Libertarianism vs. Populism

[Fangrim]

I find it more compelling to put this thread in the Society and Rights forum; it's more of a theoretical discussion than the politics and government forum would allow (it's a bit more practical in nature over there). Plus, I think the focus here should be about the people and what they want in general.

Osborn should have fun with this one...


Libertarianism: economically conservative, socially liberal. The individual's rights and freedoms.

Populism: economically liberal, socially conservative. The people's will and power.

Which serves people more?



My case, at least in this thread, is that libertarianism is a cage, while populism is a fasces.Fasces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarianism is a cage.
It sets out standards of rights for each individual and prevents any individual from damaging the integrity of another's freedoms. Each individual has no power over another. Each individual has only limited power to control oneself as far as he can reach without touching another individual's cage of freedoms and rights.
Each individual has no power over the size of anyone's cage, over the strength of anyone's freedoms or rights. The size of each individual's cage is outside the will of the people and is put in the hands of an arbitrary system of thought created by the intelligentsia. Libertarianism shackles the individual's will, and prevents him from exercising his power over his surroundings based on standards that are not decided by the people but an arbitrary intelligentsia, a group of intellectuals who in their "wisdom" set down "rights" and "freedoms" that may or may not abide by the public will.
The people have no medium for change; no individual has power over another, no individual has a method of channeling his will into his society. The individual is trapped in his cage of arbitrary freedoms set down for the sake of "humanism," for "universalism of rights," for his "natural rights." Power is sacrificed for freedom. Will is sacrificed for rights. The people are shackled and placed in cages.

Populism is a fasces.
It, unlike libertarianism, provides a vehicle for change, a medium for the people's will: the government. In a Populist, Authoritarian Democracy, the people's will and power (Populist), substantiated with absolute authority over each individual (authoritarian), is channeled into government policy through open elections of representatives and popular referenda (democracy).
In this way, populism binds each individual to each other, as the twine ties each wooden rod together to form the cylinder of a fasces; it is then topped with an axe, the authority of the people, wielded by the combined strength of each rod, and held together with the twine of government.
Populism gives power to the people's will. The people are no longer shackled by arbitrary cages of "natural" or "universal rights." The people are now able to lay down their own laws, their own "freedoms." They are not bound by any intelligentsia, by any group of intellectuals who decide what an individual can or cannot do for the people. Instead, the people themselves decide their freedoms. No electoral college. No judicial review of constitutionality.
The people have the ultimate power, and their power is channeled into a representative government without the shackles of "universalism" and "humanism."

Concluding.
While the individual is shackled in libertarianism, unable to project his will onto others, with populism the collective holds power over each of its comprising individuals, and in this fashion the people can shape their society and their world. They can preserve their social institutions with legislation, can set down moral standards they deem good for their society, can privatize schooling if they want, legalize marijuana if they want, even create their own cages of rights and freedoms if they want. Whatever the PEOPLE want, the PEOPLE will have. That is populism.

Just a thought, but for communications purposes you might want to rethink the fasces which was the symbol and the name inspiration for fascist. That's not what you seem to be suggesting but ...

Regards
S.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: sdbest Just a thought, but for communications purposes you might want to rethink the fasces which was the symbol and the name inspiration for fascist. That's not what you seem to be suggesting but ... Regards S.

I'm fully aware that the fasces was and is a symbol for fascism. In fact, the two are highly similar.

It doesn't change the fact that the fasces is a good representation of what populism is, just as a cage is a good representation for libertarianism.

Quote by: Fangrim I'm fully aware that the fasces was and is a symbol for fascism. In fact, the two are highly similar. It doesn't change the fact that the fasces is a good representation of what populism is, just as a cage is a good representation for libertarianism.

Point taken.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Fangrim:

Before I try to refute your arguments, I first need to be sure what sense of "libertarian" you're using. Are you referring to it in general, or specifically to the platform of the Libertarian Party? One issue is that, generally speaking, some libertarians are anarchists, while others are minarchists. The LP platform, however, is solely minarchist.

- Rob

[Alive]

Most people do best in a cage, and are quite happy there, while the cage-holders are themselves quite happy to build the nicest, most sanitary cage for their beloved pets.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Autolykos Fangrim: Before I try to refute your arguments, I first need to be sure what sense of "libertarian" you're using. Are you referring to it in general, or specifically to the platform of the Libertarian Party? One issue is that, generally speaking, some libertarians are anarchists, while others are minarchists. The LP platform, however, is solely minarchist. - Rob

The Libertarian Party, like any party, will bend away from its principles from time to time. Politics misbehaves that way.

I prefer the sense of lower case libertarians. It encompases the principles of the thing, not spur of the moment pandering.

And for the discussion, minarchist libertarianism is probably best: anarchism would probably drive the discussion into a tangent.

[5010]

I see libertarianism as more like armour than a cage. One is free to move about freely in an environment of opportunity. The armour stops individuals from violating other individuals who also wander the same environment. We are free to develop or act on opportunities both individually or collectively. The collective efforts are all done voluntarily, but even they cannot penetrate any individual's armour. Minarchy grants authority of the smallest government necessary to maintain the strength of the armour. Even though the source of the ideology was intelligentsia, the application into reality requires the will of people that subscribe to it. When the people who subscribe to minarchy detect the presence of voluntary collective efforts penetrating armour by force, they have no problem with granting government enough power to disperse or put down the violating group, after which the extra power terminates.

So one could consider libertarianism as a subset of populism because it takes a populism controlled by a majority of libertarians to allow the state of minarchy to be established and defended. An unpopular minorty of libertarians cannot exert enough power politically to establish it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Fangrim Concluding. While the individual is shackled in libertarianism, unable to project his will onto others, with populism the collective holds power over each of its comprising individuals, and in this fashion the people can shape their society and their world. They can preserve their social institutions with legislation, can set down moral standards they deem good for their society, can privatize schooling if they want, legalize marijuana if they want, even create their own cages of rights and freedoms if they want. Whatever the PEOPLE want, the PEOPLE will have. That is populism.

In a free country, where the citizens remain free, how can you argue for people to have a vehicle to impose their will onto others?


That is to freedom what political correctness is to democracy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He's comparing the two, not necessarily saying populism is good for a country founded like the U.S. was.

I thought it was a pretty good comparison, overall. I enjoy political theory every once in a while, especially when it pertains to history.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't see how Libertarianism is a cage, by any means.

It is described in the OP as a cage, but it is a false description.

Libertarianism is only a cage in the sense that you can't have power over people who refuse you that ability by simply not condoning. The beauty of Libertarianism is that all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and are free to make mutual conscent based agreements and contracts about anything under the sun.

How that is a cage, I can't see.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He means a cage in that your influence is constrained, you cannot penetrate the rights of others. Populism allows the majority to violate the rights of others, so therefore it is the "fasces" that extends your influence beyond that of yourself. Libertarianism is also a cage like a shark cage is one, it protects you from other's influence.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Merc said: He means a cage in that your influence is constrained, you cannot penetrate the rights of others.

Well, that's not true. The rights of others are only supposed to be impenetrable by law, not impenetrable to reason. Its quite the opposite.
For instance, like minded libertarians could have a global collective without being "hypocritical", it would simply be by choice of every individual through mutual conscent, as opposed to by force. You could sacrifice every right you have by contract, under libertarianism, as long as it is done by free will mutual conscent, void of force, fraud or coercion.

The description in the OP is a one sided slant explanation, that doesn't really grasp the value of libertarianism.

Gods Merc said: Populism allows the majority to violate the rights of others, so therefore it is the "fasces" that extends your influence beyond that of yourself.

How on earth, would this be a benefit?

Gods Merc said: Libertarianism is also a cage like a shark cage is one, it protects you from other's influence.

I wouldn't say that, but instead would say it allows the individual to exercise the "perogative" of competent defense in all forms.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Defense = Shark cage, to me.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Libertarianism is only a cage in the sense that you can't have power over people who refuse you that ability by simply not condoning.

Exactly.

Under libertarianism, the people are restricted in their power over the individual by an arbitrary system of "human" or "universal" rights.

Under populism, however, the people's will is channeled into government and steeled with ultimate authority, allowing them to shape their society.

The beauty of Libertarianism is that all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and are free to make mutual conscent based agreements and contracts about anything under the sun.

This beauty is not incompatible with populism, as long as the people willed such beauty to exist and flourish.
If the people do NOT will such an existence, this beauty is unwanted.

How on earth, would this be a benefit?

You see the protection of the individuals' rights as paramount.
I see the extension of the people's will as paramount.

We both seek the good of humanity, but on different levels and in different ways.


Tell, me, Osborn, what do you think about laws that prevent people from being nude in public?

Libertarianism would prevent such a law because it interferes with the individual. It's the majority interfering in the individuals' actions.
Populism grants the people the power to make that law. It gives the people that extension of power to make such legislation.

That's just one example of populism that's already present.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fangrim said: Exactly. Under libertarianism, the people are restricted in their power over the individual by an arbitrary system of "human" or "universal" rights. Under populism, however, the people's will is channeled into government and steeled with ultimate authority, allowing them to shape their society.

Ok, what good is society for all people, if it doesn't provide some benefit to all people? Do you think that those who oppose these "goals" of society should "surrender themselves" to the tank treads of societies goals?

Is it that you think "the collective" should set the goals, since "the collective" in your view determines reality as opposed to the individual? This rings of Kantian logic?

What good is society, if it forces its own under the treads for progress by democratic "dictation", as opposed to letting man naturally find his way of progress individually and through mutual conscent agreements?

I have to ask you the basic question..... regarding all societies. What role do you think government plays to society?

Fangrim said: This beauty is not incompatible with populism, as long as the people willed such beauty to exist and flourish. If the people do NOT will such an existence, this beauty is unwanted.

So you deny the individual, in an attempt to legitimize collective intrests?
Where does any collective derive its intrests from, if not individuals?

Fangrim said: You see the protection of the individuals' rights as paramount. I see the extension of the people's will as paramount.

The peoples will is everchanging, always foggy, and never clear. The individuals all share some common will, which is survival, happiness and an ability to use labor as intended, to pleasure and provide for ones self.
Protecting the rights of individuals allows all people, no matter how diverse, to find a measure of satisfaction within the limited bounds of the system. The value of Libertarian style of government is that it places government force behind an objectively quantifiable measure of justice, revealing plainly to the best of individual ability the objective facts of every individual case where justice is called in to question, or rights are infringed.

Populism, much like pure democracy, is mob rule, no protections from the majorities whims, fetishes or perversions.

Fangrim said: We both seek the good of humanity, but on different levels and in different ways.

Well, I will limit my reply to simply saying we can agree to disagree.

Fangrim said: Tell, me, Osborn, what do you think about laws that prevent people from being nude in public?

I think as a local law, that may be acceptable, but not a federal law, or state law. I see no reason to outlaw nudist colonies, or private collectives that prefer nudity as opposed to clothing.

Fangrim said: Libertarianism would prevent such a law because it interferes with the individual.

That is not true. Libertarianism would REQUIRE that law to be at the most local level, perhaps, neighborhood level, since it directly affects the community, and the community has the RIGHT to vote on that which directly affects their liberty. By keeping laws local, locals can directly affect the passage, repeal, or modification of the law to best fit those most affected.

You are attempting to "cage" libertarianism as an extreme, when it is not.

Fangrim said: It's the majority interfering in the individuals' actions.

There is a lot more to it then that, and I would think you know that summing it up in that fashion is not really honest to the real situation.

Fangrim said: Populism grants the people the power to make that law. It gives the people that extension of power to make such legislation.

The people have no right to take collectively, that which they cannot take individually.

You are seeming to make out libertarianism as a system of government that wouldn't allow voting, or representative democracy, which is not the case. It in fact, does just that, at the most local level, giving people the most power to directly affect how law interferes with their life on a daily basis, as well as defining certain areas (individual rights) that are sacredly uninfringeable, as inherantly necessary to a healthy society.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ok, what good is society for all people, if it doesn't provide some benefit to all people? Do you think that those who oppose these "goals" of society should "surrender themselves" to the tank treads of societies goals?

Not necessarily. If they feel themselves to be that antagonistic for the direction or ideas of the majority, they may bind with other people who share more similar ideals and form their own societies.

Is it that you think "the collective" should set the goals, since "the collective" in your view determines reality as opposed to the individual? This rings of Kantian logic? What good is society, if it forces its own under the treads for progress by democratic "dictation", as opposed to letting man naturally find his way of progress individually and through mutual conscent agreements?

Each individuals' will comes together to form a collective will, yes.

Individuals are only "forced under the treads" of the general people's will if they disagree with that will.
It is no fault of the majority if the minority dislike those policies.

I have to ask you the basic question..... regarding all societies. What role do you think government plays to society?

Whatever role the people wish it to play. Government is simply an extension of humanity. It is a tool that should be used as the people wish it to be used; not limited based on arbitrary systems of rights set down by the intelligentsia, by those who think themselves more fit to decide what each individual wants than those individuals themselves.

So you deny the individual, in an attempt to legitimize collective intrests? Where does any collective derive its intrests from, if not individuals?

The collective derives its power from the will of each individual, correct. But in participating in government, the individual concedes that his own will is equal to the will of any other individual, and that if the majority of the people contradict his own wishes, the majority rules.
It is the exchange he pays for participating in society and gaining all of its benefits. The individual gains political power in a more direct voting process, and all the benefits of social interaction.

The peoples will is everchanging, always foggy, and never clear. The individuals all share some common will, which is survival, happiness and an ability to use labor as intended, to pleasure and provide for ones self. Protecting the rights of individuals allows all people, no matter how diverse, to find a measure of satisfaction within the limited bounds of the system. The value of Libertarian style of government is that it places government force behind an objectively quantifiable measure of justice, revealing plainly to the best of individual ability the objective facts of every individual case where justice is called in to question, or rights are infringed.

No one can decide the people's will except the people themselves. Why decide for them what only they should decide?
If they decide they want government to provide only a minimal amount of protection for ensure their survival and happiness, then that's fine.
If, however, they want a strong, bigger, and more active government, all the better. Government is an extension of the people's will: if the people will it to do something, it should.
Under libertarian style government, the government is restricted in what it does in ways that can contradict the people's will.

Populism, much like pure democracy, is mob rule, no protections from the majorities whims, fetishes or perversions.

Correct.

I think as a local law, that may be acceptable, but not a federal law, or state law. I see no reason to outlaw nudist colonies, or private collectives that prefer nudity as opposed to clothing. That is not true. Libertarianism would REQUIRE that law to be at the most local level, perhaps, neighborhood level, since it directly affects the community, and the community has the RIGHT to vote on that which directly affects their liberty. By keeping laws local, locals can directly affect the passage, repeal, or modification of the law to best fit those most affected.

Why is there such ease in the environment of localism for such laws?

It then merely becomes a more localized tyranny of the majority. You STILL have the situation of the majority deciding for even the dissenting individual. "Best fit those affected"?
Are you a national libertarian, but a local populist? Sounds like it.

The people have no right to take collectively, that which they cannot take individually.

And even if that's true? You're already assuming what each individual has a right to take! That itself would be decided by popular vote.

You are seeming to make out libertarianism as a system of government that wouldn't allow voting, or representative democracy, which is not the case. It in fact, does just that, at the most local level, giving people the most power to directly affect how law interferes with their life on a daily basis, as well as defining certain areas (individual rights) that are sacredly uninfringeable, as inherantly necessary to a healthy society.

Then this is an inherent contradiction. You are a national libertarian but a local populist.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fangrim said: Not necessarily. If they feel themselves to be that antagonistic for the direction or ideas of the majority, they may bind with other people who share more similar ideals and form their own societies.

Ok, what is a society for the purpose of this thread? A soverign nation?

How many soverign nations do you know that will "tolerate" their nation being divided on this premise?

Fangrim said: Each individuals' will comes together to form a collective will, yes.

A collective will is like a vague poll. You say you are ok with the "government" or "society" sacrificing lives at the will of the majority, to please the will of the majority, at the expense and cost of minority lives?

I would rather die, and would intend to take as many of those oppressors with me as possible on my way out.

Fangrim said: Individuals are only "forced under the treads" of the general people's will if they disagree with that will.

They have the right to disagree, naturally and legally(in the U.S.), and I, like many, would make the "majority" pay a VERY steep price in lives for such types of action.

The collective will takes no precedence over individual will, or rights, certainly by nature, and assuredly in our laws.

Fangrim said: It is no fault of the majority if the minority dislike those policies.

It is no fault of the majority, if that well armed minority wipes them out in their path to oppression by force, by ever means necessary, up to and including guerilla war, terror and mass bombings.

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand

Fangrim said: Whatever role the people wish it to play. Government is simply an extension of humanity. It is a tool that should be used as the people wish it to be used; not limited based on arbitrary systems of rights set down by the intelligentsia, by those who think themselves more fit to decide what each individual wants than those individuals themselves.

That sounds like "fuzzy logic". Without objective, defined justice, there can be no respect nor representation of the individual. Many people, myself included, view all the rights enumerated, as well as others, as "non-negotiable" and requisites to a satisfying life.

If a person tries to remove those rights, they are in essence trying to remove my ability to live a satisfying life, which makes me directly value their life, much less, and would put them directly at risk by the abject threat of force against me, my liberty, my rights.

In summation....

The retallitory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retalitory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules, or law.

THIS is the task of a government- of a proper government- as its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government at all.

A government is the means of placing the retallitory use of physical force under objective control-i.e. under objectively defined laws.

Fangrim said: The collective derives its power from the will of each individual, correct. But in participating in government, the individual concedes that his own will is equal to the will of any other individual, and that if the majority of the people contradict his own wishes, the majority rules. It is the exchange he pays for participating in society and gaining all of its benefits. The individual gains political power in a more direct voting process, and all the benefits of social interaction.

This is all only valid if by mutual conscent, and if agreed to. What if man chooses "not to participate" in society, yet refuses to leave?

Fangrim said: No one can decide the people's will except the people themselves. Why decide for them what only they should decide?

Have you ever seen a lynch mob?
Do you value "pure democracy", and how is it different, if you think it is, than populism?

Fangrim said: If they decide they want government to provide only a minimal amount of protection for ensure their survival and happiness, then that's fine. If, however, they want a strong, bigger, and more active government, all the better. Government is an extension of the people's will: if the people will it to do something, it should.

I disagree, as the people have no right to use force of government to claim rights they themselves don't possess.

By allowing the government to use force against the minority, to appease the majority, is to directly use government force to claim rights of the unwilling, by those who have no valid claim or intrest in those rights other than self betterment, at the direct expense of others.(AKA, a violent thief)

Under what moral pretense would such a system find a shelter from public opinion?

Fangrim said: Under libertarian style government, the government is restricted in what it does in ways that can contradict the people's will.

The peoples will is limited to what they have natural right to control, and no more.

Fangrim said: Correct.

Well, thanks for agreeing. Now you understand why I see populism in its pure form as the worst, most vile form of intellectual, and political trash to ever inhabit a trash can, or a mind.

Fangrim said: Why is there such ease in the environment of localism for such laws?

Local is easy to control by population, but also easy to repel by individuals. State and Federal are like behemoths that are in this day and age, beyond adequate "reigning in" by the people collectively, or the individuals.

The main thing is, rights are sacred, and can only be sacrificed by conscent unless you infringe the rights of another, at which time "objective law" takes over to bring about "objective justice", based on facts, evidence, testimony and reason.

Fangrim said: It then merely becomes a more localized tyranny of the majority. You STILL have the situation of the majority deciding for even the dissenting individual. "Best fit those affected"? Are you a national libertarian, but a local populist? Sounds like it.

No, you just don't seem to have a full grasp of libertarianism.

Fangrim said: And even if that's true? You're already assuming what each individual has a right to take! That itself would be decided by popular vote.

LOL, maybe, if you started over, erased history, erased memories and common sense. Good luck with that.

Fangrim said: Then this is an inherent contradiction. You are a national libertarian but a local populist.

LOL, no, as I said, you just don't understand what you are arguing against.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ok, what is a society for the purpose of this thread? A soverign nation? How many soverign nations do you know that will "tolerate" their nation being divided on this premise?

Had people begun bonding into pure democratic governments since time began, I have no idea what type of instititutions of bindings they might have created.
Given that we have sovereign nations now, if we were to transform into a populist government, yes, that is likely.

Of course, in this age where governments assume liens of ownership of their lands, people would not be able to take their real estate with them. They would have to relocate.

A collective will is like a vague poll. You say you are ok with the "government" or "society" sacrificing lives at the will of the majority, to please the will of the majority, at the expense and cost of minority lives?

The collective will is brought to bear with elections and popular referenda. If you want to consider those "vague polls," then even a libertarian democracy rests on them.
Correct. "Majority rule; no minority rights."
The people could very well vote in a bill of rights though.

I would rather die, and would intend to take as many of those oppressors with me as possible on my way out. They have the right to disagree, naturally and legally(in the U.S.), and I, like many, would make the "majority" pay a VERY steep price in lives for such types of action. The collective will takes no precedence over individual will, or rights, certainly by nature, and assuredly in our laws.

The right to disagree? You seem to come up with these rights every post. Where do you come up with them?

I'm sure you would resist considerably. But who exactly are the "oppressors" but your own neighbors who voted on how they want their society run?
Do you consider others "oppressors" when they vote in a president you don't like? Are they "oppressors" when elect representatives you oppose? Don't tell me that you would try to kill as many people as you can simply because you got outvoted!

It is no fault of the majority, if that well armed minority wipes them out in their path to oppression by force, by ever means necessary, up to and including guerilla war, terror and mass bombings.

Why the assumption that force will be used?

You assume many things Osborn. What rights you have, what path this populist government would take...
You assume that "the majority" is an entity of evil tyranny, and "the minority" a band of freedom fighters.
We HAVE majorities and minorities ALREADY in the United States, and the majorities overrule the minorities. The only difference is that in a populist state, democracy becomes more direct with additional use of popular referenda, and that noone has any "rights" beyond what they legislate as rights.

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” -Ayn Rand

Why the assumption of sacrifice?
Osborn, most of this legislation will quite possibly be simply what we already DO in the United States. Taxes...military spending...energy bills, immigration reforms, whatever. Standard fare.

That sounds like "fuzzy logic". Without objective, defined justice, there can be no respect nor representation of the individual. Many people, myself included, view all the rights enumerated, as well as others, as "non-negotiable" and requisites to a satisfying life.

Yes, you and others view them as such. And others beyond you may not.
You have decided what rights everyone should have, regardless of what rights the rest of the public actually WANTS everyone to have. Rights are nothing more than characteristics recognized as being in accordance with some standard or principle, with the presumption that these characteristics' integrities should be protected.

What "right" do you have to decide what rights EVERYONE has?
You are putting people in cages, Osborn.

If a person tries to remove those rights, they are in essence trying to remove my ability to live a satisfying life, which makes me directly value their life, much less, and would put them directly at risk by the abject threat of force against me, my liberty, my rights.

And that is the great inherent contradiction in libertarianism.

Your liberty, your rights, against YOU.

What if legislation that is fine with YOU and in keeping with YOUR conception of rights infringes on someone ELSE's conception? What if one individual thinks he has the RIGHT to kill anyone he pleases? Anti-murder laws would infringe on that personal right.
Why do you find the right to murder ridiculous but the right to life inalienable?
And why must your personally made distinction hold true for everyone?


I'm going to have to go now; hopefully I'll respond to the rest of the post later today.