So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 8 of 21

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:14 PM

And apropos of nothing...

I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Made me sad at the number of folks we've lost, and at the loss of civility in even pretty heated discussions.
Well, there was a lot less rappy-and-PN-and Zit-posting.

You're right- the boards were better then!

BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).

I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.

Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.

So.

Any comments?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

In a strange serendipity, there's an article about current libertarians in the Washington Post today. Since the Post has gone 'pay-per-view', I'll post the whole thing.

How perfectly libertarian of them. Maybe they're not as liberal/socialist/Commie as I thought they were, them bein' on the left-wing of the left-wing MSM, and all. After all, how does it benefit them to give their stuff away?

GEEZER

Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
After all, how does it benefit them to give their stuff away?

The internet business model has it that folks who want to advertise on their site will pay them for the privilege, and that will pay for the costs of producing the site. Maybe that's not working for them.

All I know is that if you don't have a subscription to the ink-and-paper Washington Post, you have to (or will soon have to) pay to access most of it on-line.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Friday, August 2, 2013 12:08 AM

Quote:
BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).
I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.
Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.
So.
Any comments?

I'm trying to work my way thru them, but I've been busy and the little time I have away from work I've been plagued by a set of muscle spasms in my back, neck, shoulder and arm. Makes it painful to stand, sit at a desk, or even lie down for that matter. I took off from work bc between the pain and the painkillers (which only made me sleepy but didn't do jack for the spasms) I wasn't getting much done. Won't do much here, either, for now.

Quote:
I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.

I don't know who you else you misunderstand, but you cretainly misunderstand me. My view of societies has always tended more towards systems analysis.

Let me give you an example: even today, under rampant and heavily reinforced corporatism, MOST people don't behave like corporatists. They go to work, they tend to their families, they care about their neighborhoods or their friends, they do little things. Yet DESPITE the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are rather usually decent folk- not ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts, and productive (if given a job) the system does not reflect THEM or their concerns. It's not set up for them ie. us. The reality is that about 700 people own half of the world's assets, that's such a tiny fraction of the world's population that you have to wonder (or at least I do) how an entire system can be set up for the benefit 0.00001% of the population.

In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power. There are other forces at work besides "how people feel" which drive economies: economies of scale, division of labor, the creation and ownership of "money", the desire for highly technological goods and the far-fling trade required to make it heppn- that nearly all economic activity would occur out of sight of nearly everyone.

I find the idea you can change society by changing people's minds to be very narrow-scoped thinking. Libertarianism, as far as I've read, doesn't address system-wide interactions. But I'll keep reading.

GEEZER

Friday, August 2, 2013 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
BTW, I posted a basic definition of what the heck libertarianism is (cribbed from Wiki but close enough for a start), and defined where in the libertarian spectrum I stand (Propertarian, Minarchist).
I've also expressed opinions on a couple of hypothetical situations.
Frem has kindly provided a path to previous discussions.
So.
Any comments?
I'm trying to work my way thru them, but I've been busy and the little time I have away from work I've been plagued by a set of muscle spasms in my back, neck, shoulder and arm. Makes it painful to stand, sit at a desk, or even lie down for that matter. I took off from work bc between the pain and the painkillers (which only made me sleepy but didn't do jack for the spasms) I wasn't getting much done. Won't do much here, either, for now.

Sorry to hear you are having such problems. Truly hope that you can find a solution to them. I've had a lesser experience with joint pain, but nsaids seem to have controlled it pretty well. Hope you can find such an easy resolution.

Quote:
Quote:
I was talking to Madame Geezer last night about the fact that so many of the anti-libertarians here seemed to think that without government, even folks steeped in libertarian philosophy would turn into ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts. She noted that this seemed to be like the cohort of Muslims who believe that you have to cover a woman's body from head to toe, lest a good man see some bare flesh and fall to his lustful urges.
I don't know who you else you misunderstand, but you cretainly misunderstand me. My view of societies has always tended more towards systems analysis.

This was not aimed at you. I just saw a lot of this in the previous threads that Frem cited. I'd guess you could find some such by other folks earlier in this thread.

Quote:
Let me give you an example: even today, under rampant and heavily reinforced corporatism, MOST people don't behave like corporatists. They go to work, they tend to their families, they care about their neighborhoods or their friends, they do little things. Yet DESPITE the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people are rather usually decent folk- not ravening, raping, killing, looting beasts, and productive (if given a job) the system does not reflect THEM or their concerns. It's not set up for them ie. us. The reality is that about 700 people own half of the world's assets, that's such a tiny fraction of the world's population that you have to wonder (or at least I do) how an entire system can be set up for the benefit 0.00001% of the population.

Seems to me, on a brief reading of both systems, that you're conflating corporatism with fascism. Seems to me that the folks currently making lots of money are often doing so in collusion with whatever government they're under. Frem might note (and I have no argument) the role of the U.S. government in strikebreaking and anti-union actions in the last century or so, for example.

Quote:
In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power.

Not sure I agree. If a good majority of folks believed that they were sovereign individuals who had complete control of themselves and their property, and that any aggression - be it physical, financial, etc. - against themselves or their property could be responded to with force (legal or physical) then any concentration of power would have to play by the libertarian rules or be subject to retribution.

Now, in my libertarian world, claiming the Propertarian and Minarchist philosophies, there would be just enough government to provide a judicial system to adjudicate b

SIGNYM

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:16 AM

This is going to be short, but....

Quote:
economies of scale, division of labor, etc., have existed in pretty much all forms of government, from monarchies, to dictatorships, to democracies. The way they interact with society depends, it seems to me, on "how people feel" at that time.

The fact that they have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.

Quote:
Seems to me that if a substantial majority of folks believed that they had sovereign rights to themselves and their property

But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.

Quote:
that the limited government existed mostly to support that belief, that a lot of the things you fear might not come about.

What I fear is centralization/ monopolization, extreme disparity of wealth, and loss of control of our individual and collective futures to the will of the vanishingly tiny minority.

And of course they'll come about. It already has. It has throughout history, and will continue. Even if you assume "good fortune" to be totally random, with (for example) stock market winners and losers distributed by chance, each time you spin the dial there will be some winners and some losers. For most people, it kind of averages out, but SOME people quite by chance become phenominally wealthy. And that's just by chance.

That's not counting that some people are quite deliberate in their acquisition of power, and that monopolies just happen to be more efficient (more profitable, more capital available for further acqusitions) than small competing companies, and that the capitalism of small competing businesses is an unstable state. It has never existed for long anywhere, under ANY system, once roads and money made trade possible. The most stable state of production is centralized monopolism. Some people are just extremely efficient at riding the trend. (The only thing that I've seen that breaks up these trends is natural disaster or invasion.)

to continue...

Quote:
If a good majority of folks believed that they were sovereign individuals who had complete control of themselves and their property, and that any aggression - be it physical, financial, etc. - against themselves or their property could be responded to with force (legal or physical) then any concentration of power would have to play by the libertarian rules or be subject to retribution.

As I've said, my reading of world economic history is that all economies tend towards monopolies and centralization. It's possible that a monopoly could develop, entirely without aggression, which legitimately owned everything of value in an area- water, land, roads, etc. This monopoly could simply make it impossible for dissenters to exist, in a passive way, simply by refusing to trade for water and transportation (for example). What then? What is your recourse, since aggression isn't an issue?

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 2, 2013 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In my thinking, even if you managed to convince the vast majority that they SHOULD be libertarians, and assuming they successfully managed the mental and emotional transformation, there is NOTHING in the libertarian philosophy (nor in primitive anarchism) that could prevent or erode such a concentration of power.

Other than that, due to that mental/emotional transformation, otherwise known as being sane - even the attempt to create such a concentration would be viewed as a form of mental illness, thus resulting in a dearth of folk willing to advance that cause for em, cause without willing triggermen, your average would be tyrant is in fact less dangerous than your average mugger, since they prefer not to get their own hands dirty.

-F

GEEZER

Friday, August 2, 2013 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is going to be short, but....

Really? Looks like it's gonna keep me busy for a while. ;<) May answer in chunks.

Quote:
The fact that they (economies of scale, division of labor, etc.,) have existed throughout a number of kinds of governments indicates to me that they are primary drivers and that the governments which sit on top of them are secondary. There is what seems to be a universal drive at work: larger numbers of people are collectivized, technology accumulates, division of labor becomes finer and finer, the amount of energy utilized per capita increases, economies of scale dictate the largest-possible centralized production, and the economic hierarchy becomes very tall.

Even given this might be true (and I may have a stab at that later), and it's inevitable that all systems fall into such an economic hierarchy, it'd seem to me that a libertarian type government would be slower to fall, and perhaps not fall as far, as some others.

A lot of it still seems to me to go back to the philosophy of the people. Currently I see lots of folks with the "I'll get mine any way I can, screw everyone else, and if the government can help me - through sweetheart deals, laws that go my way, subsidies, etc., - even better." philosophy. I'd prefer a "I'll get mine, but not by screwing anyone else, or by begging/bribing/coercing the government to give it to me. And I expect everyone else to act the same way towards me." view. It'd seem to me that the majority of folks thinking this way would, at the very least, slow down what you consider the inevitable decline to the few mega-rich, in collusion with the government, running everything for their own benefit.

Quote:
But that's the thing: We DON'T "own" our property. Oh sure, I may own an Android or a Blackberry, but I don't own the lithium mine that produces the lithium to make the batteries. Our "ownership" of items is so fragmented and intertwined as to be trivial, meaningless.

Why should I have to own the lithium mine? Someone else, or a group of someone elses, owns it and sells their lithium to the component maker, who then owns it. He sells completed components with that lithium in it to a smartphone manufacturer, who now owns that bit of lithium. I buy the smartphone, and now the lithium is mine (Mine I tell you!!! Bwahhh Ha Ha!).
In Geezertopia, each owner in this chain understands that it's not a good idea, from both philosophical and business standpoints, to screw over the folks they deal with.

Quote:
What I fear is centralization/ monopolization, extreme disparity of wealth, and loss of control of our individual and collective futures to the will of the vanishingly tiny minority.

But it seems to me that this is pretty much what a libertarian government would be designed to resist.

First, most everyone would be very concerned about their individual rights, and the individual rights of everyone else.

Second, they would understand that aggression (physical, financial, whatever) against an individual was wrong, and would be willing to use force (in my Minarchist Geezertopia it'd probably be force of the limited government to enforce fair contracts and act against aggression) to stop it.

Third, folks feeling that way would act as a check on the government getting too big or powerful.

Quote:
And of course they'll come about. It already has. It has throughout history, and will continue.

And when we reach this point I have to ask, since you think it's all doomed to go down the road of monopoly and the few ultra-powerful running things, no matter what anyone does, why do you care whether the government during this period is Libertarian, Anarchist, democratic, a dictatorship, a commune, or what? Why the big animus against Libertarians as opposed to the others? Considering that most of the corporatist/fascist monopolies form in pl

SIGNYM

Friday, August 2, 2013 2:56 PM

Quote:
...even the attempt to create such a concentration would be viewed as a form of mental illness

I guess that is where anarchism and libertarianism differ: The rules of the game. My reading of libertarianism (so far) is that as long as you gained your ownership of stuff "legitimately", it wouldn't matter whether you were a monopoly of vital resources or not. The point of libertarianism seems to be to protect "legitimate ownership", the point of anrachism seems to be to prevent very tall hierarchies. Correct?

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE