Libertarians

[toyotatundra]

Like most ideologies and religions, libertarianism proposes simple solutions to complicated problems.

I fell into the libertarian cult for a few years. Like a housewife who buys into the sermons of a televangelist, I was craving clarity and direction. And I thought I found it. Unfortunately, life experience and independent thought kept getting in my way.

 

[Kirkhill]

Like most ideologies and religions, libertarianism proposes simple solutions to complicated problems.

I fell into the libertarian cult for a few years. Like a housewife who buys into the sermons of a televangelist, I was craving clarity and direction. And I thought I found it. Unfortunately, life experience and independent thought kept getting in my way.

There is a considerable difference between Being a Libertarian and having libertarian tendencies.  Just as there is a difference between being a Liberal, a Conservative, a Socialist, a Presbyterian or a Catholic and believing that each of those creeds have something to offer. 

Glad that you are no longer seeking dogma to solve your problems and have chosen the messy contradictions of independence. 

Cheers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you were craving clarity and direction and seeking it outside yourself, it is understandable that you would fall away from the general idea of self-reliance and individual liberties.

 

[toyotatundra]

If you were craving clarity and direction and seeking it outside yourself, it is understandable that you would fall away from the general idea of self-reliance and individual liberties.

Precisely the opposite, dude.

Libertarian dogma gives people a religion to believe in. An already established set of myths for those seeking intellectual short cuts. However, once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, they realize that human behavior and social organization are far too complicated to fit into the simplistic models proposed by libertarian groupies.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.  All political philosophies have doctrine, ideology, dogma, and myths; and are quasi-religious if by "religious" you mean there are unproven and perhaps unprovable tenets held as facts by the believers.  Again you have missed the essence of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which is that human behaviour should not (can not, unless one is prepared to kill as many people as necessary) be fit into any preconceived model held in adoration by its adherents; social organization is too valuable to be left in the hands of the power-seeking and self-aggrandizing people who gravitate to government institutions.  Libertarianism is a vector, not a destination or a shape.

Once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, he should realize that no person or group of people has any inherent authority to impose their moral aesthetics on others.

What are these myths and complicated problems you find individual liberty unsuited to, what collective solutions do you find preferable, and how far would your morality allow you to go to impose them?

 

[toyotatundra]

Sorry bud if you are wanting to start a dialogue with someone, best not to start with personal attacks.

Again you have missed the essence of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which is that human behaviour should not (can not, unless one is prepared to kill as many people as necessary)

Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources.

social organization is too valuable to be left in the hands of the power-seeking and self-aggrandizing people who gravitate to government institutions. 

As opposed to leaving it in the hands of power seeking and self aggrandizing people who gravitate to corporate institutions.

Libertarianism is a vector, not a destination or a shape.

And you accuse me of being vague and universal!

 

[toyotatundra]

Once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, he should realize that no person or group of people has any inherent authority to impose their moral aesthetics on others.

Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.

Humans are social animals. We exist in families, in cities, societies and nation states. We cannot help but interact, influence and impose.

Perhaps an example. Libertarians might advocate for the right of individuals to use any drug they choose. However, such drug use does not occur in a social vacuum. Issues immediately arise. For example, can such heroin use be conducted on city streets? If you say no, then you are already imposing "moral aesthetics". And even if heroin use is acceptable only in private settings, will the libertarian accept the provision of drugs to children or teenagers? And if you say no, then you are again imposing morality. And what about distributing drugs to those with Down's Syndrome? Should the society allow that? Who decides in which settings drug use and drug procurement are acceptable?

Some libertarians then turn to notions of consent. Teenagers can't consent. People with Down's syndrome can't consent. But again, is the age of decision 18, or 16, or 12? What is the IQ level where drug procurement is okay? 50 or 70 or 85? And again, who decides? And who pays for the IQ test? The state? Some charity?

Men are not islands. We cannot avoid the state. Moreover, it is unclear in specific social and environmental problems, whether the answer is more state intervention or less. More enforcement of social and moral norms, or less.

 

[Nemo888]

Our liberties have been eroding of late. I would love to abolish the party system and make all politicians answerable to their local constituents. Breaking up some monoploies and restoring free markets would help society as well.  But this is all unlikely. But more likely than the laughable Ayn Randian libertarianism espoused here.

Ever wonder what happened after the ending of Atlas Shrugged? A descent into barbarism and her heroes last for a single generation then become extinct. She really was a philosophical lightweight if that was her sweeping vision of the future.

 

[Container]

Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.

Humans are social animals. We exists in families, in cities, societies and nation states. We cannot help but interact, influence and impose.

Perhaps an example. Libertarians might advocate for the right of individuals to use any drug they choose. However, such drug use does not occur in a social vacuum. Issues immediately arise. For example, can such heroin use be conducted on city streets? If you say no, then you are already imposing "moral aesthetics". And even if heroin use is acceptable only in private settings, will the libertarian accept the provision of drugs to children or teenagers? And if you say no, then you are again imposing morality. And what about distributing drugs to those with Down's Syndrome? Should the society allow that? Who decides in which settings drug use and drug procurement are acceptable?

Some libertarians then turn to notions of consent. Teenagers can't consent. People with Down's syndrome can't consent. But again, is the age of decision 18, or 16, or 12? What is the IQ level where drug procurement is okay? 50 or 70 or 85? And again, who decides? And who pays for the IQ test? The state? Some charity?

Men are not islands. We cannot avoid the state. Moreover, it is unclear in specific social and environmental problems, whether the answer is more state intervention or less. More enforcement of social and moral norms, or less.

Youre carrying libertarianism to the extreme. The same arguments can be made for the extreme socialist almost in the exact same manner with a different conclusion- since "everyone" is harmed by drug use the society should be able  to tell any person when it is or isnt okay in every instance. And if you dont like your medicine we can make you take it. And I read a study that says your music makes you stupid so you can't listen to it. We can make you do anything you want since the society organism is harmed by your non compliance.

What it means in practice is- If I disagree with drug use- I dont use drugs. I bring up children that make their own decisions and are responsible for them. If I disagree with abortion I dont get abortions. If my teenage daughter comes home pregnant I put my money where my mouth is about my views. Because they are my views and I am accountable to it. I like small government that fixes my roads and pretty much sits quiet when it comes to everything else in my life. I dont recall in any of my recent reading where it says no to human interactions but it makes you free to choose your associations. I am not forced to pay for some ridiculous social experiment- and if I like some other ridiculous idea I can invest as heavily as I want to my own peril.

I like your example of drugs. I think back to the thousands of drug users I've dealt with and can't think of anyone of them who would be a libertarian. Personal accountability/ responsibility isn't part of the vocabulary.

It is an offensive idea that someone would think we need MORE moral enforcement. We need less laws not more.

By the way- you started the "jabs" with referring to people as "dude" and "bud" and how libertarians are "groupies". You started the disrespectful tone you are accusing others of having,

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps a re reading of the entire thread is in order, since several of the people posting seem to have no conception of what Libertarianism actually means. As a BTW, the philosophy of Ayn Rand is Objectivism, which is has some similarities to, but not identical to libertarianism.

Most of the misunderstanding I am seeing here and elsewhere is based on the strawman premise that libertarianism is only about individual preference. Libertarians support individual preference insofar as they do not negatively impact on others ("Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"); so arguments that people could take heroin on the streets (or play loud music at all hours of the night, for that matter) are not part of libertarianism at all.

Libertarianism and related philosophies are about mutual consent and free will, and accepting the consequences. Lets take a concrete and real life example: If people don't wish to support car company "x" by purchasing the compay's products, then they should not be forced to pay into company "x" through taxpayer bailouts (they did not consent to support the company voluntarily, why should they be forced to involuntarily support the company?). If you had purchased shares in the company, and the management failed to maintain or increase the value of the company, why am I bound to support the value of your shares with my tax dollars? If you wish to take heroin in the privacy of your home, you should be willing to accept that most people would not choose to employ you (due to the effects of your addiction) and you will lead a very deprived lifestyle as a result of your actions.

There are genuine areas of disagreement within the libertarian philosophy over the bounds of consent, but no libertarian would disagree with the need for some collective activities for the maintenance and protection of the community. In practice this can be the collective defense of the community against internal and external aggressors (the military and the police) and an impartial arbitrator for disputes (the Courts of Law).

 

[toyotatundra]

Youre carrying libertarianism to the extreme.

Libertarianism is an extreme ideology.

The same arguments can be made for the extreme socialist

Agreed. Which is why I'm not an advocate for Stalinism or Maoism either.

What it means in practice is- If I disagree with drug use- I dont use drugs.

Fine, but that doesn't answer any of my questions concerning a libertarian society's rules for drug use.

I bring up children that make their own decisions and are responsible for them.

Fine and dandy that you are such a great parent. That doesn't solve the issue of how a society deals with those less perfect than yourself.

I dont recall in any of my recent reading where it says no to human interactions but it makes you free to choose your associations.

In real life that is impossible. We live in cities. We breathe common air. We face hostile foreign regimes. We don't choose many of our associations.

I like your example of drugs. I think back to the thousands of drug users I've dealt with and can't think of anyone of them who would be a libertarian. Personal accountability/ responsibility isn't part of the vocabulary.

None of the drug users you've met are libertarians? That fact undermines your argument rather than strengthening it. You have proposed a libertarian society based on personal responsibility. Then you suggest that not one in a thousand drug users is personally responsible. 

In other words, you have based your ideology on how people should be, rather than on how they actually are.

If I disagree with abortion I dont get abortions.

You are reducing a difficult moral issue to a consumer purchase. A credible argument can be made that abortion is murder, especially in the last month or two of pregnancy. Do you think it is acceptable to abort a baby in the 9th month of pregnancy? And if not, what role does the society have a role in preventing such child killing?

By the way- you started the "jabs" with referring to people as "dude" and "bud"

The dude and bud comments came after, not before. Second, you aren't psychic. Dude and bud weren't intended as insults.

Out drinking, I refer to my master corporal as bud. And let me assure you, I have no desire to get on his bad side!!!!!!!

 

[toyotatundra]

Most of the misunderstanding I am seeing here and elsewhere is based on the strawman premise that libertarianism is only about individual preference. Libertarians support individual preference insofar as they do not negatively impact on others

Of course, here's the rub. Negatively impact on others is a very broad category. Actions to prevent negative impact are central to almost every ideology.

so arguments that people could take heroin on the streets (or play loud music at all hours of the night, for that matter) are not part of libertarianism at all.

Not at all? Really? So in a libertarian society, people can drink coffee on the streets. But not take opiates? What if the morphine I'm taking is by prescription?

And if an individual publicly taking a prescription pain killer is acceptable, why not non-prescription? Don't libertarians support individual freedom, and a free market in health care and consumer goods?

Libertarianism and related philosophies are about mutual consent and free will, and accepting the consequences.

A motherhood statement. In a society you will not get everyone to consent willingly. Some people will be offended by Gay Pride Parades or open drug use. Others will not.

If you wish to take heroin in the privacy of your home, you should be willing to accept that most people would not choose to employ you (due to the effects of your addiction) and you will lead a very deprived lifestyle as a result of your actions.

And do you believe that children should be forced to live in an opium den? Does the state not have a role in protecting those children? And if so, who pays the social worker and police that are involved? Who pays for the now-removed child's health care and education?

Charity might step in. But if charity is not sufficient, do we let those children be illiterate or hungry? Or are social programs necessary?

In practice this can be the collective defense of the community against internal and external aggressors (the military and the police)

And what if a taxpayer does not support the war in question? Should they be forced to finance the war against their own free will?

And if so, why is it acceptable to forcibly tax people for wars and police, but not for health programs for the disabled and poor?

but no libertarian would disagree with the need for some collective activities for the maintenance and protection of the community.

In essence, it is a numbers game. Social democrats think a society works best with 50% of GDP in the hands of government. A liberal might say 35%, a libertarian might say 10.

In essence, we are all libertarians to some degree. And we are all socialists.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Sorry bud if you are wanting to start a dialogue with someone, best not to start with personal attacks.

What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?

>Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources.

Bullsh*t.  Violence is when the Nazis and Communists and other big gangs called "governments" kill tens of millions of people in order to manage various "issues which arise".  The "threat of violence" is just the "rule of law"; and the fewer and less invasive the laws, the less the threat of violence.

>As opposed to leaving it in the hands of power seeking and self aggrandizing people who gravitate to corporate institutions.

Generally they must provide something other people actually want.  Otherwise, they gain no power or position.  But you have stumbled across one of the advantages of libertarianism: recognition and useful harnessing of the basic selfishness of people.

>Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.

By definition, people who impose their moral aesthetics on others are not libertarians.  And libertarianism is not the absence of social interaction, but it does promote elimination of coercive interaction.

>Perhaps an example. Libertarians might advocate for the right of individuals to use any drug they choose.

Yes.  And bear the consequences.  Attempts have been made to address the "issues which immediately arise" against the essential nature of people, at great cost and without much success.  And don't confuse basic public safety with moral preferences.  If you can afford the drugs and use them without endangering others or voiding your responsibility to any dependents you might have, fill your boots.

Libertarianism isn't the absence of government; you've confused it with anarchism.  I also doubt that it qualifies as "extreme", because most of the population has several parts of their lives they want government to butt out of completely.

>In other words, you have based your ideology on how people should be, rather than on how they actually are.

In that response, you again reveal fundamental misunderstanding.  The point of libertarianism is to accept people for what they actually are.  The further one slides leftward into the collectivist/statist doctrines, the more management of people and breaking of eggs (ie. ruination of lives) one finds in attempts to address the shortcomings of people.

I would think that more people concerned about liberty and the erosion thereof would seek and comfortably occupy the libertarian part of the political spectrum or map.  It is the liberal (classical) position to challenge whether each increment of law is necessary, and to abandon or rework from scratch a hopelessly complex body of regulation which has become a clusterf*ck of band-aids as each new rule alters the behaviour of millions of people in unforeseen ways.  I don't see that in any other "ideology": they are all convinced that with just a little more tinkering, a few more legislative bills, a little more public service oversight, there will be no more unintended consequences and everything will be satisfactorily managed.  In reality, they are like the French high command in 1940 facing the Germans: out-competed by the decision cycles of millions of free people, unless enough freedom is removed so that there are no longer any decisions to be made.

 

[toyotatundra]

What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?

Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.

You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.

You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.

I've been following this for a bit and I am frankly mystified at where you feel that you have been personally attacked.

I do not have a dog in this fight, but what I am seeing is you making statements, Brad calling you on your logical  inconsistencies and you getting all huffy.

 

[Nemo888]

Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.

You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.

It's probably a sign he is losing. His last post broke Goodwin's Law with a Nazi analogy. Now who's being "vacuous and universal". Game, set, point toyotatundra.

 

[a_majoor]

Sorry, but Brad has made substantive arguments which are met with ad hominem attacks. Game set match (and milpoints) to Brad.

 

[toyotatundra]

Removed post.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>His last post broke Goodwin's Law with a Nazi analogy.

It's not an analogy.  It's a fact.  You want to play word games as if all "violence" is equal, therefore libertarians are equally violent; I put a fact on the table which illustrates how many orders of magnitude there are between people who home school their children and people who like to make human omelettes.

 

[toyotatundra]

What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?

I called you guys groupies. You've called me vague, universal and nebulous. I think we've both been jerks. How about we stick to the politics, and call a truce on the personal drama?

Bullsh*t.  Violence is when the Nazis and Communists and other big gangs called "governments" kill tens of millions of people

At present, I am advocating for a mixed economy, with some form of social programs and environmental protections. The kind advocated for by Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats.

You say that comparing non-libertarianism and libertarian violence is cow excrement, because non-libertarians are so much more violent than libertarians. You give the example of the Nazis. Godwin's Law aside, non-libertarians aren't restricted to Goering and Goebbels. Rather this category includes many Canadian political parties, none have which have killed tens of millions of people.

the fewer and less invasive the laws, the less the threat of violence.

In a state of nature, there is no ownership. The trees, the fields, the animal herds. None of them come with a name attached.

As intelligent beings, we humans assert control over nature. We have established states with laws over all land, people, and property within those state boundaries. Each state apportions its people and resources according to a particular set of laws.

A libertarian society where most of the land has been privatized is no less invasive than a socialist society where most of the land has been collectivized. Both divide up the natural world completely. 

In a libertarian society, a landless disabled man can be sitting at the edge of my family's wheat fields, literally starving to death. And in this privatized libertarian society, if he has no money, and no way to make money, his only freedom is the freedom to die.

Generally they must provide something other people actually want.  Otherwise, they gain no power or position.

One can say the same about democratically elected officials.

But you have stumbled across one of the advantages of libertarianism: recognition and useful harnessing of the basic selfishness of people.

I don't agree that people are basically selfish, any more than I agree that people are basically altruistic. I would suggest that human history shows people to be a very rich mix of conflicting motivations.

Some people pollute a town's water, knowing that children will die. Other people throw themselves on a grenade, to save their buddy's life.

By definition, people who impose their moral aesthetics on others are not libertarians.

Then no one is a libertarian. Because any set of laws will involve some element of moral aesthetics. Some sense of what feels right and just.

Libertarianism is aesthetic to its very root. The libertarian emphasis on the individual, on personal freedom, on leaving people alone.  These are sensations of right and wrong, fair and unfair, rooted in emotion.

Libertarianism isn't the absence of government; you've confused it with anarchism.

Perhaps. However, the little I've read on the anarchist experience in the Spanish Civil War would suggest that anarchism is not at all the absence of government or collective control. In fact, those anarchist regions of Spain seemed downright socialistic in their approach.

I also doubt that it qualifies as "extreme", because most of the population has several parts of their lives they want government to butt out of completely.

I believe that is the logical fallacy of popularity. You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme. I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society.

It is the liberal (classical) position to challenge whether each increment of law is necessary, and to abandon or rework from scratch a hopelessly complex body of regulation which has become a clusterf*ck of band-aids as each new rule alters the behaviour of millions of people in unforeseen ways.  I don't see that in any other "ideology": they are all convinced that with just a little more tinkering, a few more legislative bills, a little more public service oversight, there will be no more unintended consequences and everything will be satisfactorily managed. 

You raise some fascinating points here. I will need time to think them over.

In reality, they are like the French high command in 1940 facing the Germans: out-competed by the decision cycles of millions of free people, unless enough freedom is removed so that there are no longer any decisions to be made.

If I may make a suggestion. Endeavor to go easy on the Godwin.