Baraka_Guru

So, basically, a libertarian is a classical liberal? A liberal who leans towards the free market and individual rights and freedoms, as opposed to social liberalism and the welfare state?

Well, I suppose that's one flavour of it anyway....

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

fair enough. the basis for my list was simply those libertarians I have had occasion to debate with. I'm not saying they represent libertarianism as a whole

Baraka_Guru

I think we can accept by now that there is no "libertarians as a whole," just as there are no "liberals as a whole" or "conservatives as a whole."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

interesting. i know alot more about anarchism than about libertarianism, truth be told. i've always found anarchism (which has many variants that array along the question of self-organization and how it is to operate, really) more compelling an oppositional viewpoint than libertarian positions, mostly because i see very little in the latter that goes beyond a desire to take absolutely literally the notion of the economic subject in "classical" political economy. the assumption of infrastructure and rule-sets particular to capitalism as background conditions cedes all questions of power or control or hierarchy a priori. anarchism doesn't: these are central concerns (again, speaking in general about a space that is differentiated...so not the haircut anarchists, not the black block or other direct action types, really). libertarianism has nothing to say about social hierarchy, so tends to default into some idea that such hierarchies are natural (one way or another)...so there's no possibility for thinking critically about the idea(s) of social hierarchy from that viewpoint: as far as you can go is to oppose an "artificial" to "natural" form and link the former to the state or whatever other bureaucratic apparatus that in principle as libertarian you oppose which in fact you presuppose it's functionality--you just don't like having to look at it alot and wish that it would be like a good dog and stay invisible so you can pretend you're in some state of nature.

but the biggest problem is not so much the spaces for thinking that libertarian modes of politics lead you to (and my background pushes me to see political positions as types of conceptual devices that enable you to see or not see phenomena in the world as political, think through them, maybe consider alternatives and what they'd look like) is the relation to capitalism. libertarian modes of thinking are products of capitalism--they are reflections of it, a kind of loyal opposition within it that (again) turn the notions abstracted from classical political economy against whatever contemporary aspects of the form (capitalism) they don't like. to my mind, this is little more than holding up a mirror. it repeats the logic it opposes wholesale.

but that's just my opinion, man.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

I just don't get the notion that if we all try hard enough, we'll all be CEO's. This idea that there are an infinite amount of jobs/opportunities out there, and everyone has the chance to be successful is simply untrue, and ignores the fact that society can't operate with all chiefs and no indians

Hektore

This point hits close to the point I want to make about one common failing I see in other libertarian thinkers, which is a failure to realize that providing individuals with certain freedoms allows them to control the freedoms of others indirectly.

Hopefully this (long) example will illustrate my point.

Suppose we go out to some poor, starving, partially westernized society and offer to hold an annual footrace, where the winners gets 1,000 head of cattle and rights to enough lands to graze them, etc divided up amongst themselves (say 500 to the winner, 300 to second 200 to third).

I think most libertarians would look at this as an idealized system, each person is in control of there own destiny, as long as we make sure people don't cheat in the race, ie no starting early and equal starting/finishing positions then it's a fair race, and will always be a fair race.

It looks reasonable on paper but look at what would realistically happen over say 500 iterations of the race. Gaining 500 head of cattle would be a huge asset, one that would enable the winner to gain access to things like better health through nutrition and care, better shoes to race in more time to train for the race due to the increased assets, in short, better chances at winning next years race.

Over the course of time a class structure will emerge where the groups that historically have always won the race will continue to win the race and those that lost continue to lose. Sure, there will be success stories where someone from the 'losing class' has a great day and wins, as well as those who have one the last three races will stumble and not even finish, but as a statistical average the class system will be definite.

Even though the race is 'fair' and the winner is determined by some intrinsic virtue (speed) it is set up in such a way that other factors not related to that virtue weigh heavily on the outcome, in such a way that being born into the winning or losing class greatly affects the likelihood of your winning or losing. The system errodes personal sovereignty because it allows those that control the assets now to influence who get to control the assets in the future in such a way that the more assets you control the more influence you get.

The only way to make the race fair again is to adjust the rules to accommodate differences in these other factors. For example, each race won makes your next race a mile longer or something (the numbers are not important the idea is) similar.

The idea is that using a central body (government) to limit the liberty of some who have undue influence over the liberty of others can function to increase liberty of the whole.

To land the plane with education. Right now the affluence of your parents influences the quality of state provided education you receive. Students are receiving better education (which in turn affects their socioeconomic status for the rest of their lives) on the state through no 'intrinsic worth' of their own (it has far more to do with their parents) and with the sponsorship of the government to boot. When I think of libertarians I would think this to be a hot button issue for them, but for some reason it isn't (that I've noticed).

As a libertarian (I've been told this is what I am, sometimes I'm not sure) I would like to see more money directed to poorer schools and less to richer ones, which raise more money at the local level, to equalize access to resources(quality teachers, equipment, books, etc) on a per pupil basis. Where you live and how much money your parents make should not influence the quality of the state sponsored education you receive. By equalizing quality of education receive across the classes, we equalize the playing field for students and allow a greater degree of self determination, because the level of education they receive (which is linked so closely with socioeconomic status) will be a great deal more under their control. Ideally, variations between schools in student performance (graduation rates, post secondary education acceptance rates, standardized test averages) would be nil, and where they do exist they will emerge entirely from a failure of the administration of the school, not the students themselves.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

Willravel

To me that reads as a more centrist position as far as the individualism/collectivism scale goes. You believe in individual responsibility to a point, but you're not willing to sacrifice a great deal for that belief; the belief is seasoned with pragmatism. I think this kind of thinking represents a great deal more libertarians than the all or nothing kind of dogmatic libertarianism provided by Senator Ron Paul.

squeeeb

i don't want to hijack your thread, you got me wondering...

do you think it takes an "all or nothing" attitude to make things work? is compromise the reason any one political ideal doesn't work, because it compromises itself and weakens it's strengths? cater to too many people, try to please everyone, you please no one?

i still stand by the libertarian party, if only because the dems and repubs seem to have lost their way, and they haven't quite worked out for the last 20 years or so (to my liking).

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

that's the fallacy. we can't all be CEOs. like it or not, two people sitting under a tree, one of them MUST be in charge, over the other. there will ALWAYS be one group over another, total equality is impossible. we can (and SHOULD) have equal opportunity, equal rights, but we can't be equal. i'm waaay better than many folks. even more folks are waaaay better than me. that is how it is.

someone is gonna be poor, someone is gonna be rich, someone is gonna be in the middle. of course the guy on the bottom doesn't want to be there, and the guy at the top doesn't see the problem.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

i thought libertarians were more conservative than republicans.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

ratbastid

Liberal/conservative is one spectrum. Libertarian/authoritarian is entirely another. Not related.

Baraka_Guru

I think he meant that libertarians are generally more conservative than Republicans. It's a valid consideration, though I don't think it's necessarily true.

The labels are hard to keep track of, but both liberals and conservatives came out of classical liberalism: a value of free markets and individual rights and freedoms. But then many liberals went after social liberalism, and many conservatives went after social conservatism. They vary on economic philosophies as well, of course.

I don't know. If you consider classical liberalism, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism, then libertarians are all for classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism but don't particularly care for social conservatism.

EDIT: note that although liberal/conservative and libertarian/authoritarian are two different spectra, together they make up a matrix within which we all find ourselves plotted. So this means that a libertarian isn't necessarily conservative, though they may generally be. I don't think "socialist libertarianism" is entirely that popular.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

I don't think there's one answer to that question. I think in some things compromise is unfortunately the best option but on other things I'll fight tooth and nail until the bitter end because I'm as sure as I can be that the other side is wrong and their position will fail. Take health care reform as an example. I feel I've seen enough raw data to conclude that the general libertarian position, that the health care industry should remain private, simply won't work. I plan on fighting for a different system either until I win, I die, or some new and convincing data becomes available. I don't see that as something to compromise on because I don't feel a compromise would yield the best outcome. On the other hand, I might be willing to compromise when libertarians talk about decriminalization. I'd be fine decriminalizing certain illegal drugs such as marijuana and such, but I'd not want all illegal drugs legalized entirely because I'm not convinced that total legalization would be as successful as partial legalization or decriminalization.

I think the strongest position is the most practical for the given situation. You can't be all radical all the time because you'd end up alienating the other side completely and nothing will ever get solved. You can't compromise on everything because then you'll not be fully supporting any of the options you feel are correct. It has to be blended depending on the given situation.
Those aren't the only 3 options. I'm registered green right now, I was independent before that. I might register Peace and Freedom if the Green Party continues to lose its way and I feel I can't contribute to fixing it.

squeeeb

in the military, i've been subject to socialized medicine, i'm not a fan. from what i understand, many many many Canadians come down south to the states for healthcare, because they can be seen when they need to be seen, and don't have to wait for treatment like they do in a socialized situation.

if they are living it, and aren't happy (granted, no such thing as making everyone happy), doesn't it make a point against socialized health care?

i had a wisdom tooth problem. i went to the governemnt dentist, i was the only patient in the whole place, i needed it removed, he wouldn't do it, i had to wait because it was his "day off, " or something. i forget.

so i left his office and drove downtown to a local private dentist. i paid 50 bucks and my tooth was removed, i was better and ready to deal with what i had to deal with. for me, private health care is totally the way to go. i don't see any merit to socialized government run health care. then again, i can afford it, sort of, as opposed to those who cannot. if people could afford the health care they need, would you prefer privatized health care, or socialized? i would say private. competition breeds better performance.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Derwood

socialized vs. private health care is an entirely different subject. let's not let this thread drift

squeeeb

sorry bout that.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

loquitur

How's this for timing: Tyler Cowen had a post yesterday on five flavors of libertarianism. The comments propose more. Me, I'm mainly a Hayek/Friedman type, maybe slightly Cato-ish. I have little use for the Paulite, nationalist or immigration-bashing types.

Willravel

Ah! Great link, loquitur. I'll check it out while I'm at work (I'm such a good employee).

dy156

I think the party of the future (or more accurately the party with the brightest future is the one that embraces these ideals) is made up of social liberals and economic conservatives - aka "when Libertarians meet the ACLU halfway" or the purple people. Whether they are "selfish liberals" or philosophically honest conservatives... live and let live- what's mine is mine and the government had better not take it but whatever the hell you want to do is great so long as it doesn't interfere with me... that to me is libertarianism.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

but then again there are pragmatic libertarians who realize that the market place would not have defeated Hitler in the 40's, built the interstate highway system in the 50's, or gotten us to the moon in the 60's. That government is there to do do the things we cannot on our own. (like take over a large middle eastern country with tremendous oil reserves to ensure our well being for the next few decades ... woops, I bet I lost several people that were agreeing with me up until that point.)

Willravel

I'm not sure your statement about Iraq is correct. If we didn't have a public military, we'd have a private one and it's be a lot easier to use. Look at Blackwater, and then pretend that they and other private military contractors have a total of over 1.4 million troops that can be deployed to the highest bidder.

robot_parade

I've noticed that certain political persuasions seem to attract more people who are ideologically pure...one might also say zealots. People who believe in whatever the core principles of their chosen political philosophy must absolute, and take them to their conclusion, no matter where it leads them. Strangely enough, libertarians and communists tend to fall into this category. Perhaps that's simply because all of the realistic libertarians and communists identify as republicans or democrats.

The world is a messy place. I just don't think there's room for ideological purity...you have to give a little.

I don't believe any right can be truly universal. I don't think civil liberties and a strong government providing a safety net are incompatible. I think some regulation is necessary for capitalism to function.

Slims

I am going to chime in very quickly.

I will post a longer response tomorrow now that I have found this thread.

But quickly: The Libertarian Philosophy is a very general one. I personally believe that the core of any true libertarian philosophy is a believe in minimal government and an emphasis on personal responsiblity. How that should manifest itself is largely up to the individual.

Personally, I believe you can consider yourself a libertarian if you believe (as an ideal, not necessarily as a practical implementation of that ideal) this statement applies to you: "I believe the maximum role of civil government should be the protection of life, liberty and property as well as the maintenance of a free state."

There is a lot of wiggle room in that statement, though it probably would be difficult to stretch it far enough to fully include Willravel's personal ideals.

The problem with any ideal is that they are, well, idealistic and fail to include the natural failings of societies and the individuals within them. The libertarian philosophy is no different in this regard than many others. What I believe it has going for it is a good principle which should be applied more often.... But then you run into the collision of ideals with reality (but to be honest, you will have similar issues with any philosophy which I am aware of). The environment, for instance is one issue where the core philosophy is silent (because it deals with people rather than things), it is up to individuals and society to find a practical balance between absolute freedom and consumption. Under Libertarian philosophy an individual would be forbidden to harm others, destroying our environment is not far removed from that.

I, as a libertarian feel we are beginning to vote for things which we as a society cannot afford and cannot sustain. I feel this will long-term do more harm than good. I understand that as the world becomes more complex, the government is likely going to have to grow in response, but I don't see how we can justify it's current bulk and inefficiency. IMHO most of my tax dollars are now spent on things which I simply do not feel are important.


Don't assume the Libertarian Party is the voice of the average Libertarian. One things Libertarians do very poorly is organize under a common banner and the Libertarian party has become a catch-all party of all kinds of radicals and other silliness.

More after I am less tired.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

Yeah, I'm not a libertarian. The definition can only stretch so far before breaking under the stress. I'm more on the collectivist side of the scale, though I'm not by any stretch a strict collectivist. We're all shades of gray, unless you're an ideologue and those people are generally both useless and boring at a party.

If I may, as the world is more complex a simple answer—sticking to one ideology—seems less and less reasonable. For some things we need individualism and for other things we need collectivism.

This thread, for me, is more about understanding the other side of the coin.

robot_parade

This is a great illustration of one of my primary problems with libertarianism (at least, in so much as it can be defined).

Beyond that, I'd love to hear a libertarian response to Will's smallpox example.

To me, libertarianism and communism are more similar than their adherents would like to think. They both sound good in theory, and fail miserably in practice. Has anyone ever come up with a successful political theory based upon reason alone? I think any pure ideology has to either fall apart or get messy when it intersects with the real world.