Libertarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny

[The Sexorcist]

Infringement of what?

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: sdbest "What the Libertarians oppose in principle, they promote in fact. The Libertarians, so fearful of the tyranny of governments, have created a widely, if superficially, adopted political philosophy that creates the conditions in which the government is inevitably be bought by the wealthy thus creating the tyranny they so adamantly oppose. Isn't this precisely what we're seeing with the Bush administration, the administration that so many Libertarians voted for because they thought Bush was a principled conservative? [Source] After reading the Libertarian Party's platform, I agree. Libertarianism in its unfettered form leads inevitably to tyranny by the rich and powerful who would build monopolies which under the principle of protecting private property would be free to exploit everyone. Regards S.

If everyone follows the rules then no, you're wrong. In essence, libertarianism offers exactly what it promises. Political freedom without eliminating the political part.

What you're saying can be applied to every form of political construction. If everyone follows the rules, it will work. Of course, every form can be overpowered. I can say that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny because people can either, A) vote it in, or B) allow it to overpower the government.

Tyranny can infect everything. So, what's your point?

[Scribbler1]

It looks like everyone has missed one big point in all this. Even if the Libertarian Party took 80% of Congress as well as the presidency in the next election, most of your fears would be groundless anyway.

Such a radical change isn't going to happen. The L.P. will have to modify its platform to generate the most support from the most people.
And in this case, I see that as a good thing either way. As long as ANY change is made, even small ones, it's a hell of a lot better than the same-old we get with every single election NOW.

The L.P. can afford to have what looks like a radical agenda because it has no power at this time. If it gets any real political power it will soften its agenda and the sky will not fall.

[Alive]

Quote by: The Sexorcist I'm not trying to invalidate anything, I'm pointing out the major flaw with Libertarianism is that the correctly identify government tyranny, but fail to see the obvious tyranny of absolute free-market capitalism, that is, the tyranny of the rich over the poor.

I'm just responding to the original article--that libertarianism as an ideology deserves none of the blame for the actions of the Bushies. I am not a libertarian myself. However, free-market capitalism in practice does not lead to "tyranny of the rich over the poor". Rather, nations closer to capitalism have had a vast growth in wealth for both rich and poor in the last 2 centuries, while nations further from capitalism have had much less growth.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: sdbest creates the conditions in which the government is inevitably be bought by the wealthy thus creating the tyranny they so adamantly oppose.

That's it?


That's your back breaking, uncounterable Libertarian philosophy destroyer?





If anything, a smaller government is harder to be "bought".

[The Sexorcist]

Did you manage to type that with a straight face, Alive?

My god, you do realize that every "capitalist" nation has a healthy dose of government interference, right? It's called pluralism?

Completely free, unfettered capitalism would spiral out of control so quickly that it wouldn't have time to make the poor rich.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: The Sexorcist Completely free, unfettered capitalism would spiral out of control so quickly that it wouldn't have time to make the poor rich.

Somalia was doing fine until the US paid Ethiopia to go in and start killing everyone.

[Matt W]

Islamic Courts are "fine"? :eek:

Don't get me wrong - I think it was an idiotic idea for the Ethiopians to get involved....but it was hardly a libertarian utopia.

[Alive]

Quote by: The Sexorcist Did you manage to type that with a straight face, Alive? My god, you do realize that every "capitalist" nation has a healthy dose of government interference, right? It's called pluralism? Completely free, unfettered capitalism would spiral out of control so quickly that it wouldn't have time to make the poor rich.

The battle has never been (at least in the past 50 years) between free, unfettered capitalism and "pluralism." It has always been between a fairly good balance and leaning too strongly towards interference and protectionism. As soon as this nation becomes "too capitalistic" I'll be sure to switch sides, but that will never happen, so we have nothing to worry about on that front. Your bogeyman is never going to happen so it isn't worth fighting too strongly against--libertarians are on the side of good in the current battle even if they are wrong in the absolute sense. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of what the article alleges. Libertarians are the unwitting ally of the happy medium (which is a medium heavily biased towards their side anyway).

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Nigh Eve If everyone follows the rules then no, you're wrong. In essence, libertarianism offers exactly what it promises. Political freedom without eliminating the political part. What you're saying can be applied to every form of political construction. If everyone follows the rules, it will work. Of course, every form can be overpowered. I can say that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny because people can either, A) vote it in, or B) allow it to overpower the government. Tyranny can infect everything. So, what's your point?

If everyone followed the rules, communism would work. Cause the rules of communism say that each will work according to their ability and each will take according to their need. The problem is, people tend to want more than they need and work as little as they can get away with. When those people move themselves into the power stucture, they have to force others to take up their slack, when they stay in the masses, they create a situation where productivity is lost. It is precisely because a significant portion of any population WILL NOT follow the rules that both pure communist systems and pure free-markets fail.

[lsbskins1]

The problem with our system is not too much regulation, the problem with our system is the misapplication of regulation. Offer a solution that dampens the governments ability to bully the individual but does not hamper it's ability to enforce necessary regulation (FDA keeping ecoli out of our food, EPA punishing reckless enviromental damage, FAA forcing maintainance rules, etc) and I'm on board. Your soulution may keep the IRS from forcing you to pay taxes you don't like, but it also frees large industry to endanger you in more ways than you an I can even imagine.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Matt W Islamic Courts are "fine"?

What does their religion have to do with their free market?

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is precisely because a significant portion of any population WILL NOT follow the rules that both pure communist systems and pure free-markets fail.

Pure free markets don't have rules.

That's the point.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 Pure free markets don't have rules. That's the point.

No, that is not the point I was contesting. The contention was that people would follow "the rules" and therefore the government need not enforce. The rules being refered to, I believe, are the rules that citizens would self impose and therefore the government is taking onto itself an unnecessary power. There are "rules" in the free market. They just do not come from the government (according to Nigh Eve). I am contending that those "rules" will not be self-imposed to an effective level and therefore regulation IS necessary. Pay attention.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I am contending that those "rules" will not be self-imposed to an effective level and therefore regulation IS necessary.

There are no rules that need to be self imposed or imposed by private or government enforcement agency.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 There are no rules that need to be self imposed or imposed by private or government enforcement agency.

None? Not "No dumping of nuclear waste in the Chesapeake", not " No putting heroine in Keebler Cookies and refusing to list ingredients", none what-so-ever? Really?

[Matt W]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 What does their religion have to do with their free market?

What do the Islamic Courts have to do with a free market?!?

Somalia is not a libertarian paradise....nor was it prior to US-sponsored intervention.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: lsbskins1 "No dumping of nuclear waste in the Chesapeake"

It's up to the owner to enforce whatever rules they want.

It's not up to the market.

No putting heroine in Keebler Cookies and refusing to list ingredients"

If people don't like heroine in their cookies or no ingredient lists, they won't buy them.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Matt W What do the Islamic Courts have to do with a free market?!?

Nothing.


The market in Somalia was free from any regulation.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 It's up to the owner to enforce whatever rules they want. It's not up to the market. If people don't like heroine in their cookies or no ingredient lists, they won't buy them.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion on the matter. I doubt you could get 1% of the population to agree that your ideas are viable. But you keep plugging along there. Most people don't want to have to eat the cookies to determine if they are drug laced and most people realize that the Chesapeake Bay is not really anyone's private property, so if anything is going to "enforced" it will be by government regulation. But, it seems to me if those are not concepts you can be down with, then it isn't much use for me to attempt to discuss this with you.