Why are right-libertarians delusional when it comes to subversive art?

[RadioRaheem84]

Every one of my right-libertarian friends are extremely delusional in thinking that every social critique in film is libertarian in nature.

I had a libertarian friend once tell me that the clearly anti-corporate Moon with Sam Rockwell was ant-government and that the corporation represented big state/statism. :confused:

I let that one slide.

Next came one of my favorite shows The Wire, a show that was stated to be a radical social critique of capitalism by the creator himself. Time and time again he says in interviews that his show is an anti-free market show. Yet, the libertarians on the Reason.Com forum insist that the show is pro-capitalist and shows the banality of government, even though the show is showing the banaity of government when it's reduced to merely being a tool of powerful interests; hence a usual leftist critique.

Apparently, George Orwell's 1984 is a big favorite among the right libertarian crowd and they tout Orwell as a libertarian, when he openly stated as being a Democratic Socialist and wrote the book as a critique of the Soviet system which he despised because he felt it corrupted true socialism.

Libertarians are so desperate for social critique in film that points to their views, but the lack of it has them thinking that openly leftist filmmakers are unconsciously making "libertarian" films. They do not realize that the leftist critique of the State in a capitalist society is also a critique of capitalism (the state being part of the system).

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, right libertarians have The Aviator and Iron Man 1 & 2 :laugh:

Not to mention the disastrous Atlas Shrugged movie that came out this year....and vanished.

[L.A.P.]

It's because they're delusional enough to think that the state is antagonistic to the bourgeoisie. Honestly, how delusional do you have to be to think that?

[Jazzratt]

It's because they're delusional enough to think that the state is antagonistic to the bourgeoisie. Honestly, how delusional do you have to be to think that? Pretty fucking loopy.

Our local lolbertarians (if, indeed we have any at the moment) can correct me if I'm wrong but what you say is basically correct: their hilariously childish point of view is one of conflict between the state and capital (which is much like saying my left testicle is in conflict with my right) and therefore anything that criticises a state must be supportive of capital. It helps that a lot of the more dedicated loons believe that huge corporations and such wouldn't exist in the "TROO FREEE MARCKET" that they preach so can also co-opt anything with an explicitly anti-corporate/monopoly message.

[L.A.P.]

It helps that a lot of the more dedicated loons believe that huge corporations and such wouldn't exist in the "TROO FREEE MARCKET"

I love that cop-out, it's my favorite logical fallacy (if you can even call it that) that they use. "What about monopolies?" "Won't happen in the true free market." "What about high oil prices?" "Won't be in the free market." "What about poor people?" "Not in the free market."

[Klaatu]

I nailed my right wing libertarian friend last week: My argument is that in a Socialist economy, people are actually paid what they are truly worth, and get to hold on to that hidden part of their pay, called "capital" which they do not have in a capitalistic-controlled economy

His argument: In the free market, sans "government interference" (they use this line a lot) wages are "automatically correct," or something to that effect

My counterpoint: How can you justify $100 million CEO payouts in taxpayer-bailed-out corporations, and failing companies?

His response: "no one said the free market was perfect."

(Ahh - cracks in the foundation, have we?)

[beeman]

I nailed my right wing libertarian friend last week: My argument is that in a Socialist economy, people are actually paid what they are truly worth, and get to hold on to that hidden part, called "capital" which they do not have in a capitalistic-controlled economy

His argument: In the free market, sans "government interference" (they use this line a lot) wages are "automatically correct," or something to that effect

My counterpoint: How can you justify $100 million CEO payouts in taxpayer-bailed-out corporations, and failing companies?

His response: "no one said the free market was perfect."

(Ahh - cracks in the foundation, have we?)

His response should have been that capitalism/ laissez faire is based on competition. If there was a contract to pay someone that 100 million buckarooz and then the company fails the contract doesnt all of a sudden become invalid, and there is no going back.

[Franz Fanonipants]

collusion between state and capital makes libertarians super stupid about which is what is which.

[Napoleon Winston]

I nailed my right wing libertarian friend last week: My argument is that in a Socialist economy, people are actually paid what they are truly worth, and get to hold on to that hidden part of their pay, called "capital" which they do not have in a capitalistic-controlled economy

His argument: In the free market, sans "government interference" (they use this line a lot) wages are "automatically correct," or something to that effect

My counterpoint: How can you justify $100 million CEO payouts in taxpayer-bailed-out corporations, and failing companies?

His response: "no one said the free market was perfect."

(Ahh - cracks in the foundation, have we?)


The idea of "paid what their worth is true, to an extent.
People wont work unless the pay is worth their time.
Companies wont pay any more than they have to.

If a company hired person A who would only work for a higher pay over person B who would work for a lesser pay, they're wasting cash on A even though B values the job much more.
At the same time, neither person A or B are going to work at a job they dont value.
So everyone gets paid what their worth.

You cant justify $100 million payouts, because thats unjustifiable, and wouldn't happen in a true free market.

[Lobotomy]

The idea of "paid what their worth is true, to an extent.
People wont work unless the pay is worth their time.
Companies wont pay any more than they have to.

If a company hired person A who would only work for a higher pay over person B who would work for a lesser pay, they're wasting cash on A even though B values the job much more.
At the same time, neither person A or B are going to work at a job they dont value.
So everyone gets paid what their worth.

You're saying this all with the assumption that the employer and the potential employee have equal bargaining power. That is simply not true. A bourgeois individual and a proletarian individual will never have equal bargaining power under capitalism because one owns and controls capital while the other does not.

[eric922]

You're saying this all with the assumption that the employer and the potential employee have equal bargaining power. That is simply not true. A bourgeois individual and a proletarian individual will never have equal bargaining power under capitalism because one owns and controls capital while the other does not.
Good point. That is the whole purpose behind trade unions to try and even out the power, however as we've seen from all the union busting recently and right to work laws on the books the capitalist class is still more powerful.

[RGacky3]

The idea of "paid what their worth is true, to an extent.
People wont work unless the pay is worth their time.
Companies wont pay any more than they have to.


Well, a poor hungry person will work for a lot lot less and a lot harder than a wealthy wallstreet guy, so the "pay" thing is'nt universal.

Companies won't pay their workers more than they have to, but the executive that makes those decisions will pay themselves as much as they can.


If a company hired person A who would only work for a higher pay over person B who would work for a lesser pay, they're wasting cash on A even though B values the job much more.
At the same time, neither person A or B are going to work at a job they dont value.
So everyone gets paid what their worth.


Thats rediculous, both value their job BECAUSE THEY NEED IT, and have no control over compensation.

Unemployment goes up a couple percentage points, wages drop, did everyones work suddently get worth more?

Also executives give themselves huge Bonuses, did they become suddenly worth more?

Thats rediculous.


You cant justify $100 million payouts, because thats unjustifiable, and wouldn't happen in a true free market.

Yes it woud, and a true free market WILL NEVER EXIST, because its impossible, a market large enough to be capitalism necessarily requires a state, and that state will always work in the interest of the highest bidder.

[Kiev Communard]

You cant justify $100 million payouts, because thats unjustifiable, and wouldn't happen in a true free market.

The so-called "free market" actually never existed in human history, as pre-capitalist markets were regulated by local customs/traditions/will of the (feudal) rulers, and the capitalist market itself was created through the combination of state- and state-abetted violence within the national boundaries and conquest (i.e. "opening of the markets") beyond.

[Klaatu]

One thing the "free market libertarians" always neglect to mention is that the capitalist system is rife with organized crime.
And yet, the conservative American right wing refuses to do anything about this problem (nor even acknowledge it exists)

This is one of many reasons for the inherent problems of capitalism, and probably the main reason capitalism will ultimately fail.

[the Left™]

Every one of my right-libertarian friends are extremely delusional in thinking that every social critique in film is libertarian in nature.

I had a libertarian friend once tell me that the clearly anti-corporate Moon with Sam Rockwell was ant-government and that the corporation represented big state/statism. :confused:

I let that one slide.

Next came one of my favorite shows The Wire, a show that was stated to be a radical social critique of capitalism by the creator himself. Time and time again he says in interviews that his show is an anti-free market show. Yet, the libertarians on the Reason.Com forum insist that the show is pro-capitalist and shows the banality of government, even though the show is showing the banaity of government when it's reduced to merely being a tool of powerful interests; hence a usual leftist critique.

Apparently, George Orwell's 1984 is a big favorite among the right libertarian crowd and they tout Orwell as a libertarian, when he openly stated as being a Democratic Socialist and wrote the book as a critique of the Soviet system which he despised because he felt it corrupted true socialism.

Libertarians are so desperate for social critique in film that points to their views, but the lack of it has them thinking that openly leftist filmmakers are unconsciously making "libertarian" films. They do not realize that the leftist critique of the State in a capitalist society is also a critique of capitalism (the state being part of the system).

I think part of the issue is that in the mind of many vulgar libertarians the emotions and politics engendered in social criticism can be applied to themselves as well. When they watch a movie like 1984, which is clearly social commentary on authoritarian regimes or totalitarianism which can be applied broadly across the political spectrum, it validates their "big government" concerns.

Sorry that was a little convoluted, let me try to restate(I have been away from these materials and ideologies for some time so bear with me). For many people leftist criticism of society stops at the "government can fix the problems society has". Right-Libertarians are fed to believe this and bred to believe. In their mind the economy is capitalist, and the reason any issue with it is a failure is because of government interference in such a great system. There are no alternatives, no root problems with capitalism, no such thing as a "Libertarian Left" or a non-statist alternative to capitalism( ala "Government runs everything communism omgnoez!). So when films criticize state capitalism and criticize the ruling class structure of societies and the exploitative nature of the state as it pertains to the economy, many people, particularly the right-libertarian crowd who are extremely vindicated and confident in their beliefs, understand it merely as "This is a big, freedom-starving entity that needs to be killed".

Similar trends exist in libertarianism as a multi-spectrum philosophy I think though. Liberty not existing because of some authoritarian structure(for the right the state for the left the state and the market). So there is overlapping in the thought process of "Libertarians more broadly".

TL : DR
In essence I am arguing vulgar libertarians think movies that are social commentary on capitalism or other leftist topics apply to their beliefs is because on a very basic level some of the arguments of anarchism(exploitative, domination, control etc) can be bastardized into reactionary jargon and thought process.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good god, these right libertarians are so annoying.

One of my favorite shows, The Wire, was written by a self proclaimed social democrat who is critical of the State in a free market society. Instead of seeing what the director wanted everyone to see, these annoying libertarians I am arguing with insist that The Wire is the most conservative, libertarian show in the history of television!

They're touting David Simon, the creator, as some libertarian hero. I mean how delusional do you have to be in order to completely disregard the creator's vision and all the obvious points he makes in the show to come up with some idiotic take that the show is "unconsciously libertarian".

Do libertarians just have to have all the great social critiques out there?

I've even heard them praise There Will Be Blood as an entrepreneurial praising film!

What's next Upton Sinclair was a great libertarian writer because he challenged the collective corruption of the meat industry?

[Judicator]

One thing the "free market libertarians" always neglect to mention is that the capitalist system is rife with organized crime.
And yet, the conservative American right wing refuses to do anything about this problem (nor even acknowledge it exists)

This is one of many reasons for the inherent problems of capitalism, and probably the main reason capitalism will ultimately fail.

Organized crime thrives when government bans things like pot and heroin. Many libertarians favor decriminalization.

[RGacky3]

Organized crime thrives when government bans things like pot and heroin. Many libertarians favor decriminalization.

Like in Somalia?

[Blackscare]

Like in Somalia?

No, stupid, not like Somalia. Somalia doesn't have a functioning government and has something like 5 pseudo-states within it's borders that don't recognize each other. Drugs are defacto legal because there simply isn't any ability to enforce their banning. There is a world of difference between that and a stable government adopting rational drug policy and regulating the sale and use of drugs.




Hey, maybe we should ban water, I hear that is legal in Somalia as well. And just look how those people live.

[RGacky3]

No shit, my point was organized crime (or those type of violent grouops) are not dependant on the government banning things.

I am all for legalizing all drugs btw, my point was the "market" does'nt get rid of organized crime.

[Napoleon Winston]

Like in Somalia?

Its the lack of schools, police, and healthcare that are a problem in Somalia, deregulation and decriminalization has actually been working out (http://mises.org/daily/2066) relatively well (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/).

[L.A.P.]

Its the lack of schools, police, and healthcare that are a problem in Somalia, deregulation and decriminalization has actually been working out (http://mises.org/daily/2066) relatively well (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/).

Holy fucking shit.:laugh: A libertarian that's stooping down to the level of defending Somalia. You're actually linking to an article that says the clans that constantly fight for territory are benevolent. Wow.:ohmy:

[Rafiq]

I know people who've been to Somalia. It's arguably one of the worst countries in Africa. There is no economic growth there.

[Lobotomy]

Good god, these right libertarians are so annoying.

One of my favorite shows, The Wire, was written by a self proclaimed social democrat who is critical of the State in a free market society. Instead of seeing what the director wanted everyone to see, these annoying libertarians I am arguing with insist that The Wire is the most conservative, libertarian show in the history of television!

They're touting David Simon, the creator, as some libertarian hero. I mean how delusional do you have to be in order to completely disregard the creator's vision and all the obvious points he makes in the show to come up with some idiotic take that the show is "unconsciously libertarian".

Do libertarians just have to have all the great social critiques out there?

I've even heard them praise There Will Be Blood as an entrepreneurial praising film!

What's next Upton Sinclair was a great libertarian writer because he challenged the collective corruption of the meat industry?

I think--although neither camp would like to admit it--that there is some overlap between the core values of both right libertarianism and socialism. The difference, of course, is that libertarians have delusional ideas about capitalism and the state.