What libertarianism is ACTUALLY about
18 Aug 2011, 1:23 pm
mcg wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
I used to consider myself a left-libertarian until i figured out that the libtertarian party disagrees with my ideals. Now I just consider myself a malcontent.
all that freedom stuff is great, but one of the valid arguments for taxation is to pool the resources of the many to create the value that no profit-seeking self-interested party will bother to do on an open enough scale.
I don't buy the (right?) libertarian argument that if we were taxed less, more money could be given to charities and people would take more time out to help the poor in person.
I think that enough of us are selfish bastards that we would let people starve.
Public policy should focus on long term growth. The poor will get dragged up with the rest of us, however selfish we may inherently be.all that freedom stuff is great, but one of the valid arguments for taxation is to pool the resources of the many to create the value that no profit-seeking self-interested party will bother to do on an open enough scale.
I don't buy the (right?) libertarian argument that if we were taxed less, more money could be given to charities and people would take more time out to help the poor in person.
I think that enough of us are selfish bastards that we would let people starve.
That depends on how you define "long term growth" and what your actuat are.
The last several years have demonstrated that you can have a focus on long-term growth and still leave behind 90% of the population.
18 Aug 2011, 2:36 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Found this excerpt online, I'm now going to link to it every time someone misrepresents what libertarians actually stand for. I'm particularly tired of distancing myself from Ayn Rand and her adherents, social conservatives, anarchists and the like, and this short piece does all of that quite well.
Followed by:
The attribution is complicated as it's an excerpt from a book being quoted in the context of a review, this is where I found it.
http://nobodysbusinessblog.com/2011/08/ ... ts-part-1/
Quote:
At it’s root, libertarianism is about a default preference for the freedom to peaceably pursue happiness as we define it without interference from government. It’s the belief that the burden of proof should rest not on the individual who wants to sell lemonade, paint his or her house purple, hop on an airplane, ingest intoxicants, or marry someone from the same sex (though preferably not in that order) but on any government seeking to thwart or control such victimless activities. Like the magazine we write for, we agitate for the aspirational goal of “free minds and free markets,” celebrating a world of expanding choice — in lifestyles, identities, goods, work arrangements, and more — and exploring the institutions, policies, and attitudes necessary for maximizing their proliferation. We are happy warriors against busybodies, elites, and gatekeepers who insist on dictating how other people should live their lives. Like John Stuart Mill, we’re big on “experiments in living.” Within the broadest possible parameters, we believe that you should be able to think what you want, live where you want, trade for what you want, eat what you want, smoke what you want, and wed whom you want. You should also be willing to shoulder the responsibilities entailed by your actions. Those general guidelines don’t explain everything, and they certainly don’t mean that there aren’t hard choices to make, but as basic principles, they go a hell of a long way to creating a world that is tolerant, free, prosperous, vibrant, and interesting.
Followed by:
Quote:
It’s not about Ayn Rand or anti-communism or big business or hard money or even non-coercion. It’s because I want us all to live in a world that is “tolerant, free, prosperous, vibrant, and interesting.”
The attribution is complicated as it's an excerpt from a book being quoted in the context of a review, this is where I found it.
http://nobodysbusinessblog.com/2011/08/ ... ts-part-1/
I note the caveats about general guidelines not explaining everything and about how it's not all about big business, and so on, but still these quotes do not much alter the opinion I already held regarding libertarianism. Libertarians and liberals might disagree on economics, but I find they both have an extremely simplistic laissez-faire attitude to morality. It should be obvious that the techological and medical advancements and the relative security and prosperity liberals & libertarians enjoy today only exist because of the discipline, order and self-sacrifice involved in the lives of those who came before them, and yet liberals and libertarians generally complain like children at the idea of society "judging" how people live their lives in the present day. This attitude seems to inform their opinions about a whole range of things.
Liberals are probably the whinier of the two though. ("Why does it bother you?" "How does that affect your rights?" "Oh yeah, <degenerate policy XYZ> is really going to wreck society LOL".)
18 Aug 2011, 2:50 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
I'd build the worlds biggest nuclear reactor and start blowing up hydrogen bombs in it. This ought to give me plenty of energy to desalinate the entire worlds water supply.
What will you do with the salts?
What will you do to prevent water getting in to the salt storage and resalinating the water?
What will you do to stop the rivers from carrying salts down to the sea?
But why do I act as if you might be serious?
18 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
Philologos wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
I'd build the worlds biggest nuclear reactor and start blowing up hydrogen bombs in it. This ought to give me plenty of energy to desalinate the entire worlds water supply.
What will you do with the salts?
What will you do to prevent water getting in to the salt storage and resalinating the water?
What will you do to stop the rivers from carrying salts down to the sea?
But why do I act as if you might be serious?
Pour it into the cracks in Iceland. The heat of the magma will decompose the salt into its component elements.
There are also plenty of deep caves far from aquifers.
They can also be dumped in the great Salt Flats of Utah.
ruveyn
18 Aug 2011, 3:08 pm
codarac wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Found this excerpt online, I'm now going to link to it every time someone misrepresents what libertarians actually stand for. I'm particularly tired of distancing myself from Ayn Rand and her adherents, social conservatives, anarchists and the like, and this short piece does all of that quite well.
Followed by:
The attribution is complicated as it's an excerpt from a book being quoted in the context of a review, this is where I found it.
http://nobodysbusinessblog.com/2011/08/ ... ts-part-1/
Quote:
At it’s root, libertarianism is about a default preference for the freedom to peaceably pursue happiness as we define it without interference from government. It’s the belief that the burden of proof should rest not on the individual who wants to sell lemonade, paint his or her house purple, hop on an airplane, ingest intoxicants, or marry someone from the same sex (though preferably not in that order) but on any government seeking to thwart or control such victimless activities. Like the magazine we write for, we agitate for the aspirational goal of “free minds and free markets,” celebrating a world of expanding choice — in lifestyles, identities, goods, work arrangements, and more — and exploring the institutions, policies, and attitudes necessary for maximizing their proliferation. We are happy warriors against busybodies, elites, and gatekeepers who insist on dictating how other people should live their lives. Like John Stuart Mill, we’re big on “experiments in living.” Within the broadest possible parameters, we believe that you should be able to think what you want, live where you want, trade for what you want, eat what you want, smoke what you want, and wed whom you want. You should also be willing to shoulder the responsibilities entailed by your actions. Those general guidelines don’t explain everything, and they certainly don’t mean that there aren’t hard choices to make, but as basic principles, they go a hell of a long way to creating a world that is tolerant, free, prosperous, vibrant, and interesting.
Followed by:
Quote:
It’s not about Ayn Rand or anti-communism or big business or hard money or even non-coercion. It’s because I want us all to live in a world that is “tolerant, free, prosperous, vibrant, and interesting.”
The attribution is complicated as it's an excerpt from a book being quoted in the context of a review, this is where I found it.
http://nobodysbusinessblog.com/2011/08/ ... ts-part-1/
I note the caveats about general guidelines not explaining everything and about how it's not all about big business, and so on, but still these quotes do not much alter the opinion I already held regarding libertarianism. Libertarians and liberals might disagree on economics, but I find they both have an extremely simplistic laissez-faire attitude to morality. It should be obvious that the techological and medical advancements and the relative security and prosperity liberals & libertarians enjoy today only exist because of the discipline, order and self-sacrifice involved in the lives of those who came before them, and yet liberals and libertarians generally complain like children at the idea of society "judging" how people live their lives in the present day. This attitude seems to inform their opinions about a whole range of things.
Liberals are probably the whinier of the two though. ("Why does it bother you?" "How does that affect your rights?" "Oh yeah, <degenerate policy XYZ> is really going to wreck society LOL".)
It is people who are industrious by passion and creative people who enjoy thinking outside the box who create prosperity. Crusty curmudgeons with mundane values of stoicism and keeping one's head to the grindstone don't create wealth. I'm not denigrating hard work and personal responsibility either. I just think that for successful people hard work is not self-induced misery. Misery = virtue is what is taught by the remnants of the 17th century puritan zeitgeist here in America.
18 Aug 2011, 4:16 pm
marshall wrote:
It is people who are industrious by passion and creative people who enjoy thinking outside the box who create prosperity. Crusty curmudgeons with mundane values of stoicism and keeping one's head to the grindstone don't create wealth. I'm not denigrating hard work and personal responsibility either. I just think that for successful people hard work is not self-induced misery. Misery = virtue is what is taught by the remnants of the 17th century puritan zeitgeist here in America.
If you are implying that I am arguing for misery and stoicism over creativity, then I don't know what gives you this idea. You seem to be focusing solely on economics (work) anyway, whereas (as I thought I explained) I was focusing on other things. (I had in mind the thoughtless attitudes so many "libs" have towards things like immigration, gay marriage, trash TV, religion, you name it.)
If it was my reference to self-sacrifice that made you think I was extolling the virtues of misery, I will point out that it is certain forms of self-sacrifice (e.g., providing for a family) that provide many people with the greatest happiness.
And, if you think work has to be a choice between creativity and mundanity/misery, then where does that leave the huge numbers of people who are not in "creative" jobs? I would suggest that job satisfaction for such people (if it existed) would largely come from the idea that they were serving their community and/or nation, and community is not something libertarians have much understanding of. (In contrast, liberals perhaps do, as long as it is any community but their own.)
18 Aug 2011, 4:47 pm
codarac wrote:
marshall wrote:
It is people who are industrious by passion and creative people who enjoy thinking outside the box who create prosperity. Crusty curmudgeons with mundane values of stoicism and keeping one's head to the grindstone don't create wealth. I'm not denigrating hard work and personal responsibility either. I just think that for successful people hard work is not self-induced misery. Misery = virtue is what is taught by the remnants of the 17th century puritan zeitgeist here in America.
If you are implying that I am arguing for misery and stoicism over creativity, then I don't know what gives you this idea. You seem to be focusing solely on economics (work) anyway, whereas (as I thought I explained) I was focusing on other things. (I had in mind the thoughtless attitudes so many "libs" have towards things like immigration, gay marriage, trash TV, religion, you name it.)
I think family values can be promoted without insisting on religion or scapegoating homosexuals (who have always existed) for the decline. I think family values have been eroding since the advent of professionalism, division of labor, and labor mobility that always accompanies industrialization. I do think something is missing from the time when multiple generations lived in close proximity and worked as a unit (family farm or family business). Oddly enough, immigrant communities are usually more connected to this traditional arrangement. The whole notion of the nuclear family is flimsy to begin with IMO. It's too easy to blame hippies and sexual liberation movements for problems that have existed long before the 60s.
Quote:
If it was my reference to self-sacrifice that made you think I was extolling the virtues of misery, I will point out that it is certain forms of self-sacrifice (e.g., providing for a family) that provide many people with the greatest happiness.
And, if you think work has to be a choice between creativity and mundanity/misery, then where does that leave the huge numbers of people who are not in "creative" jobs? I would suggest that job satisfaction for such people (if it existed) would largely come from the idea that they were serving their community and/or nation, and community is not something libertarians have much understanding of. (In contrast, liberals perhaps do, as long as it is any community but their own.)
And, if you think work has to be a choice between creativity and mundanity/misery, then where does that leave the huge numbers of people who are not in "creative" jobs? I would suggest that job satisfaction for such people (if it existed) would largely come from the idea that they were serving their community and/or nation, and community is not something libertarians have much understanding of. (In contrast, liberals perhaps do, as long as it is any community but their own.)
I don't disagree with any of this. I wasn't sure where you were going with your other post. This clarified it.
18 Aug 2011, 9:50 pm
marshall wrote:
It is people who are industrious by passion and creative people who enjoy thinking outside the box who create prosperity. Crusty curmudgeons with mundane values of stoicism and keeping one's head to the grindstone don't create wealth.
True to some extent. But the worker-bees make it possible for the dreamers and creators to do their thing. Every one who does something useful makes a contribution to the general welfare of society.
ruveyn
19 Aug 2011, 12:19 pm
Libertarian is a complex phenomenon. Unlike liberalism and conservatism, which in the United States, we equate to the Left and the Democratic Party and the Right and the Republican Party respectively, libertarianism makes a claim to be neither left nor right. However, self-proclaimed libertarian politicians and major campaign donors tend to ally themselves with Republicans and conservatives. Yes, some libertarians emphasize things like freedom of speech, sexual freedom, and other personal/social freedoms, but the main thrust of the movement supports ending business regulations.
19 Aug 2011, 12:35 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
Libertarian is a complex phenomenon. Unlike liberalism and conservatism, which in the United States, we equate to the Left and the Democratic Party and the Right and the Republican Party respectively, libertarianism makes a claim to be neither left nor right. However, self-proclaimed libertarian politicians and major campaign donors tend to ally themselves with Republicans and conservatives. Yes, some libertarians emphasize things like freedom of speech, sexual freedom, and other personal/social freedoms, but the main thrust of the movement supports ending business regulations.
Without laws to punish or deter fraud and breach of contract, there would be no Capitalism.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Aug 2011, 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
19 Aug 2011, 1:06 pm
Well, I was always confused with why Libertarians were not anarchists but now I suppose I understand that they do indeed believe in a minimal government, which makes somewhat more sense to me; I do not agree with Libertarian values, being an authoritative government (like Singapore) supporter and against capitalism, but it seems to be consistent.
19 Aug 2011, 9:24 pm
I think it is important to distinguish between what is legal and what is right. I see libertarianism as a practical way to create a clear division between the two without leading to nihilism or authoritarianism. I think my (merely political) preferences stem from a deep fear of social engineering whether it is by public schools, religion, stuffy elites, the media, "one world" leftists, and more. I also find that conservatives lie to themselves that they would never become totalitarians when every politician has the capability of becoming one. I do not care anymore if I sound antisocial. Communities cannot function based on artificial bounds that are manufactured by those with force at their disposal.
19 Aug 2011, 9:25 pm
petitesouris wrote:
I think it is important to distinguish between what is legal and what is right. I see libertarianism as a practical way to create a clear division between the two without leading to nihilism or authoritarianism. I think my (merely political) preferences stem from a deep fear of social engineering whether it is by public schools, religion, stuffy elites, the media, "one world" leftists, and more. I also find that conservatives lie to themselves that they would never become totalitarians when every politician has the capability of becoming one. I do not care anymore if I sound antisocial. Communities cannot function based on artificial bounds that are manufactured by those with force at their disposal.
Anyone with power over others is a potential (and probably a likely) tyrant.
ruveyn
22 Aug 2011, 5:16 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
That's a nice little self-declaration. I can imagine a social democrat comming up with a similar statement saying "I don't believe in giving to the lazy, I believe in helping the unfairly disadvantaged reach their full potential" or a conservative stating "I don't believe in micromanaging people's personal lives, I just believe in upholding the morals necessary to maintain a stable society". The problem is that all all-meaining maxims, even an "predisposition against government interference", have unintented consequences or potential unintended consequences when actually applied.
I'm going to try and catch up with this thread, so bear with me while I hit some of the responses.
Here in particular I think you're trying to equate my quoted statement with something more akin to spin or semantics than what it actually is, which is more of a simplified mission statement. More than anything, I'm trying to nail down what libertarianism isn't, because I'm tired of people thinking it's just conservatives that smoke pot and read Ayn Rand.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
22 Aug 2011, 5:23 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
Okay, given that you disregard the closest thing to an organization representing the consensus among libertarians as representative of libertarianism, you've made it impossible to support any generalizations about libertarians. That is because you've made it clear earlier that you don't trust polling data (unless you've changed your mind on that issue).
No more so than if I said I was talking about democracy and not the Democratic party. In at least my personal experience, libertarianism isn't so much a specific political allegiance, like with parties, but an overriding philosophy towards government and policy. I vote for whoever best represents my ideals, not for say Bob Barr because he happens to be running as a Libertarian.
I'm skeptical of polling data and statistics because they're so easily manipulated, though I'll take them into consideration if I can check up on the methodology used. I'm sure you're familiar with Frank Luntz, and that should make anyone skeptical about polls. I also know you've heard the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and understand the reason behind the sentiment.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
