The Trouble With Libertarianism

[trivas7]

Here (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/) is an article that explodes the limitations of libertarianism -- but by implication, left libertarianism as well. IMO the jist of it is that libertarianism, whether of the far right or left, is utopianism that never gets much traction in the real world.

Excerpt:

Libertarianism has adherents on the left, too—they just organize around different issues. Whereas righty libertarians stew over taxes and bailouts, lefty libertarians despise de facto suspensions of habeas corpus, surveillance, and restrictions on whom you can marry. It’s not surprising that the biggest victories of the right and the left in the last weeks of this lame-duck session of Congress were about stripping down government—tax cuts and releasing the shackles of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

No political movement deserves to be defined by its extreme elements. (For Democrats, that way lies socialism.) But middle-of-the-road libertarianism is already pretty far out. “The dominant strain of libertarianism these days is—and I’m not using these words in any kind of pejorative sense—radical and utopian,” says Lindsey. But if Libertopia is the goal, no one knows how to get there. Lindsey compares libertarians who preach purity to the “Underpants Gnomes” in South Park, a popular analogy in wonk circles: “Step one, articulate Utopia. Step three is Utopia. Step two is a big question mark.”

[hatzel]

When Americans talk about libertarianism, like the Libertarian Party...what are they actually even talking about? I mean, what does the Libertarian Party advocate? For some reason I feel that Americans use the lib-isms somewhat different than we do in Europe, so...I can't really know what the trouble with the thing is until I know what the thing is :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

“Step one, articulate Utopia. Step three is Utopia. Step two is a big question mark.”

This is what I have always thought about Objectivists and die-hard Libertarians. THey tell you how Capitalism is the greatest system, then when you point out the flaws they say: "Oh well that's because that's not capitalism - that's because big government is doing this or that and upsetting the golden magical balance of PURE capitalism."

So if capitalism is perfect and capitalists are making money, then we must have capitalism, right? But there are problems and when you ask a libertarian why, it's because we don't have pure capitalism, I ask them how they plan on getting rid of the government and then there is just silence or some vague thing about voting in the right people. So when it really comes down to it, these anti-government "pro-capitalists" really have a philosophy that has nothing to do with achieving a better and "perfectly" rational or natural system... their philosophy is an after-the-fact justification and apology for the status-quo.

[Rooster]

I don't think it's wrong to dream of utopia and then think about trying to implement it. I can dream about riding water skis or having sex with lots of different women. I can maybe work out ways for me to do both. Isn't the point of this forum is for us to discuss steps one and two anyway?

[Jimmie Higgins]

When Americans talk about libertarianism, like the Libertarian Party...what are they actually even talking about? I mean, what does the Libertarian Party advocate? For some reason I feel that Americans use the lib-isms somewhat different than we do in Europe, so...I can't really know what the trouble with the thing is until I know what the thing is :rolleyes:

The Libertarian Party runs candidates - I guess they would be the "reformist" Libertarians.

The OP article is a bit confusing because at one point there's talk of right and left libertarians and I think they mean the conservative and liberal wings of the pro-capitalism Libertarian Party. I always thought that Right-libertarian meant pro-capitalist Libertarian Party types and Left-Libertarian just meant Anarchist.

Anyway, there do seem to be two types of people attracted to the Libertarian Party: the anti-tax tea-party type and the obnoxious undergrad who likes to smoke pot but also thinks he's going to become really rich someday.


I don't think it's wrong to dream of utopia and then think about trying to implement it. I can dream about riding water skis or having sex with lots of different women. I can maybe work out ways for me to do both. Isn't the point of this forum is for us to discuss steps one and two anyway?No, I think there is too little Utopian imagination these days... like people can't even imagine a better society. However, a utopia for a Libertarian Party die-hard is the same as my distopia: the only functions the governmnet has is military and police/courts. Schools, Fire Depts, Hospitals, Utilities, Parks, Wilderness, EVERYTHING is privatized and sold off.

[trivas7]

The OP article is a bit confusing because at one point there's talk of right and left libertarians and I think they mean the conservative and liberal wings of the pro-capitalism Libertarian Party. I always thought that Right-libertarian meant pro-capitalist Libertarian Party types and Left-Libertarian just meant Anarchist.

The writer means by left libertarianism socialist libertarianism; IMO at least that is the implication and why I mention the article at all.


When Americans talk about libertarianism, like the Libertarian Party...what are they actually even talking about? I mean, what does the Libertarian Party advocate? [...]

here. (http://www.lp.org/platform)

[ComradeMan]

I'd rather dream of utopia and try to work towards it than submissively accept dystopia.

[Dean]

It’s not surprising that the biggest victories of the right and the left in the last weeks of this lame-duck session of Congress were about stripping down government—tax cuts and releasing the shackles of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Bullshit. They were about cutting spending where cuts hurt the working class. You'll note that in recent years, including the very positions backed by the new-comer congress, that corporate welfare is simply being expanded. This hasn't changed.


No political movement deserves to be defined by its extreme elements. (For Democrats, that way lies socialism.)
Nope. Democrats, like the Republicans, support a centralized system of government managed by business elites. There is no worker-management in the works of either agenda, and any welfare expansion for the working class is always matched with a far larger expansion of corporate welfare.


But middle-of-the-road libertarianism is already pretty far out. “The dominant strain of libertarianism these days is—and I’m not using these words in any kind of pejorative sense—radical and utopian,” says Lindsey. But if Libertopia is the goal, no one knows how to get there. Lindsey compares libertarians who preach purity to the “Underpants Gnomes” in South Park, a popular analogy in wonk circles: “Step one, articulate Utopia. Step three is Utopia. Step two is a big question mark.”
Mmm, South Park is written by libertarians anyhow. Not that such irony is reflected in the article, delaring once again how out of touch this editorial "analysis" is.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The writer means by left libertarianism socialist libertarianism; IMO at least that is the implication and why I mention the article at all.

"Libertarianism" is a radical, revolutionary socialist ideology which wishes ultimately wishes to abolish the authoritarian systems of government and capitalism replace it with a free association of workers based on principles of liberty (freedom to self-management of both labour and one's own life), equality (material, political and economic equality) and solidarity (co-operative labour). Some forms of libertarian socialism include Marxism (as originally hypothesised, not the Bolshevik reinterpretations), anarchism and left communism.

Hence, when the writer refers to libertarianism, s/he is either referring to (a) libertarian capitalism [aka oxymoron] or (b) social liberalism [government reforms, increased taxation, welfare state but topped off with liberal ideas about political correctness social equality - rights for minorities and all that]. Neither of these political ideologies have anything in common with libertarianism as was historically recognised. Believe it or not, the libertarian socialists ultimately want to abolish taxation and government regulation as well; we disagree with what constitutes a free market (the market isn't a free one if the state enforces private property rights), the means to achieve our ends and the system which should replace capitalism (this should be a free association of workers, not an unregulated capitalist "free" market wet dream).

That said, if we share one thing remotely minute in common with both of these ideas it is perhaps the pacifism and an end to big brother and social oppression. However, this will only be a reality under a social anarchy.

Also I don't know that it is correct to describe anarchy as utopia since it is the only political ideology that accepts humans are not perfect and suggests we strip the individual of the power and means (political power and/or private ownership over the means of production) to dominate and/or exploit others.

[freedom_fighter]

"Libertarianism" is a radical, revolutionary socialist ideology which wishes ultimately wishes to abolish the authoritarian systems of government and capitalism replace it with a free association of workers based on principles of liberty (freedom to self-management of both labour and one's own life), equality (material, political and economic equality) and solidarity (co-operative labour). Some forms of libertarian socialism include Marxism (as originally hypothesised, not the Bolshevik reinterpretations), anarchism and left communism.

Actually, Libertarianism is a consistent politically philosophy that emphasizes the individuals right to freedom in his own life, including economic matters. It is not socialist in any way, shape or form. Libertarianism supports the idea of free markets, where individuals are able to engage in trades mutually beneficial without interference from government. They believe in freedom of association, in trade as well as sexual relations. It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.

Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.

-Freedom Fighter

[#FF0000]

It is not socialist in any way, shape or form
Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.Wrong.

This is only true in America today. Libertarianism, historically, and presently in many places in Europe, is synonymous with Anarchism (Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, whatever)

This is less and less true nowadays, though, thanks to the Internet.


It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.

Holy loaded definitions, Batman.

[SpineyNorman]

Actually, Libertarianism is a consistent politically philosophy that emphasizes the individuals right to freedom in his own life, including economic matters. It is not socialist in any way, shape or form. Libertarianism supports the idea of free markets, where individuals are able to engage in trades mutually beneficial without interference from government. They believe in freedom of association, in trade as well as sexual relations. It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.

Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.

-Freedom Fighter


lol

[Os Cangaceiros]

The writer means by left libertarianism socialist libertarianism; IMO at least that is the implication and why I mention the article at all.

Nah. What the article means by "left libertarianism" is really civil libertarianism:


Libertarianism has adherents on the left, too—they just organize around different issues. Whereas righty libertarians stew over taxes and bailouts, lefty libertarians despise de facto suspensions of habeas corpus, surveillance, and restrictions on whom you can marry. It’s not surprising that the biggest victories of the right and the left in the last weeks of this lame-duck session of Congress were about stripping down government—tax cuts and releasing the shackles of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, Libertarianism is a consistent politically philosophy that emphasizes the individuals right to freedom in his own life, including economic matters.
So you're allowed to tell your boss he's terrible at his job while being high and wearing an "I LOVE PUSSY" shirt?
The workers are free to make their working conditions safe and clean?
It is not socialist in any way, shape or form. Libertarianism supports the idea of free markets, where individuals are able to engage in trades mutually beneficial without interference from government. They believe in freedom of association, in trade as well as sexual relations. It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism



Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.

History


-Freedom Fighter

no :thumbdown:

[PoliticalNightmare]

Actually, Libertarianism is a consistent politically philosophy that emphasizes the individuals right to freedom in his own life, including economic matters. It is not socialist in any way, shape or form. Libertarianism supports the idea of free markets, where individuals are able to engage in trades mutually beneficial without interference from government. They believe in freedom of association, in trade as well as sexual relations. It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.

Free trade is possible under socialism since it is merely the trading of goods and services without interference from a third body. They don't have to engage in the gift economy if they don't want but think about it logically, why buy what you can get for free? Capitalism, on the other hand is a system based upon private capital.


Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.

I take it you are right wing? Actually, libertarianism was first envisioned by anarcho-communist, Joseph DesJaques as far back as 1857. The term was then later used by several anarchist movements to try and escape the negative connotation associated with the word "anarchy" (namely chaos, disorder and unruley behaviour). Actually the right wing stole the word from us. I have to explain this a lot to the "libertarian" capitalist bunch...its getting tiring.


It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not

Actually socialism is an economic system where the workers seize democratic ownership and management over their respective line of trade and (under anarchism, AKA libertarian socialism) organise into free associations.

[trivas7]

Free trade is possible under socialism since it is merely the trading of goods and services without interference from a third body. [...]

Sounds like free market capitalism to me.



I take it you are right wing? Actually, libertarianism was first envisioned by anarcho-communist, Joseph DesJaques as far back as 1857. The term was then later used by several anarchist movements to try and escape the negative connotation associated with the word "anarchy" (namely chaos, disorder and unruley behaviour). Actually the right wing stole the word from us. I have to explain this a lot to the "libertarian" capitalist bunch...its getting tiring.

The meaning of words change.



Actually socialism is an economic system where the workers seize democratic ownership and management over their respective line of trade and (under anarchism, AKA libertarian socialism) organise into free associations.
This is just a slogan; no such economic animal has ever existed.

[#FF0000]

This is just a slogan; no such economic animal has ever existed.

Yeah, we know. That's why we're still around.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Sounds like free market capitalism to me.

Did I mention private property? (No.) In short its not capitalism unless there is private accumulation of capital. You can still have collectivised capital and free trade at the same time. So free trade is not synonymous with capitalism (a system of property rights where individual private entities have the responsibility of economic calculations and market decisions). Coincidentally, private accumulation is backed by legal contracts enforced by the state. Also, before the rise of mercantilism in the US, 80% of US citizens were self-employed and for the most part farmers. In other words, they weren't wage labourers and although there was free trade before the state intervened in the economy, the US was pre-industrialised and therefore not capitalist.


The meaning of words change.

And twisted, might I add.


This is just a slogan; no such economic animal has ever existed.

No? So Catalonia in 1936 wasn't a self-managed collectivised economy? There was no Paris Commune, Kronstadt and Petrograd or Ukranian Free Territory? Christ. What have I been researching.

Basically, all we were trying to explain is that the article only vaguely criticises (a) a social libertarian stance and (b) a right wing "libertarian" stance. It doesn't touch upon libertarian socialism, which is a completely different beast, in the slightest.

[Dean]

Looks like Trivas7 has given up another one of his anti-socialist chimeras.

[graffic]

Actually, Libertarianism is a consistent politically philosophy that emphasizes the individuals right to freedom in his own life, including economic matters. It is not socialist in any way, shape or form. Libertarianism supports the idea of free markets, where individuals are able to engage in trades mutually beneficial without interference from government. They believe in freedom of association, in trade as well as sexual relations. It is the opposite of socialism as socialism requires a centralized governmental authority that takes wealth from the productive and transfer it to people who are not.

Where do you guys get your information? Nowhere has libertarianism ever been defined as a socialist ideology.

-Freedom Fighter

This^^. Although when I studied politics last year as I understood "Libertarianism" has strands of right and left. Generally the "right" is free-market, small state ideology among other things whilst the "left" (which a is much less significant) is much closer to anarchism.

Right and Left are very different however in my experience every-time someone refers to "libertarianism" or regard themselves as "Libertarian" they are talking about the right wing side. I don't think they believe in any sort of utopia, they are nostalgic about the 50's - the 1850's that is.

[RGacky3]

The meaning of words change.


Except that libertarianism only means market fundementalism in America, strangely enough thats really the only place with market fundementalism.


This is just a slogan; no such economic animal has ever existed.

Yes it has, many times actually, and it exists today in different forms.

[Obzervi]

Libertarianism is stupid because its basically just unrestrained capitalism, and can only lead to feudalism.