Libertarianism

[hoopla]

Right. A right libertarian, is going to say stuff like "I am pro personal freedom, I am against coercion, I am pro responsibility". What is a neutral way to rephrase these sort of comments, such that a social democrat or liberal might disagree. As no social democrat is going to say that they are against personal freedom.

E.g. "I am anti-state"

[Demogorgon]

It is a great trick for them to talk about freedom as if their definition is God Given and anyone who disagrees with them must believe in tyranny. A more acurate way to describe their views would be happy to let the powerful do precisely as they please.

[hoopla]

From a liberal perspective there has to be the possibility that they could agree though. A liberal might agree that the state is bad thing e.g.

[Publius]

Right. A right libertarian, is going to say stuff like "I am pro personal freedom, I am against coercion, I am pro responsibility". What is a neutral way to rephrase these sort of comments, such that a social democrat or liberal might disagree. As no social democrat is going to say that they are against personal freedom.

E.g. "I am anti-state"

You can't defeat them if you accept the precepts of their ethics, as they necessarily point to libertarianism. The reason you can't refute libertarianism is you have refute the ethics that lead to libertarianism, basically a ridiculous subservience to 'freedom' even when that freedom is demonstrably harmful to all parties involved.

To defeat them from a consequentialist perspective is the only way I know of. You have to essentially show them that their views will lead to human suffering make them choose between ethical systems, the libertarian which necessarily leads to human suffering (you have to prove this, which can be done easily if given the right set-up), and then you simply have to point that different ethical systems exist.

The problem is, libertarian ethics is completely antithetical to 'the common good'. Many libertarians care nothing for the common good of society, as they view that as 'socialist ethics', so even if you could prove that libertarianism would be ruinous as a practical policy, you still would achieve nothing because they would still say 'the common good' is wrong on ethical grounds because it does remove some 'personal freedom.'

Basically, libertarianism is radical personal-freedom. You can't out-freedom them, because they have a monopoly on it. Nothing could be more 'free' than libertarianism, to a libertarian.

Your job is to convince them that forms of coercion exist beyond government initiation of force. Libertarians don't think this is the case. You have refute this.

[MKS]

Right. A right libertarian, is going to say stuff like "I am pro personal freedom, I am against coercion, I am pro responsibility".

I think a Libertarian Socialist would say the same things; however what most Libertarian Capitalist would think is that a true Laize (sp) Faire Capitalist market is the best way to achieve a greater or truer liberty. Are they right? I don’t think we can say they are absolutely wrong since a true free market system has yet to be created; just as a true socialist/communist system has never been successfully attempted.

Real Libertarian Capitalists do believe in a smaller state, greater individual freedom, little or no taxation etc. I agree with all those things, but what I do not agree with is their devotion to Market Economics, to me it simply replaces the State. We are either slaves to the market or to the state, I tend to think that humanity can establish more humane and social economic systems that allow for greater equality and liberty.

[LSD]

Publius is 100% right. Libertarianism is a house of cards, but it's a very neatly organized house of cards which, if you accept its premises, actually makes a lot of sense.

Like with primativism, you have to attack the practical results that enacting their theory would produce.

Actually, libertarianism shares a lot with primativism. In fact it's actually kind of half-hearted primativism, an attempt to undo 7000 years of civilization without actually giving up all the stuff we've gotten out of it. It's a hypocritical and deeply confused ideology and one with absolutely no shot of ever manifesting in a real sense ...but it does read well.

And, in the end, that's what libertarianism's really got going for it, brilliant marketing. Its theoretical vapidity is masked by the emotional chord that it so carefully strikes.

Rightists are "religious gaybashing warmongers", leftists are "big government treehuggers", libertarians are ...neither.

We've all gotten so used to thinking in caricatures that any model which defies them, even superficially, comes across as iconoclastic. But libertarianism doesn't smash any idols, it just lines them up differently so you don't notice nothing's changed.

So the way to discredit it isn't to attack the words it uses -- that kind of terminological battle can only take you so far. You have to reveal the ideology for the sham that it is.

And, again, the best way to do that is to reveal the absurdities that would occur should libertarianism ever manifest, the simpler the better.

And when it comes to "freedom", just remind people that they don't want absolute freedom. Absolute freedom would leave the friendly rapist down the street free to molest and strangle them in their sleep.

Most people intuitively realize that the government (as bad as it is) is not responsible for all their woes and that letting rich people do whatever they want it not a particularly good idea.

All you've got to do is wipe away all the gloss and the glaring impracticality of the ideology speaks for itself.


I am pro personal freedom

Absolute freedom is absurd.


I am against coercion

Coercion is nescessary.


I am pro responsibility

Trusting the market isn't responsible.

[Demogorgon]

What people have said here is correct. However they are missing the fact that many Libertarians are immune to logic. Let's be clear and accept that there are different categories of them. I have encountered very reasonable ones who are basically ex-Republicans who hate Bush and the religious right, but who still cling to some small government ideology. They tend to be pragmatic and open to compromise. They don't believe in absolute freedom for it's own sake but rather think a smaller (but still existant) government is more practical. They are wrong of course, but at least are open to reason. Secondly I have encountered one particular Libertarian who I get on well with. Again he isn't about maximising freedom to the expense of all else, but rather his economic views (he is an academic) have lead him to believe low restrictions on industry lead to the best results. He says there is ertainly a role for the government in the economy, but it shoulod be correcting failures in the market rather than trying to stop markets. He says he is not interested in defending capitalism, but simply is not convinced that Socialism won't be over-beureacratic. Again he is wrong, but he is certainly reasonable.

The problem is people like that are a minority. A lot of the time Lubertarians are Ayn Rand obsessives even if they won't admit it. I have heard them say it is immoral to consider the end results of any action. They think absolutely any level of disaster is acceptable in order to conform to their own conception of freedom. How do you reason with that?

[Intellectual47]

So you guys think that we need to restrict personal freedom for the common good? Have you read "Brave New World"?
The "common good" can be achieved by giving people more freedom. This is something that you people will never accept. Capitalism has proven this to be the case. Because capitalism gives people the freedom to do what they want, they are at the top of the world, while socialist countries are at the bottom of the pit. Essentially, for all your talk of "common good", capitalism is best for the common good. Everything about capitalism is about freedom. Giving people money instead of just stuff allows people to chose what stuff they get.

Coercion is nescessary
Wait :o hold on for a sencond. :huh: Please explain this a bit more, my hypocrisy meter is going crazy.

[colonelguppy]

its all semantics, who fucking cares

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 10:50 am
Wait :o hold on for a sencond. :huh: Please explain this a bit more, my hypocrisy meter is going crazy.
i figured everyone had to realize that coercion is necessary in organized society, its just the level and type of coercion thats debated.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 12:39 am
You can't defeat them if you accept the precepts of their ethics, as they necessarily point to libertarianism. The reason you can't refute libertarianism is you have refute the ethics that lead to libertarianism, basically a ridiculous subservience to 'freedom' even when that freedom is demonstrably harmful to all parties involved.

To defeat them from a consequentialist perspective is the only way I know of. You have to essentially show them that their views will lead to human suffering make them choose between ethical systems, the libertarian which necessarily leads to human suffering (you have to prove this, which can be done easily if given the right set-up), and then you simply have to point that different ethical systems exist.

The problem is, libertarian ethics is completely antithetical to 'the common good'. Many libertarians care nothing for the common good of society, as they view that as 'socialist ethics', so even if you could prove that libertarianism would be ruinous as a practical policy, you still would achieve nothing because they would still say 'the common good' is wrong on ethical grounds because it does remove some 'personal freedom.'

Basically, libertarianism is radical personal-freedom. You can't out-freedom them, because they have a monopoly on it. Nothing could be more 'free' than libertarianism, to a libertarian.

Your job is to convince them that forms of coercion exist beyond government initiation of force. Libertarians don't think this is the case. You have refute this.
Basically yes, but the same is true for communism in the reverse.

[t_wolves_fan]

What people have said here is correct. However they are missing the fact that many Libertarians are immune to logic. Let's be clear and accept that there are different categories of them. I have encountered very reasonable ones who are basically ex-Republicans who hate Bush and the religious right, but who still cling to some small government ideology. They tend to be pragmatic and open to compromise. They don't believe in absolute freedom for it's own sake but rather think a smaller (but still existant) government is more practical.

That's a good description of me.


They are wrong of course,

No we aren't.


but simply is not convinced that Socialism won't be over-beureacratic. Again he is wrong, but he is certainly reasonable.

As a government employee, I can tell you that he is 100% correct. Anything done privately takes at a bare minimum 1.5 times as many people to accomplish due to the fact that decisions made and resources used are public property and open to public scrutiny.

You can naively believe this won't be the case in your utopia all you wish, but that wishing and a dollar will get you nothing but a small coffee at McDonald's.


They think absolutely any level of disaster is acceptable in order to conform to their own conception of freedom. How do you reason with that?

You try your best, just like you do with the communists who are off in never-never land dreaming of magic fairy dust and candy-cane powered robots.

[Publius]

Just to sort of pre-empt you, I'd like to note that I'm not a communist, and used to be something of a 'libertarian' (see the von Mises avatar for proof.) I'm just a regular-old confused person. Anyway:



So you guys think that we need to restrict personal freedom for the common good?

Of course.

For example, in order to maintain peace and order, we need to restrict people's freedom to riot and smash in windows. In order to maintain a healthful, environment, it is necessary restrict people's 'freedom' to live shit everywhere. In order to maintain political and social cohesion, it is necessary to heed Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This aren't options or things that can be done away with, but they are things that remove 'freedoms'. Luckily for all invovled, they remove freedoms that serve purpose and serve only to ultimately harm every party.

So to answer, yes, it's absolutely necessary to restrict some freedoms. It's also completely unecessary and counter-productive to remove others. The key is, it's not a ideological battle between 'freedom and no freedom', it's a matter of practical politics, deciding which freedoms are good and which are not. It's hard, but it can be done.

See, this is another key appeal of libertarianism: intellectual ease-of-use (laziness) Instead of dealing with difficult problems like how to best restrict freedom to create a better society, libertarianism conveniently ignores the problem. Libertarians point out the flaws in the real world by comparing it to an ideal dreamworld (sound familiar guys?), and in this sense, they're absolutely correct: the real does not compare favorably to their dreamworld. But, that does not mean libertarianism, if practically enacted, would result in this dream world. I think it's readily apparent to an impartial observer that removing the only serious obstacle to personal malfeasance, a functional state, you remove any chance of having a society anyone would want to live in.



Have you read "Brave New World"?

Parts of it. I know the premise.



The "common good" can be achieved by giving people more freedom.

In many cases, yes. This is part of the reason why libertarianism is so disengenious. Socialists, or liberals, or leftists, or centrists, or whatever, don't really want to restrict people's basic freedoms. Most want to develop them. For example, I want to allow people to be free to learn, to be free to be healthy, to be free to live in a society not split apart by violent factions.

Those are good freedoms, I think, that I would like to see expanded.



This is something that you people will never accept.

I've just accepted it.

I think by giving people more freedom, of a certain kind, you necessarily work toward the common good.

How could you not?



Capitalism has proven this to be the case.

To a degree. But capitalism, in a completely different manner, removes freedoms. It creates some, it hampers others. In aggregate, I think it's probably a force of good, compared to other feasible systems, currently, but I don't think capitalism, by itself is perfect. Far from it, I think we need governance, social order, and charity to have anything resembling a humanistic society.



Because capitalism gives people the freedom to do what they want, they are at the top of the world, while socialist countries are at the bottom of the pit.

Unless you're say, looking at the freedom to live a long, healthful life, in which case you'd want to move to one of the various 'socialist' countries.

You'd also save money this way. Hmm.



Essentially, for all your talk of "common good", capitalism is best for the common good.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Just because sometimes it works well doesn't mean it always does, just as sometimes the government doesn't good, but it doesn't always. Things don't break down quite this neatly.


Everything about capitalism is about freedom.

Or the lack of it. For example, you aren't free to take what you want or need if you don't have the requisite funds.

If you had this 'freedom', capitalism itself would collapse. So in order to function, capitalism must, by nature, restrict some 'freedoms'.


Giving people money instead of just stuff allows people to chose what stuff they get.

And not giving them money insures they get nothing.



Wait :o hold on for a sencond. :huh: Please explain this a bit more, my hypocrisy meter is going crazy.

What's hypocritical about stating an obvious fact?

[Publius]

Basically yes, but the same is true for communism in the reverse.

Essentially, yes.

Communists are, perhaps, slightly more concerned with practical ends, but they too are obscured behind a large cloud of ideological wishful-thinking.

All this is why I no longer conform to specific ideological views: it's harder to rebut me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Just to sort of pre-empt you, I'd like to note that I'm not a communist, and used to be something of a 'libertarian' (see the von Mises avatar for proof.) I'm just a regular-old confused person. Anyway:

Congratulations on your recovery.


See, this is another key appeal of libertarianism: intellectual ease-of-use (laziness) Instead of dealing with difficult problems like how to best restrict freedom to create a better society, libertarianism conveniently ignores the problem.

Yep, in general.


Libertarians point out the flaws in the real world by comparing it to an ideal dreamworld (sound familiar guys?), and in this sense, they're absolutely correct: the real does not compare favorably to their dreamworld.

Yep, basically communists and libertarians are different sides of the same coin.


In many cases, yes. This is part of the reason why libertarianism is so disengenious. Socialists, or liberals, or leftists, or centrists, or whatever, don't really want to restrict people's basic freedoms. Most want to develop them. For example, I want to allow people to be free to learn, to be free to be healthy, to be free to live in a society not split apart by violent factions.

Those are good freedoms, I think, that I would like to see expanded.

I have found no evidence that leftists are more interested in personal freedoms than libertarians. At best the hard-core left is about as interested in personal freedoms as are religious fundamentalists.

I question the freedoms you list because I don't think you're really listing freedoms, I think you're listing entitlements. "Freedom" means choosing to do or not do something, so to be "free to learn" you have to want to learn and you have to actually go out and learn. Being required by law to be in a school for an arbitrary amount of time is not "freedom to learn". Likewise banning smoking in bars and restaurants (a famous leftist freedom activity) is not "freedom to be healthy", it's using the state to tell people that you've decided they are going to be in healthy conditions when they go into a restaurant.

The level of freedom adovcated by the hard-core libertarian is certainly unrealistic due to the drastic consequences you touch on. But it's been my experience, and this board backs it up (look at the religion forum), that leftists view "freedom" as the freedom to live in a society that operates like they want it run.

It's like the preposterous belief in "freedom from religion". That is like claiming you are for freedom from rain or worse, freedom from opinions. If people have freedom, they are going to express themselves. We cannot reasonably provide "freedom" from things like religion or counter-revolutionary opinions because doing so means imposing our own will on others, which is the antithesis of freedom itself. Worse, they cannot be fairly applied. If you have freedom from an opinion you don't like, like religion, then it's only fair that a religious person be granted the same freedom from opinons they don't like. If you want freedom from religion but they want freedom from secularism, who wins?

If one person wins, how can you claim the other is free?




I think by giving people more freedom, of a certain kind,

Let me guess: the kind you like, right?

[hoopla]

Thanks, you all failed to answer my question :x

;)

Anyway
large cloud of ideological wishful-thinkingI don't think that thinking there may be a better way of managing life than capitalism is wishful thinking. The alternative seems utterly pesimistic!

[Publius]

Thanks, you all failed to answer my question :x

;)

The answer is that there is no answer.



I don't think that thinking there may be a better way of managing life than capitalism is wishful thinking. The alternative seems utterly pesimistic!

Well, I'm a pessimist, so that works out very well for me, doesn't it?

Or rather, it works out terribly. Yeah, that's it.

:lol:

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 09:10 pm





Congratulations on your recovery.


Yeah, after my recovery (I'm ENeGMA from PW. I don't know if you know that or not.), I saw what fucking ****s most of the libertarians actually were (Guess who I'm referring to?), and just how completely ignorant they were.

Pitiful.



I have found no evidence that leftists are more interested in personal freedoms than libertarians. At best the hard-core left is about as interested in personal freedoms as are religious fundamentalists.

I question the freedoms you list because I don't think you're really listing freedoms, I think you're listing entitlements.

I am, on purpose, sort of confusing the term 'freedom' here, into what leftists sometimes use it as, to illustrate how libertarians and leftists have completely different conceptions of 'freedom.'


"Freedom" means choosing to do or not do something, so to be "free to learn" you have to want to learn and you have to actually go out and learn. Being required by law to be in a school for an arbitrary amount of time is not "freedom to learn".

But having access to quality schools is part of the 'freedom to learn'.


Likewise banning smoking in bars and restaurants (a famous leftist freedom activity) is not "freedom to be healthy", it's using the state to tell people that you've decided they are going to be in healthy conditions when they go into a restaurant.

I actually agree with this. First of all, I think the health benefits are dubious for most people, plus, why can't restaurants just ban smoking if they want to? I know for a fact some do, not because of law, but because they choose to.



The level of freedom adovcated by the hard-core libertarian is certainly unrealistic due to the drastic consequences you touch on. But it's been my experience, and this board backs it up (look at the religion forum), that leftists view "freedom" as the freedom to live in a society that operates like they want it run.

I'll agree with that.

That's why I can't be a radical, I'm just not that assured in my views. Too incredulous. Too doubtful. Too scientific. Too smart. Too good-looking. Too humble.

:lol:



It's like the preposterous belief in "freedom from religion". That is like claiming you are for freedom from rain or worse, freedom from opinions. If people have freedom, they are going to express themselves. We cannot reasonably provide "freedom" from things like religion or counter-revolutionary opinions because doing so means imposing our own will on others, which is the antithesis of freedom itself. Worse, they cannot be fairly applied. If you have freedom from an opinion you don't like, like religion, then it's only fair that a religious person be granted the same freedom from opinons they don't like. If you want freedom from religion but they want freedom from secularism, who wins?

This is another point I agree with. I don't need to be from religion at all, it doesn't concern me. I know why I'm an atheist. It doesn't concern me that others aren't.

But then again, I don't have a whole lot riding on a prediction that the majority of the population will soon turn secular, like some people do...


Let me guess: the kind you like, right?

But of course.

But see, notice the difference: when I discuss freedoms, I discuss them from a practical, relatively sensible framework of cost and benefits. When a libertarian, or even a far leftist, does it, they do it through an ideological lense that, more or less, completely destroys their impartiality.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 07:11 pm
Yeah, after my recovery (I'm ENeGMA from PW. I don't know if you know that or not.), I saw what fucking ****s most of the libertarians actually were (Guess who I'm referring to?), and just how completely ignorant they were.

Pitiful.
oh yeah i remember you. lol, give libertarians a break, everyones a **** on PW.