Libertarian freedom

[Jet]

Libertarianism is based on freedom. More precisely, it's based on exploiting the positive connotation of the term and redefining it in order to ensure that everyone who attacks libertarianism can easily be brushed off as anti-freedom. The common line that "liberals support social freedom, conservatives support economic freedom, and libertarians support both" is a prime example of this. Let's for a moment stop using the word freedom, and invent words so that they have no connotation. The said quote will become, say, "liberals support social quarpie, conservatives support economic shrane, and libertarians support both." This of course begs the question, "How do you define quarpie and shrane?" However, freedom has meant virtually everything over the last 200 years - even Hitler and Mao talked in terms of freedom - that the original quote begs the question, too, except that the use of existing terms makes this harder to see.

So, let's try and define quarpie and shrane. Quarpie is not quite the same as liberty, but has some common threads; it is a concept that includes some liberties, particularly those of the private space (including freedoms of speech and religion), and considers minimizing interference with what an individual can do in his or her private life. So far so good.

Now, shrane refers to something else, namely to a free market as opposed to a planned economy. Further, shrane also opposes not just governmental planning of the economy, but also welfare and public spending, as well as taxes meant to pay for it. The point here is to minimize interference with the market; hence, taxes should be as low as practically possible, and the government shouldn't regulate the economy.

This is the main flaw of libertarianism. First, shrane talks about governmental regulation of the market but rarely about corporate regulation of market, not to mention the deus ex capital status of large monopolies and cartels. Second, equating shrane with quarpie is extremely hard if not impossible, as while quarpie relates mainly to the private space, which can be completely unregulated, shrane relates entirely to the public space, where conflicts between different groups and different modes of action makes regulation necessary, if not by the government then by corporations, unions, or whoever is the strongest. Third, by using new terms, libertarianism's semantic trick fails it, as the taboo against being anti-freedom doesn't extend to shrane or quarpie or whichever word is used to describe a certain set of positions and/or ideas.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Interesting strawman you have built here. The phrase, "If you cannot dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit." comes to mind.

[Jet]

Would you care to explain?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Libertarians do not talk about corporate regulation because they believe a free market would eat such practice alive. If true, that would make it a non-issue.

You invent a couple of words, give them definitions based on your opinion, and then discredit them while trying to appear they have anything to do with a philosopy you appear not to understand.

[Jet]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon, Libertarians do not talk about corporate regulation because they believe a free market would eat such practice alive. If true, that would make it a non-issue.

Unfortuantely, it contradicts reality. Just look at Microsoft, which regulates some tech markets as its sees fit. A hundred years ago it was even worse, with Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel.

As for the words I used, I had to because regular words have connotations and I specifically wanted to avoid that. I defined quarpie exactly the way libertarians define social freedom to my knowledge and shrane exactly how the way they define economic freedom.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Yes, but you added things that are irrelevant due to their stance, as well as passing facts that are not facts. We know in our current form of government that certain things have to be regulated, but we can only guess at what a different form would do to these models.

But I will have to continue later. I got class in 5 hours and need to get some sleep, to go along with my unplanned "feel like hel, so am going to nap" earlier.

[Jet]

For when you wake up... which irrelevant things did I add? And which non-facts did I pass as facts?

[Autolykos]

Originally posted by Jet,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jet,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is the main flaw of libertarianism. First, shrane talks about governmental regulation of the market but rarely about corporate regulation of market ...[/b]

Corporations cannot lawfully force individuals to do anything. Only government can. In a free market, there is freedom of entry and exit; thus, as much as a corporation may want to prevent any would-be competitors from opening businesses, they are unable to do so.

Originally posted by Jet,@ ... not to mention the deus ex capital status of large monopolies and cartels.

Monopolies and cartels are always government creations. "Natural monopolies" are not true monopolies in that they cannot restrict entry and exit in the market.

<!--QuoteBegin-Jet,
Second, equating shrane with quarpie is extremely hard if not impossible, as while quarpie relates mainly to the private space, which can be completely unregulated, shrane relates entirely to the public space, where conflicts between different groups and different modes of action makes regulation necessary, if not by the government then by corporations, unions, or whoever is the strongest.[/quote]

This begs the question, "Where does private space end and public space begin?" I would say that the market is also private space, in terms of privately held property (that is, property that has a specific owner(s)). I think it is reasonable to say that one's property is part of his private space. Since corporations are treated as legal entities, this would apply to them as well.

- Rob

[Jet]

Corporations cannot lawfully force individuals to do anything.

No, but they have other means. If equilibrium wage is $2 per hour, then you either accept it or starve. Strictly speaking, the government can't force you to do anything, either, because you have a choice to break a law and go to prison, just like you have a choice to decline a meager wage and starve.

Monopolies and cartels are always government creations.

This is simply false; counterexamples include Microsoft and Standard Oil. Governments sometimes choose to create monopolies on certain conditions because the free market is inefficient at providing infrastructure and basically every public good.

This begs the question, "Where does private space end and public space begin?" I would say that the market is also private space, in terms of privately held property (that is, property that has a specific owner(s)).

Not precisely; while property is of course part of the private space, its exchange in a modern society is not. Unlike private space exchanges such as sex, it is deniable and can cause the formation of groups that deny people certain things required for a decent quality of life, such as a living wage. Remember that property rights are useless if the market deprives you of the ability to use them.

[bishop]

the slant if flawed because rather than attacking libertarianism on an issue-by-issue basis, you attack common rhetoric used by libertarians. that isn't much deeper than saying that the democratic party is the pro-black party, even though they act like they are.

[Jet]

Well, I do in fact attack a common rhetoric, but I think it is integral to the internal logic of libertarianism. Several times I have encountered libertarians bashing fascism and communism and then using the line above to attack liberalism and conservatism as "partly free." A lot of the momentum behind libertarianism stems from an attempt to equate quarpie with shrane, social liberty with capitalism.

[bishop]

all it is, is rhetoric to distinguish themselves from their opposites. fundamentally no different than republicans calling the poor lazy, democrats calling the rich greedy... the problem in this country is that most people think of everything as republican vs. democrat, leftist vs. rightists, etc.. libertarians have a mix of various ideologies.

rhetoric is usually the wrong way to go, but the easiest way to persuade.

[Jet]

Of course. However, libertarianism has little logical foundation beyond this rhetoric; it has to resort to pragmatics, i.e. showing that government regulation of the market and public spending are bad in the sense that they hurt the economy or reduce quality of life or whatever. On this ground, libertarianism can succeed only in a courtroom-like debate, in which the goal is to produce as many precedents as possible; however, once one realizes that such anecdotes are incomplete because different anecdotes argue for different positions, libertarianism loses even this. Examining not just individual occasions of hurtful regulations but looking at the overall effects of government regulation and public spending, we see that they are generally positive, even though some regulations had better never existed or toned down. In other words, libertarianism loses not just in logic but also in pragmatics.

[Osborn F Enready]

It sounds to me like yet another partisan rock throwing contest, yet these rocks are aimed at a "third" political party.... LOL

Party loyalists are the problem, and libertarians are probably the least laden with those, I can almost assure you.... LOL

[bishop]

that isn't true.. the cato institute leans heavily in the libertarian direction. they have quite the logical and intellectual foundation for their arguments. i don't know what a "true" libertarian is anymore than i know what a true "republican", "democrat", "liberal" or "conservative" are.. again, it comes down to positions on issues, rather than getting hung up on rhetoric.

however, once one realizes that such anecdotes are incomplete because different anecdotes argue for different positions

do republicans stand for limited government? is bush a republican? don't democrats stand for equality under the law? aren't white males discriminated by affirmative action?

it has to resort to pragmatics, i.e. showing that government regulation of the market and public spending are bad in the sense that they hurt the economy or reduce quality of life or whatever.

no different than the two leading parties - only that the specifics of their rhetoric are different.


again, it's the policies, not the rhetoric.

[Jet]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, It sounds to me like yet another partisan rock throwing contest, yet these rocks are aimed at a "third" political party.... LOL Party loyalists are the problem, and libertarians are probably the least laden with those, I can almost assure you.... LOL

It's okay, I attack them too. Just read some of the stuff I write on Open Source Politics. Since this place is laden with libertarians more than with Democratic/Republican party hacks, I attack libertarians rather than Democratic/Republican party hacks.

[Osborn F Enready]

Then I am safe?? I am a non party loyalist??

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Jet,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jet,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-GreatWyrm of Babylon, Libertarians do not talk about corporate regulation because they believe a free market would eat such practice alive. If true, that would make it a non-issue.

Unfortuantely, it contradicts reality. Just look at Microsoft, which regulates some tech markets as its sees fit. A hundred years ago it was even worse, with Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel.

As for the words I used, I had to because regular words have connotations and I specifically wanted to avoid that. I defined quarpie exactly the way libertarians define social freedom to my knowledge and shrane exactly how the way they define economic freedom.[/b][/quote]

It shouldn't be the Government's job to act as our Unions. If people don't do it on their own then we will be just as defenseless. Libertarians are not anti-Union. They aren't even against regulating pollution or worker rights most of the time. They want to remove import and export taxes everywhere. I used to think the same thing you did, and it didn’t make sense to me. Libertarians feel that Capitalism exceeding the bounds of nationalism would make a stronger world for everyone. It wouldn’t be good for Americans at first, but everything would even out, there would be so much less poverty and war and fanaticalism.
The ideas of Libertarianisms have a huge amount to do with Freedoms. I know why you’re seeking to attack them, and to a Liberal or a Conservative they are the biggest threat. The enemy becomes the other, but Libertarians are genuine and compromising and human. If you want to take Freedoms and butcher the forms they are used to express ideas just to corrupt them to somehow subjectively study Libertarianism while seeming objective you’re not doing a good job of it. In the liberal tradition, I’d recommend just studying a lot of what they have to say, and give it your respect as you go about it, you’ll be surprised.

[The Black Flag]

Um..Sorry if this is the wrong time\place to be posting this, but this has confused me. Is "liberal" and "liberatarian" two different things???

"Corporations cannot lawfully force individuals to do anything.



No, but they have other means. If equilibrium wage is $2 per hour, then you either accept it or starve. Strictly speaking, the government can't force you to do anything, either, because you have a choice to break a law and go to prison, just like you have a choice to decline a meager wage and starve."

You are assuming that the company paying the $2 wage is the only game in town. That is almost always not the case. Other employers needing labor are going to pay a higher wage in order to attract workers. Then the company only willing to pay $2 will either have to offer more money or go out of business. Corporations do not wield the kind of power you seem to think they have.
If, for example, they are the only company in town and the workers do have to take it or starve. Do you think supporting service enterprises will try to charge the same prices for food, clothes, rent etc., that they could where the workers earned more money? Of course not, they would have to adjust to the realities of their situation.

QUOTE
Monopolies and cartels are always government creations.



This is simply false; counterexamples include Microsoft and Standard Oil. Governments sometimes choose to create monopolies on certain conditions because the free market is inefficient at providing infrastructure and basically every public good."

First of all, while Microsoft does control the lions share of the Operating System market, they are NOT a monopoly.
Waaaay back when Standard Oil appeared to have a monopoly, the company was broken into its constituent parts. After a reletively short time, SO, had reaquired most of the lost pieces of the company and was larger than before. SO. was simply one of the earliest players in the oil distribution game and caused angst among it's latter arriving, and/or, its less efficient, aggressive competitors.
I'll agree that infrastructure develpment can be difficult for the private sector. Take roads for example, I seriously doubt we would have the roads and Interstates we do today were it not for government projects. This type of activity would fall under the purview of the statement that Government should do for you, the citizen, what you cannot do for yourself. Few Libertarians would argue this point. However, on the other side of the coin, we have fiber optic cables and microwave antennas springing up all over the country, and world. These projects are not being funded by Uncle Sam, but by private communications companies. So some Infrastructures can be established quite efficiently by the private sector.

QUOTE
This begs the question, "Where does private space end and public space begin?" I would say that the market is also private space, in terms of privately held property (that is, property that has a specific owner(s)).



Not precisely; while property is of course part of the private space, its exchange in a modern society is not. Unlike private space exchanges such as sex, it is deniable and can cause the formation of groups that deny people certain things required for a decent quality of life, such as a living wage. Remember that property rights are useless if the market deprives you of the ability to use them.

You do correctly state that property falls into the public realm when a sale is involved. However, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about afterwards. What groups are trying to deny others a decent quality of life? How does the market deprive you of the ability to use your property rights?

After reading your comments in this thread I have reached a few conclusions about you Jet.
1. You adhere to a ideology that is contrary to that which you perceive Libertarianism to espouse.
2. You really don't understand Libertarianism.
3. You have spoken to some self-proclaimed Libertarians who either
a. Were rather Zealous in their beliefs and did not impress you.
b. Could not adequately describe Libertarianism.
c. Could not adequately answer questions according to how you phrased them. AKA loaded questions.

Libertariansism is NOT anarchy. L. does beleive there is a role for government. This role has already been describe in the Constitution. There are certain rules by which business should operate. Libertarianism and the Constitutionalists are the closest thing to true Classical Liberalism, as illustrated by the Founding Fathers, that exist today. I think you are the one who posted the thread about what's so big about the Constitution? Is this correct? If so that should prove my observation 1.
Your original post on this thread was a bit on the obsurd side. You picked the phrase,
"liberals support social freedom, conservatives support economic freedom, and libertarians support both."
This is a slogan just like, "Democrats are for the little guy, Republicans are for big business." All these statements are general, oversimplifications and not meant to specifically illustrate the party's platforms which should be quite obvious to the casual reader and not worthy of the type of broadside you've unleashed.