Libertarianism? An alternative way?

[renter]

Is this "philosophy" a viable alternative or a similar train of thought to liberalism? I see parallels in some ways such as social and/or cultural concerns; and not in others such as taxes. I have not made up my mind which one would be overall better. What do you think? Please pardon me if this has been discussed before. Thank you for your time and considerations.

[Eric J in MN]

1. If you believe the govt. should spend money on the military and

not on schools, health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor, then you may be a Libertarian.

If you prefer your tax dollars to be spent on books than on bombs, you may be a liberal.

[DerekG]

10. That's not necessarily true

Many principled libertarians are quite hostile to the military-industrial complex (go to antiwar.com, sometime); conversely, I've met many progressives who still buy into the very "guns n' butter" ethos that destroyed the Great Society liberals.

[CTLawGuy]

11. that's a conservative

"not on schools, health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor, then you may be a Libertarian."

a libertarian doesn't want the government to spend money at all.

[AmandaRuth]

2. certain libertarian ideas appeal to me

such as property rights, especially no taking of personal prop for corp gain, and I don't care how it improves the tax base or how blighted the area is. If I own it, and I don't want to sell it, no way should the government be able to take it from me for a corporation. Libertarians also want government out of personal decisions regarding our bodies, which I also agree with.

But other than that, I agree with Eric.

Maybe returning to the democratic populist roots is an option.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Libertarianism can never work and here is why.

Libertarianism's main claim is that unfettered markets work because they allocate goods and services most efficiently.

But the bottom line is, markets and societies work because the government is there to enforce a common set of rules and to correct externalities and other inefficiencies, as well as provide public goods.

Under libertarianism, markets would be controlled by those with the most power, because there would be no strong government to stand in their way. It's a fine system for angels, but this is real life.

[wli]

6. their claim is false

Without infinite numbers of participants, a market is an oligopoly. There is no such thing as a truly free market.

[Cats Against Frist]

28. That mirrors Rick Santorum's argument about morals in society

If someone isn't there to promote a patriarchal, ordered, heterosexual, religious, fixed-sex-roles society -- then all hell will break loose.

Of course it's a pipe dream to think that everyone will be the responsible consumer and the discriminating laborer necessary -- not to mention the honorable business person -- but it's no more crazy than trying to get 280 million people to skip off into the sunset, under a large, bureaucratic government and its Constitution.

The example of a people under a civil, democratic, secular, liberal government is beautiful. However, the strength of a person, when left to his or her own devices, to make choices, is even more beautiful than that.

*edited for spelling

[More Than A Feeling]

29. I agree, in most cases

However, suppose we have a company who makes widgets and sells them overseas. Unfortunately, making widgets involves rather large amounts of pollution. This harms people who aren't party to the contract between the widget maker and the people who buy widgets overseas. Now, if the government doesn't make laws that force the widget company to clean up their pollution or compensate those who suffer from it, will the company clean it up? No they won't, because it would hurt their bottom line to do so. Is it just that third parties should suffer such consequences when they had no say in the original contract? No, it is not.

Another example, suppose that the government stopped funding such things as roads. Could there be an efficient private solution to this problem? No, because it would make no sense to have competing roads going to the same places. There would be one company controlling the roads in a monopoly. Inefficient, and dangerous, to put that kind of power in the hands of a private concern.

Now, most everyone can agree that experiencing pollution is a bad thing. Most everyone can agree that roads are good things. That is why the government can and should make laws about these. Morals are trickier and much more uncertain. The lack of agreement there, and the belief that the individual has the right to live their life how they want if they do not harm others in specific ways, are the reasons why governments do not regulate all morality.

Economics is a separate matter, and somewhat different problems apply there, as illustrated above, IMHO.

[dcfirefighter]

30. See Post #32 n/t

[Zenlitened]

40. Agreed. Libertarianism is nothing more than a type of utopianism. n/t

[silverweb]

4. You might find this site informative.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

[lostnfound]

5. Welcome to DU!

There's plenty of overlap, especially in the face of the emerging totalitarian government we see today. Fascism is ultimately a form of totalitarianism, isn't it?

IMO some libertarian ideas have been skewed by big corporations away from clearly individual libertarianism toward corporate libertarianism. True libertarians don't want government handouts / subsidies to Exxon, for example, right? And the lack of any checks on military spending and foreign 'interventions' should offend the parts of libertarian thinking that prefers smaller government. But it's not an issue that a mega-corporate-funded-libertarian think tank would highlight.

And after seeing the frightening ways that the GOP is using "big government" to intrude and suppress individual freedoms, many liberals may be open to keeping the scale of government to something less threatening.

[joemurphy]

7. If Libertarianism were such a good idea, you'd think it'd have

been tried somewhere successfully. It hasn't. And that says something about it.

The closest thing to laissez-faire capitalism we've had in this country came in the era of the Robber Barons. It wasn't so good if you didn't happen to be one of the Barons. Ever read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? It'll give you an idea about what a wonderful world unlimited free enterprise capitalism can be.

There's a reason we have a Fed, an FDIC, an EPA, an FDA, OSHA, and the FTC.

I've always seen Libertarianism as a screwy mix of laissez faire capitalism and radical individualism. A doctrine that would supposedly welcome something like NAFTA and legalized prostitution simultaneously. Yet Libertarians seem to worship business enough that when it comes time to vote they usually go Republican and forget all about the social side of their philosophy. I've never seen what voting Republican gets Libertarians. But that's how most of them vote. I've also never seen a Libertarian cogently explain to me what a Libertarian society would actually be like or how it would be beneficial for the bulk of the citizenry.

[Starfury]

8. I don't think so. Property rights sound great at first, but...

...then you realize that libertarians pretty much believe that's all that matters. Libertarianism's biggest selling points are that it's simple, logical, and self-consistent. Unfortunately, those are also it's biggest flaws, IMO - it's simplicity and it's inflexible logic inevitably lead to conclusions that are moral deadends.

An individual's rights, liberties, privileges, etc. are soley derived from ownership of property. So, the more you own, the more rights you enjoy. If you're fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family, you automatically have more rights than if you are born into a poor family. So, we're basically talking about a form of social Darwinism.

And since corporations are considered to be people, and since they are far richer than mortal human beings (except for a few families like the Bushes), corporations will basically have all the rights in a libertarian society. And since libertarians feel that government is the source of all evil in the world, there's no one to be the advocate of the citizens.

In other words, if libertarian principles were truly put in place, I don't see how it could lead to anything other than corporatism, with 99.999% of the citizens effectively living as wage-slaves.

Even worse, if you take the concept of ownership to it's logical conclusion as many good libertarians do, your body is your ultimate possession. So, if you can't pay your bills, and you don't have anything else to sell, you can sell yourself. In other words, slavery of the poor is perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

So, while it may seem ok on the surface, I feel that libertarism (similar to conservatism) is a morally bankrupt philosophy. (Conservatives use the phrase "ownership society" to push the same agenda.) Fortunately, I don't believe that it's possible to actually create a libertarian society in real life - it's too simplistic and naive. However, conservatives appear to be successfully incorporating the worst aspects of it into our society, which is a major reason why America is getting so screwed up today (IMO).

The website given in post #4 (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html) is an excellent resource for understanding the flaws and fallacies of libertarianism.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I say all this as a former member of the Libertarian Party. But I've seen the light... :) )

[GracieM]

16. "So, we're basically talking about a form of social Darwinism."

I think some (many?) libertarians would not shy away from the label social Darwinism. If you don't worry about the plights of others, social Darwinism doesn't sound that bad. THe problem with social Darwinism is when you care about other people.

[Starfury]

23. True. But libertarians DO care about people!

They care about themselves! :)

They're the noble capitalists (a la Ayn Rand's characters from Atlas Shrugged) who will naturally rise to the top becuase of their superior work ethic and philosophy. Anyone else is a parasite riding on their coat tails.

The fact that it's a greedy and self-centered philosophy is not viewed as a flaw - rather, it's considered the highest virtue. (I've yet to meet the libertarian who believes that he won't rise to the top, that the best he can be is a cog in someone else's machine.)

[toddaa]

24. Ayn Rand != Libertarian

Libertarians believe that government's sole function is to kill people or to put them in jail. That's about all government can really effectively do. Especially big government. Look at GW. The antithesis of of a libertarian. The flaw in your argument is that you automatically equate laissez faire capitalism with libertarianism. It's a common misperception in the U.S., due to the prominence of the Libertarian Party.

A libertarian isn't necessarily selfish, although they do seem to be the most vocal. What they all are, however, is anti-State. Anarcho-syndicalism is the antithesis of anarcho-capitalism.

And for the record, Ayn Rand hated libertarianism.

[rman]

9. Which kind of Libertarianism? To many RW masquerading as libertarians

[Joe Power]

12. In my experience...

...most folks who identify themselves as Libertarians are just Republicans who want to be able to smoke dope legally. To accomplish this, most voted for Bush, proving yet again that our drug laws don't work.

[toddaa]

13. Yep, Noam Chomsky is a Republican

You do realize that Noam Chomsky classifies himself as a libertarian?

[rman]

15. Actually Chomksy classifies himself as a anarcho-syndicalist n/t

[toddaa]

19. The original definition of libertarianism

Stop reading Ayn Rand and start reading Emma Goldman.

[rman]

20. I'v never read Ayn Rand

[toddaa]

22. You're not missing much

Unless, of course, you like turgid prose and egomania.

[rman]

17. ok, you are part correct;

Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky?
Richard Wall
LewRockwell.com, August 17, 2004
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040817.htm

<snip>

V.ii Chomsky and Libertarianism

First, a brief explanation. The description ‘libertarian’ is claimed by both ‘left-libertarians’ and ‘right-libertarians.’ Left-libertarians and left-anarchists, including Chomsky, see libertarian socialism (or non-aggressive, non-violent anarchism) as the true legacy of classical liberalism, while anarcho-capitalists and libertarians of the right, because of their focus on economics, tend to see ‘libertarian socialism’ as a contradiction in terms: for them, libertarian is diametrically opposed to collectivist, and socialism is by definition collectivist.

"I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality – which is rare…."
- Noam Chomsky, in an interview entitled "Noam Chomsky on Anarchism," December 1996


In the same excerpt, however, Chomsky goes on to say, "I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings." Here he is referring to the alleged inability of anarcho-capitalists to admit that concentrations of private power (as found, for example, in large American and multinational corporations) can be as bad or worse than the coercive power of the state. As far as Chomsky is concerned, this is the additional and vital humanistic element in his preferred, leftist form of anarchism, as opposed to right-anarchism or anarcho-capitalism.

=======

But then there's also this, where Chomksy is in debate with Foucault:

"If it is correct, as i believe it is,
that a fundamental element of human nature
is the need for creative work, for creative inquiry,
for free creation, without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions,

then of course it will follow that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realized.

A federated, decentralized system of free associations incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what i refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me it is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine."

- Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent"

[toddaa]

21. Anarcho-syndicalism is libertarianism

At least it was up until Murray Rothbard hijacked the word.

[Joe Power]

25. Don't care

I said, "in my experience." And, as was pointed out below, there are many types of folks who identify with that term. Most of the ones I've known, and I've known a few, tend to be pot smokers who lean right and feel that claiming that title makes them above the fray. Furthermore, despite the truth of what I said, it was a joke.

[Armstead]

14. It's an ideal. Good in some ways, bad in others.

Libertarianism is like Socialism. They are mirror images of each otehr as ideals. One puts the government at the center of society, the other puts the individual at the center.

Neither the modern version of the "left" or "right" really can lay sole claim to libertarianism. What we usually think of as either liberal/progressive or conservative both borrow on elements of libertarianism, as well as elements of socialism.

Like socialism, pure libertarianism can't work in the real world because it contains the seeds of its own destruction in human nature. With socialism, political power becomes corrupting and oppressive. With libertarianism, economic power becomes corrupting and oppressive.

However, like socialism, libertarianism also contains valuable -- and necessary -- elements.It's emphasis on personal liberty is a necessary ingredient in a democracy.

There are a lot of paradoxes in the modern political equation. Although it is labeled as "liberal," for exzample, the pro-choice position on abortion is actually more of a libertarian position, because it emphasizes individual freedom and choice over government intrusion. But, at the otehr end of the spectrum, the pro-gun position of the NRA is also libertarian.

IMO, the right wing corporate conservative GOP has been more effective at using the libertarian instinct in Americans than progressives, liberals and Democrats. But the GOP right is no more libertarian than we are.

[GracieM]

18. Libertarian vs anarchist

A lot of attacks on libertarianism are made by taking libertarian logic to its extreme: anarchy. However, most libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians don't necessarily want no government and no laws so that individuals can reign supreme. Many simply want less government than our current system. Less government in evry aspect of society. But less government does not equal no government.

[JHBowden]

26. Libertarianism is just a flavor of liberalism

Generally there isn't much difference as a philosophy, except libertarians tend to be minimalist about governmental institutions and regulations. Conceivably one could be a liberal that generally opposed socialism but allowed government a role where it was reasonable.

As far as their membership is concerned, the LP has a lot of extremists that want to sell off national parks, privatize sidewalks and stuff. Politically, they're dead in the water.

[Cats Against Frist]

27. Of course everyone is going to fill your head with bullshit

about libertarianism, but I consider myself to be a libertarian, and I neither want babies to get carried off by vampires or CEOs to wear people skins to Bohemian Club meetings.

I believe in personal responsibility. I simultaneously believe in minarchy, and the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- and, I'm something of an elitist and a segregationsist. That said, I'm also communitarian -- and believe that people should govern themselves in small groups.

The small group I would choose would most likely be a socialist-communal type, organic, self-sustaining, with a few technological things -- like the Internet, of course -- but would be parasitic -- meaning that we would live off of those who are willing to be human capital (which may be necessary for technological advance) -- like the "core 'muricans." For instance, I can knit socks, all day, but march into a hospital for laproscopic surgery, or something. I would like my group to de-emphasize the "individual family home," in favor of the commune. At the same time, I encourage capitalists, and the masses that allow themselves to be used by them, to continue using their freedom to exploit and be exploited.

When I was a state socialist, I believed in saving human kind from itself -- something big, abstract, etc. Sit in the parking lot of a McDonald's and watch the SUVs roll through, for a day, and tell me that that philosophy is not crazy. I believe we're all equal -- all equally human and damned and brilliant and disabled, and empty and full, and capable and lost. It is each of our destinies to find our way. Ultimately, it is up to me to find mine. It is up to me to create a local sphere, where I'm effective, where I can nurture, where I'm heard -- where I can help. It is up to me to purchase things that steward the Earth, that help give me a healthy body. It is up to me to work for good and fair people. It is up to me to provide, in every way, for the child I've raised.

What drove me to libertarianism, from state socialism, was illustrated by Rick Santorum, today, in his freak-out interview. He called the left's definition of freedom of the individual "too permissive," and said that people shouldn't be running around doing what makes them happy. I say -- why not? And where Rick is sorely mistaken is that the left actually has this philosophy. I think that desegregation, "PC"-ism, and some liberal tenets are no different from the retarded shit that Republicans want people to believe. As a postmodernist rationalist, I shy away from all forms of authoritarianism -- particularly those that come from a large, wasteful, distant top-down bureucracy. I shy away from the collective mind fuck of "national consciousness," and "brand consciousness." Even the national political sphere makes me uncomfortable -- but, as I said, above -- I am as much a failure, as anyone. I am no savior. I am no liberator. I am no guardian angel. I will help, when I can, with what I have -- but to imagine myself working toward the deliverance of 280 million people is fucking ludicrous.

I am a libertarian.


edit: left a "not" out & a "de" out

[really annoyed]

31. You admit to being a segregationsist?

Please tell me your post is a terrible joke.

But, by personal experience, every libertarian I know is racist - they like to call themselves "anti-PC" - I like to call them immoral jerks.

[Cats Against Frist]

33. How do "segregation" and "racism" go hand in hand?

I'm very anti-racist. Racists make me sick -- and I don't even think that segregationism HAS to be about race. As I mentioned, in my post -- I'm a minarchist -- almost tribal, and I think that small groups, who have a lot in common, should be as self-governing, as possible. I also think that right of association is a part of freedom. I am, as a poet, and a postmodernist, also "anti-PC," because it is an arbitrarily imposed construct, intended to censor freedom.

[dcfirefighter]

32. Liberty & Economics

I consider myself a libertarian (note the lack of capitalization, it's important), a particular form of left-libertarianism, to be exact.

To paraphrase a wiki contributor, I believe in the moral basis for socialism, in that everyone should have an equal right to access of nature, but maintain a belief in the absolute right of private ownershp of the products of human labor.

And, as a caveat, I'll say that I tend to stray from my freedom-based ideology as the units of government get smaller. You could almost call me a communualist when it comes to my friends and family.

But, to maximise individual freedoms, we cannot give up a (democratically controlled) government in favor of a corporate-run existence. Most of the people in my camp tend to believe that mega-corporations tend to NEED government to maintain their size, as most of them are well past the point of diminishing returns for economies of scope & scale.

I dispute the idea that government can regulate to effectively control business activity, mostly because business activity can largely control government.

As to how (a form of) libertarianism could work:
The Laissez-Faire economies proposed by most Libertarians is an open-loop process. Wealth begets wealth. Some wealthy fall, some poor make it rich, but if you were a betting man, you'd bet that a guy who starts out ahead is going to wind up further ahead.

Geolibertarianism closes that loop, by advocating the taxation of wealth. Very importantly though, they advocate the taxation of only those particular forms of wealth based on government license, rather than Lockean definitions of property. The upshot is that land titles, patent rights, pollution rights, water rights, timber rights, drilling rights, etc. all require renumeration to the government that provides them.

In the extreme case of geolibertarianism, the government should collect the full value of all these rights, other forms allow only a sufficient amount to run government. In the case of full collection, the surplus collected should be returned in equal shares to all citizens, in the form of a dividend. I've seen several estimates of this dividend (in the U.S.) that wind up north of $10K a person per year. Pretty egalitarian.

There are a few neat side effects from taking such government generated values:
It becomes more expensive to pollute
Labor becomes untaxed, so employment and therefore wages should rise
Capital isn't tax favored v Labor, so Labor intensive industries benefit - raising employment & thus wages
Extraction becomes more expensive than recycling
We use land, water, air, etc. more efficiently (due to having to pay full value for them)
Housing becomes cheaper, because land isn't held out of use speculatively
Cities grow up, rather than out, reducing transport costs
Cities recoup their investment(s) in transit, public safety, education, and other public goods
There's very little speculative value in real estate - therefore no bubbles, no corrections, no crashes
-- many economists think that all recessions originate in real estate

PS no real libertarian likes a $600B military budget, or foreign intervention

A pretty good Democratic site with geolibertarian influences is the Democratic Freedom Caucus

[alfredo]

34. As long as I don't have to read or talk about Ayn Rand.

[NAO]

36. Can we at least listen to the unabridged audio book of "Atlas Shrugged"?

[ToeBot]

37. You try to frighten me. Admit so, sir.

This is some new form of torture. Say it, Brother Sir. -Alexander Du Large

[alfredo]

38. I'd rather rip out my own fingernails.

[NAO]

35. Economic Coersion...how I went from Libertarian to Far Left Democrat

I am still a libertarian, I just consider the economic coercion of the so called "free market" to be an act of aggression against me and therefore a legitimate use of government force.

When a person is seveal mortgage payments behind and has a family to feed, and they enter into employment negotiations with a corporation that is flush with millions in capital, they are not a free agent.

Any employment contract entered into in these circumstances should be considered a contract of adhesion. The longer the market is "free" from government interference the less free it becomes as more and more people are forced into the underclass as they battle each other in "free market competition" that ends up in a bidding war for who will take the LEAST pay for a given job.

And that is how I went from being a libertarian to a far left democrat, without changing my fundamental ideology. I still believe that government coercion is only justified in response to coercion; I just consider the economic coercion of a "free market" economy with people who own but do not work and others who work but do not own to be a more insidious and injurious form of coercion than physical coercion.

[1932]

39. Sports analogy: Democrats believe that government should be a fair referee

of the competing interests between buyers and sellers, workers and employees, etc. Republicans believe that the referee should work for the team willing to pay them the most money.

Liberterians believe there should be no referee and that the side with the most power should make the rules. The outcome is the same as Republicans would have. The richest and most powerful interests would eventually dominate.

[MadHound]

41. There are some things I like about libertarianism,

Mainly their philosophy on social issues, which I agree with for the most part.

However their economic models are pie in the sky, the ultimate in laisse ferre crony capitalism, and if implemented, would destroy this country.