Libertarianism...A Parody

Libertarianism= Political Altruism in a non-altruistic world. That's my main and simple problem with it. As I dabbled in Libertarianism. The idea that we shouldn't use force to convert others, that we should(as Locke outlined) be able to keep our private property, etc. A lot of these things generally make sense.

But in a non-altruistic world, others do use force. How do you respond? Do you just LIE there? How are just claims resolved? Is a court not force, or recognized power? So I think the concept of Libertarianism is a noble one from an individual perspective. We should act in a just manner towards fellow beings.

And when we as individuals take up that mantle, society will reflect Libertarianism. But it cannot be reflected via government first. Libertarianism is the true definition of "hearts and minds".

 

Ignoring the millions upon millions of people killed, disabled, or whose lives were ruined by governments, particularly by the socialism that you favor over the last 80 years. If people don't do what you want including living by your particular morals, just force them to do so, and punish them when they aren't obedient..

 

Most often we're accused of stifling economic growth through opposition to fractional reserve central banking, "optimal allocation of resources", etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps just misunderstanding?

If people think this is what we believe, maybe we have a PR problem.

 

Keynesians are obsessed with marginal utility above all else, not libertarians. We frequently give up economic growth for what we (rightly or wrongly) see as liberty.

Moreover, I sway closer to Nozick than Rothbard and the ancappers. I simply support moving sovereignty from international/regional/national institutions closer to the individual. If a community of people want to secede from any hypothetical libertarian territory, you're free to do so. Of course, so long as your desired state is not imperialistic.

 

Laws and rules are established to allow society to function.

Obey them...or you will be punished.

Most people obey them because they see them as necessary. In fact, most rules and laws are in place because a majority of society demands that they be in place.

Libertarians have taken a decent idea and subverted it. Follow it to its logical conclusion and you will find chaos and anarchy.

 

Retaliatory force is explicitly permitted in practically all libertarian branches.

What's not permitted is preventive force against innocents.

 

And again, it's a noble, philosophical concept that I would come to agree with. It's just so hard in actuality to practice. It's like a drug addict trying to get off the drug(of violence.)

Things have to happen in steps. I think government needs to create the conditions where we can see a developing society without violence. Literally, targeting all of the violent gangs, no more releases of felons, etc. The people who perpetuate violence against innocents are the cause.

Once one removes and reforms all violent actors, then the world will be at a place where we can have much less force(and much less government.) Control only exists to the extent where society lacks its own self-control, IMO.

 

Could you clarify what you were getting at in your first point? Obviously it's stupid to assume that just because a certain society decides to go the path of Libertarianism that everyone else on the planet will too. Therefore there will obviously be borders in this society, and whether we call it a pole in a ground or a nation with borders it's the same thing.

I see you're equating 'drug use' with 'drug abuse'.. is there any difference in these terms in your opinion? Almost everything has the potential to be abused, so following your logic we should literally ban everything because they are potentially detrimental to society? Drug abuse is bad and I agree it should be treated as a health problem if it is impacting and impeding on other individual's liberties. Is it your position that you shouldn't be able to be an alcoholic and drink your life away if it does no harm to anyone but yourself?

As far as distributers go, will you prosecute chemists and doctors who prescribe their patients drugs also? Drugs that people get addicted to and end up controlling/changing their lives to their own detriment? Libertarians thinks it's much more mature to educate people on the dangers and benefits of drugs, how badly your life can be affected by abusing these drugs and perhaps set up a pathway for those who are affect by drugs or abusers to seek help, but otherwise respect that grown ups should be able to make their own decisions on whether or not they take drugs so long as they do no harm to others in their society.

I'm curious how you think prostitution does harm to the social order? I agree that it's not a great thing, but I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be, or even as bad as drug abuse.

You, and a lot of others in this thread, don't seem to understand the concept of liberty, and are confusing it with freedom. Liberty is not absolute freedom. Rather it is a bunch restrictions that a society has set up in order for individuals to prosper. Liberty is the freedom to do whatever you like, so long as you don't break the foundational rules of the State. Libertarians believe in small governments because they don't like the idea that a federal government should make the rules for a bunch of different groups. Libertarians believe in small, localised government, where everyone within that group agrees on the rules that they will follow. They will make these rules obviously to help their society prosper, because that's what each individual in that society wants. The very concept of liberty is the result of realising what you've mentioned, that you must give up certain freedoms for the greater good. Freedom doesn't acknowledge that other individuals should have the same freedoms as you, but liberty does; everyone is equally free so long as everyone abides by agreed upon rules and values.

You must also understand that you can't just go rape, pillage and plunder in this society, as you would be infringing on others' liberties and would be subject to the laws of the governed. You mix up freedom and liberty too much for your argument to be coherent. You act like there's no laws in a libertarian society. Put very simply, freedom has no laws whereas liberty has as many laws as the people wish. You can't break any laws you like and live your life at the expense of others in a libertarian society.

You say that they value individual rights instead of community rights (social justice), and you're absolutely right. If we protect the rights of the community above the rights of the individual, then any individuals that don't conform to that version of social justice will be disposed of, historically violently. These communities will eat their own members to preserve an idea of social justice. If 51% of the community wants to kill the other 49%, this is justified only by their idea of social justice. This is called tyranny and is why libertarianism lays down foundations of rule of law respecting an individual's rights foremost. That's not to say they don't care about social justice, just that individual justice is supreme. They sacrifice their individual freedoms for the sake of social justice, ergo Liberty. It is a well thought out philosophy and the safest way for an individual to live, love and prosper within a society.

 

YOU do not understand that I DO understand the difference between liberty and freedom...and licence. l

YOU do not understand that difference.

Libertarianism, when carried to its logical conclusion, is avocation of licence. And society cannot function with everyone having as much freedom and liberty as you guys want. Society demands that individuals give up lots of freedom and liberty...in order to enjoy enhanced freedoms and liberties as a community.

As for smaller government...that is the step in the direction of chaos and anarchy.

The notion that the federal government should step aside and allow individual groups of people to decide it is okay to own slaves...and refuse women the right to vote...is a giant step in the direction of chaos and anarchy.

If you like libertarianism...go with it.

Personally...I think it sucks.

 

There's a distinction between preventive and preemptive war. I have no issue with the latter.

For instance, a man is running at you, screaming with a knife. He raises it as he gets close. I have no issue with you using force against him before he actually attacks you.

What I take issue with is thinking that this man might, perhaps harbor ill-will toward you, and therefore going to his home and killing him to prevent some theoretical violence.

All of the above also applies to war.

 

So you believe something that you cannot explain.

 

Well, right. Libertarians are against murder, assault, theft, and property damage, to name the most obvious ones. Those are clear violations of a person's equal rights.

This is a bit of a loaded question, isn't it? It just assumes that "a person" (whoever they are) will have no resources because of liberty, but why should that be? What is it about liberty that prevents people from having resources?

 

Is there something about libertarian ideology that forbids self-defense?

How just claims are resolved is not really an ideological issue per se. Once it is determined what is and is not just, the method of enforcing that principle becomes an issue of structure, i.e., do we enforce this through arbitration, mediation, juries, etc.? Under libertarian ideology, the method of resolving conflicts is virtually unlimited, so long as said method is governed by a basic set of moral principles. As an example, suppose the members of a community have determined that murder is unjust. Once that determination has been made, the method of enforcing it is entirely up to the community. Clearly, self-defense would be the first and probably most effective method of enforcement, but that does not preclude other methods of enforcement like peace officers and courts. What matters most to libertarians is the principle itself. The method of enforcing it is more of a practical issue than anything.

Libertarians aren't categorically opposed to force. They're only opposed to the initiation of force. Force in defense of one's life, liberty, and property is totally acceptable to libertarians.

 

That's part of it. But the biggest reason why people think this way about liberty is because they've been heavily conditioned by the ruling classes to fear and even hate liberty.

 

Then it's a good thing that libertarians aren't opposed to laws and rules.

In other words, might makes right?

The majority of society doesn't even know what the laws are in most cases. They are mostly passive in terms of how laws are made and enforced. They think that by engaging in periodic voting rituals, they've had their say, but that is nothing more than a carefully maintained illusion. And even if we used voting as a proxy for involvement in legislating, the majority of people do not vote and the large majority of people do not vote for the majority party. For example, in 2012, Obama received around 61 million votes. That means around 253 million Americans did not vote for him or his policies, to include Obamacare, which was passed without a single vote from his opposition. In other words, about 20% of the population was able to ram a piece of legislation down the remaining 80%'s throat. Is that your idea of democracy?

You keep saying that, but it appears you have no idea why that is.

 

What even is liberty though? I think we should avoid pidgeonholing it into our corner. Liberty, it seems to me, is a constant battle. There is no such thing as utopia.

Additionally, I don't think you can fully describe it. As in, there is no single statement or set of statements which fully encapsulates the concept. To make this clear, consider just how unavoidable pollution is. Then extend that to pollution which isn't necessarily harmful, but perhaps unwanted. The electromagnetic waves coming from our body heat is a good example.

Perhaps a man is running an experiment which requires no outside radiation. You move in next door and start emitting your body heat, thereby ruining his experiment. Does he have justifiable recourse against you? I think so.

Pollution like this is unavoidable, and so we need to be wary of making broad generalizations about a concept which is difficult to encapsulate.

 

I think the definition I provided earlier is more than sufficient.

And I would definitely not agree that this man has recourse against me unless we came to such an agreement earlier.

Because you're basically saying that my very existence is an affront to his liberty, which is, of course, a very dangerous precedent.

I mean, is there some reason why he cannot find a different, more suitable location to perform his experiment? Or am I just supposed to leave my house every time this guy wants to run his experiment?

Also, if he's trying to run an experiment where outside radiation will ruin it, the infrared radiation from my body will be the least of his worries.

 

I get what you're trying to say, though. Perhaps a better example would be something like light or noise pollution. For example, someone playing loud music at 3 AM on a Tuesday.

And although we could argue endlessly over the intricacies of such and how it pertains to the liberty of each party to the dispute, I would just say that if we reach a point where arguments over noise and light pollution (which could only conceivably apply to highly localized settings) are the biggest issues facing libertarians, then we've basically won.

I mean, MAYBE there will be a few instances where someone's right to play loud music at a certain time of day is infringed upon by the local government, and while that is wrong in principle, it's not something that will keep me awake at night as a libertarian. I'm much more concerned with large-scale, acute forms of tyranny like imperialism, mass spying, drug prohibition, central banking, and income taxation than I am with a few localized acts of petty tyranny.

 

And of course, no society could possibly be voluntary and non-coercive.

 

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with economics. It is not economics. It is a political stance that the initiation of aggression against other people's bodies or their property is unjustified. Libertarian theory has no moral imperative to make money.

 

It is the natural state to have no resources.

 

Nope.

I said nothing about "believing" anything.

 

Agreed but what the hell does this have to do with Libertarianism that advocates for the maximum personal liberty and economic freedom of the individual? The picture you paint is exactly the opposite of "economic freedom" for the person and instead paints a picture of "economic slavery" instead.

 

Don't get me wrong, Eth, the only reason I keep saying that Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy...

...is because Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy.

Most libertarians seem unable to see that.

 

I would never say it is impossible...no way to know that.

But it is so unlikely, that I would bet against it as a guess.

The only way to get a functioning society is to agree on rules...and enforce them for everyone, including the libertarian types who think there should be fewer rules.