone else.
More and more, I'm realizing that what the right-wingers here call "libertarianism" is really just a new way of them sugar-coating their fascistic leanings.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way.
Sounds like the OLD OLD joke about the communist revolutionary.
Commie: Under the current system, the rich capitalist has a horse, and rides where he goes. The poor man has no horse, and must walk. But come The Revolution, Comrades, everyone will have a horse. Everyone will ride. NO one will walk.
Worker: But I hate horses. I'm allergic. I enjoy walking. I don't like to ride.
Commie: Come The Revolution, Comrade, you WILL LEARN TO LIKE IT!
Tyranny is tyranny, then and now and in the future, whether left or right wing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The funny thing is what happens when you start pursuing the complications that might arise in a libertarian society. OK - everyone is free to do what they want. But what if people disagree? (The factory and the landowner.) Well, then you get some arbitrators to decide what's fair. How do you pick those deciders? How do you enforce their decision?
And on and on.
What the libertarian (if he/she actually attempt to address these questions rather than fleeing the conversation) comes up with begins more and more to describe the system we currently have. That's what happened with my conversation with _____ (Geezer?). He began to describe the jury system.
Except his system was libertarian because apparently it happens only in rural places where everyone was folksy and had the exact same ideas of right and wrong and fair.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way. But that have freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as it's what everybody else wants, too.
I don't think this is how they see it. I think that in their utopia everyone WANTS to behave the same way, because in their utopia there are no annoying things like people with other racial backgrounds and varying religions and women who want to have sex and artists who don't want to work 9 to 5 and skate-boarders who skate outside the suburban park...
Maybe it's me, but it seems like every example of a functioning libertarian society is set in a rural community of honest hard-working down-home white farmers with guns and trucks and dogs and good little women that stay home and good little minorities who stay in other countries.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We have had these discussions before, I remember them. There were a few libertarians prepared to actually paint a picture of the world as they would have liked it. Had some dammed good conversations as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It also assumes that the economy will always be healthy enough to be able to provide jobs to all of the population, so that if you are not working, you are choosing not to work. What happens in recessions and depressions when you get high unemployment, do you let people starve?
And if you rely only on charitable contribution, what happens to those people who don't attract charity capital because their cause isn't noble enough?
Yepper, that's how it works. There's also the concepts of "social Darwinism"-- and Malthusianism-- and meritocracy. If you're good enough, smart enough, hard working enough, you'll succeed. If not, you're a loser, and you know about survival of the fittest. Which implies non-survival of the not so fit.
NO matter how bad things are, the best folks will always find a job and survive-- even during the Great Depression some folks GOT rich-- proof of their superiority.
The Horatio Alger "rags to riches" story was a big deal in the 20's & 30's. It's a Heinlein staple theme too, in SF.
And as to those folks whose cause isn't noble enough, yeah, that's tough, too. Social Darwinism, Malthusian solution, yep, they die. And society is better off without 'em.
I really don't like being a Devil's Advocate for the Libertarians. I'd rather argue against them, that's where my sympathies lie, so I make arguments that aren't full strength. You and Kiki and Frem have all raised good questions or made good points. If nobody steps up pretty soon for the other side, I'll step in and make their arguments-- I understand their POV.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME