Libertarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny

[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.

[christibe]

Definitely. It is to me the same thing that was found through laissez faire capitalism, prohibiting something- government involvement, will create the need for government involvement. Same idea can be used for socialism, in that if the government controls all, then unfettered practice of it will create the need for no govt. involvement, because people will begin to hate the govt. for the way it practices an ideal I guess my reading of history shows that any form of government that relies on the banning of something will create the need for the thing it is opposed to.

Maybe it's why GB has existed with little structural change throughout the ages. It has a system that seemingly contradicts itself- monarchy with democracy. Because of that, it allows for everything to be discussed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: christibe It is to me the same thing that was found through laissez faire capitalism, prohibiting something- government involvement, will create the need for government involvement.

Anarchism--the original "Libertarianism"-- has stood in opposition to laissez faire capitalism, noting that the privatization of resources requires something akin to the state. The Libertarian party stands for liberty, so long as people can afford it--and that's hardly liberty at all.

There is a common sense principle that can be applied to any system, whether the system is called "public" or "private." People should not live under its dominion. Instead, the system should be totally subordinate to the people's needs.
This is not how it is with centralized government and corporations, where the institutions and rituals within them take precedence over humans.

This is a major point the Libertarian party misses out on when it talks glowingly of "free market" capitalism.
You don't get freedom by slapping price tags on everything and putting control of land and resources in private, elitist hands.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

ROFLMAO at the Libertarian "hate thread".

Not much to debate in this thread, since there isn't really a coherant point.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ROFLMAO at the Libertarian "hate thread". Not much to debate in this thread, since there isn't really a coherant point.

Or the Libertarians are at a loss for words? In my view, when some Libertarian policies such as those that concern private property are given closer scrutiny they fail the freedom and liberty test and lead to tyranny.

Either Libertarians are not self-critical enough, like religious adherents preferring dogma to pragmatism, or they know their views cannot stand critical analysis and so they avoid the discussion.

There's a comfort in dogma because it does not require thinking, personal reflection, or responsibility, merely parrot-like repetition of a creed.

Regards
S.

[5010]

sdbest,
What source of power would be able to produce a libertarian state? Why wouldn't the same power also be able to defend such a state?

[lsbskins1]

It is this simple, if the government is not allowed to enforce, then anyone with the will and the power can infringe on anyone's liberties. If it can not, say, create enforcable zoning regulations, then your next-door neighbor can open a dance club in his home and play music at any volume he chooses on his "private property" and there will not be any rest you will be able to achieve, nor any remedy for the infringement on your rights. And as much as some people wish it were not the case, some individual rights can not be enforced by small, local government. If all the meat is packed in Wisconsin, no amount of local ordinance can affect the level of ecoli in your hamburger. And if you think the industry will self regulate, I would ask you to read up on your industrial history. It is all well and good to claim that a free market will fix these problems and that people should be responsible for themselves. It won't and they won't. If you think the problems created by government regulation are more substantial the the problems solved by government regulation, then offer an alternative other than "let it be", 'cause that has been tried and it has failed. I do like the fact that Libertarians hang their hats on the idea of personal responsibility. That is a good thing to encourage. I wish alot of people would step up to the plate and do that. I wish CEO's would accept that every vanity dollar the accept in inflated salary takes food out of the mouth of some poor child. I wish every politician who lies and pretends that our drug policies are sane would listen to the facts that every major study has uncovered. I wish every Church leader who ever told a poor congregant that 25.00 dollars will save their soul would repent and own up to the lie. Lets all hold our breath and see when these things start happening.

[sdbest]

Quote by: 5010 sdbest, What source of power would be able to produce a libertarian state? Why wouldn't the same power also be able to defend such a state?

5010, perhaps you can rephrase your question. I'm not sure what you're driving at. Do you have answers to your questions?

Regards
S.

[Matt W]

This thread is bait-food. Try and come up with something original.

[5010]

Quote by: sdbest 5010, perhaps you can rephrase your question. I'm not sure what you're driving at. Do you have answers to your questions?

I am pointing out the thing missing from your argument. A change from old system to new system must overcome the support for the old system. Your argument does not address how the tyrant overcomes the forces strong enough to have changed a whole nation to libertarianism in the first place. It doesn't even identify such forces, but simply assumes a libertarian state exists in order to show how it fails. What government exists without any supporting force?

[Osborn F Enready]

Matt said: This thread is bait-food. Try and come up with something original.

Thanks for noticing. Glad I wasn't the only one to notice.

[lsbskins1]

Why is it bait-food? I mean, it certainly paints a picture that those who call themselves libertarians might not like. But when I think of baiting, I think of statements like "All gays are godless perverts." This talks about unintended consequences of the policy/system and does not attack on a personal level. If you diagree, disagree and ask for suppoting evidence or provide evidence the premise is wrong. But don't complain cause you don't like the implication.

[5010]

Well whether or not it is bait, it is a mistaken view of the where libertarianism comes from. The use of the word 'unfettered' is a clue to the mistake. Libertarianism is not something that just happens by itself when no one is paying attention. Libertarianism happens and continues while enough people are fighting for and defending it.

[lsbskins1]

How is it that a government with a severely limitied ability to enforce can actually enforce? How do you avoid splintering into such small and ineffectual groups? If I should never have to spend a penny of my tax money on any program I do not agree with, how can a government be effective in curbing the abuses that it's lack of enforcement power will tend to encourage. Unfettered is a good word. Small government is weak government. Or perhaps I should say decentralized and limited government is weak government.

Now, if you would rather have a government that can never require anything of you and are willing to give up the protections that hand over of power brings, make a case for how the alternative to what we have now, your alternative, is better. But to deny that "less power" means less power is simply silly.

[The Sexorcist]

The tyranny of Libertarianism is it's free-market dogma. Sure, being free of government tyranny is great, but it replaces one tyranny with another; the tyranny of the rich over the poor, and shackles the fate of the poor onto the rich.

Marx be be charged with dubious interpretations of history, but his analysis of the crisis of capitalism was dead on.

[Alive]

When Stalin started killing people, and people realized he was evil, what did the conservatives say to the leftists in the Western world? We told you so. Did that invalidate liberalism? No.

[5010]

lsbskins,
Libertarian enforcement is not weaker. It is focused.

sexorcist,
Libertarian free-market does not mean free to infringe on someone's property (including their person and liberties).

[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.

[The Sexorcist]

I never said that it was, 5010. What gives?

[5010]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'shackles'. It sounds like infringement.