Misconceptions about libertarians

Post Reply New Topic

1. libertarians are not all about economics.
I may be a free-market oriented person, but most of the time, I will mainly promote the social aspects of libertarianism.
2. I myself am not a selfish human being, I do care about people. It seems however no one cares about my needs.

3. I am probably more open-minded than a majority of Republicans and Democrats. Most libertarians are also open-minded

4. I believe in the non-aggression principle. Force is only legitimate in self-defense. It seems though, that lot of party libertarians have abandoned this to get the vote.

5. I do criticize some market structures, the main reason I hate socialism is the fact that socialists seem to think that everyone should live under the system that they extol. I don't think libertarianism should be imposed on everyone because it would contradict the whole philosophy. If you want socialism, okay, but not me. That's why I support states' rights. If one state wants a program to assist people in that state, good, I'll just move somewhere else.

6. I support gun rights even though I am a pacifist.

Leaving off advocacy on my own part, I am interested to see why you would support some states having the right to violate the rights of some individuals in order to grant special advantages to another group of individuals?

One other question. On what particular grounds do you support gun rights even though you are a pacifist?

Finally, and most importantly, selfishness is not about "not caring about other people." It is about placing a higher value on your own life than you do on the lives of others. That does not preclude one from valuing other human beings, it just means not to value others higher than you value yourself. As a selfish individual I am constantly annoyed by that particular misrepresentation of selfishness.

1. Even though libertarians are not just about economics, the thrust of the libertarian movement seems to spring from economic theories and ideas of society. Without Friedman, Mises, and Bastiat, the libertarian movement would be rather weak. Not only that, but many libertarian understandings of rights seem to stem from the notion of property, which is more of an economics concept than it is any other.

2. Good point, very true, libertarianism does not entail selfishness, however, this does not prevent many libertarian views of the world from using the framework of selfishness. To this end they may use economic understandings such as homo economicus to argue that selfish beings can function in a society, or they may define selfishness tautologically by saying that human action is always in regard to the individuals interests whether or not these interests are induced by others.

3. That depends on the groups. I don't know all of the libertarians but people who tend to lean that direction will likely be open minded. The core group may be a lot less so though.

4. Very true, the idea of non-aggression tends to be found in the libertarian movement.

5. As Friedrich Hayek wrote: "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rates higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for." Many libertarians would attempt to disagree with your notion and they can argue that all large governments are evils to be disdained, however, the promotion of states rights is relatively common.

6. I don't see how this is a misconception about libertarianism. How non-aggression and gun ownership coincide? Essentially, I think the idea is that in a society where more people hold guns, violent gun holders will be held in check or eliminated by order preferring ones. There is also some idea that underground rebellion against an evil government would be more possible with gun ownership.

In a way, I'm placating some people, I may not agree with, but I am a minority

I'm libertarian too. You can't totally genaralize an entire group. There are liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians. Just because the word "libertarian" sounds like the word "liberal" doesn't necessarly mean that all libertarians are liberal. I'm more of a moderate. Depending on the issue i can be liberal or conservative. I support stem cell research, state rights, gay marriage, pro-choice, drug decriminalization, public nudity (to an extent), and other issues pertaining to one's private property. I think the government is crooked, but im not an anarchist as we do need some form of control to keep us in order. I'm not a socialist though i can see how capitalism has its major flaws. The socialist healthcare system gives everyone medical care, but it's not always good medical care. I believe more in a socio-capitalist system. If you were to go to the doctor and only have to pay half of the bill (with the government paying the other half) it would be more fair. More people would be able to afford care, the docs would still probably make around the same amount of money, and since the governemnt has to pay half of all medical care they probably would make sure they don't have to pay much (thus a cheaper bill). That's just my idea. I'm sure there are major flaws to that as well. There is no perfect system. As said by Megadeth in their song "Peace Sells": "If there's a new way i'll be the first in line. But it better work this time."

yes, I totally agree with that!
Let the people who need socialized medicine get it, but don't force it down everyone's throat.

Libertarians would sell roads to businesses, who in turn, would try to make as much money as they could off of them If a handful of rich guys wanted to be the only ones who could afford a peice of an interstate so that they wouldn't have to be stuck in traffic with the great unwashed, they could.

Yellowstone National Park would be sold and turned into condos, if that's what they wanted.

Unregulated capitialism seems to squash the idealists who don't have the heart to kill or be killed as much as the greedy do.

Ok? If rich guys want to buy an interstate then they would have an interstate. Honestly, I tend to think that few rich guys would be so irrational as to want to buy an interstate. Honestly though, there are a lot of profits to be made from tolls that would have to be accounted for in any transaction, as well, I would imagine that the ability to buy and sell roads would be combined with the ability to make new roads if necessary, so if it were really so common that rich dudes would buy roads, which it probably wouldn't be, then other people would make new roads simply to get the business of the rest of mankind.

Well, yes, but frankly, that still seems like an if. The issue with yellowstone would be one of which use of yellowstone seems the most profitable. Given that yellowstone is far away from civilization, it would probably not be made into condos as those are almost exclusively a city thing and very likely unprofitable.

Really though, I don't see why either of those developments is necessarily a bad thing.

As well, I would tend to argue that regulations are enough to kill any idealist as regulations are often tools by the powers that be to quash competition and the efforts of idealists.

The deregulation of the air waves has made them more boring.

The banks are freer to be more preditory when lending.

Pollution has gotten pretty bad in certain areas until regulators stepped in and insisted on pollution limits.

Some parts of Libertarians I like and some parts bring out the worst in peoplel

Frankly, banks are paying for that act. Honestly, I only see stupid lending practices, not ones of any contest as a loan is consensual.


You are right, that externalities need to be dealt with effectively. I think many libertarian economists would instead reject the methodology for regulation rather than calling pollution a good.

I tend to see libertarianism through a libertarian lens, so, I would tend to support it.

On pollution, since (in the U.S.) property rights are generally clearly defined, would not a Coasian Contract also solve the negative externality associated with pollution (so no need for government to get involved, and therefore, no market failure)? Of course in areas where rights are not clearly defined, they would need to be.

Transaction costs would probably be relatively high in this situation, so such a solution might be difficult.

In most situations, I image there would be relatively low transaction costs; the polluter is known, and the ones negatively affected by it are known group together to pull resources, monitoring and enforcement is also fairly cheap. An example of this is seen several years ago where a French town paid a Germany factory to operate more clean (because the factory was on the border w/ France). A problem could arise due to free riders (although they can be minimized), but transaction costs should still be minor.

Relatively low compared to what? Monitoring and enforcement are cheap, but the affected group is going to be heterogenous in preference and will have issues in organizing and addressing the heterogenous preferences. Also, as you stated, free riders are a problem. I never stated that it was impossible, I merely stated that transaction costs are high, not because of how to deal with the polluter but because of the independent agents that have to get together in order to pool enough money to recompensate the polluter. Honestly, how many other issues are harder? We are using Coase's theorem to try to solve an issue of a public good where government is often considered necessary. Like I said, I never said it was impossible, but rather that I had questions due to the transaction costs.

If group preferences are heterogeneous in relation to pollution (i.e. some do not care about pollution, while others do), then those with homogeneous preferences would be the ones to organize and pull their resources. Grouping together should be relatively cheap as well, since the affected people probably live in a small area and close to each other, plus the there's the internet for finding like minded people. Monitoring and enforcement within the group would be easier (people would know each other, and free riding would be harder since others would know how much each contributes if it is publicized amongst the group). In some ways, homeowner's associations operate in a similar fashion to this, and there apparently are not high transaction costs. Those who do not care about the pollution do free ride in a way off those who are paying, but since they were indifferent in the first place, it isn't really an issue.

Alternatively, the polluter could compensate those who are negatively affected by it by making deals with those people (there would be near zero transaction costs in this scenario). If the polluter values his polluting activity at $500, and some people dislike the pollution at $10, then deals can be made to make those who dislike the pollution (polluter pays those who dislike pollution $10). The only problem is people may try and falsify their preferences, but if you know before hand who is indifferent and who isn't, this shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't really classify either case as a potential market failure since deals can be made to reach the social optimal level.

"Libertarians stand opposed to power in lauding the natural right of all human beings to choose the course of their own lives, and to accept that fundamental, unquestionable responsibility for the consequences of their choices and actions. Any attempt to impose conformity on human beings through political means is an attempt to destroy what it is that makes them essentially and gloriously human."

--- Roy A. Childs