Libertarianism...A Parody

Just imagine it...

You wake up at 4 o'clock in the morning and step outside your sleeping pod. You brush your teeth to avoid capital depreciation, eat your favorite energy bar to increase productivity, and take your morning dose of amphetamines. You step out into the hallway, walk a few dozen paces, and emerge on the factory floor. Your 12-year-old son is already there to greet you, eager to show just how productive and hardworking he is. Reflecting upon your progeny with pride, you inquire as to where your eldest is, a budding 16-year-old female full of life. With some satisfaction, your son tells you she's busy making some extra money taking care of the factory overlord. Her marginal utility was insufficient to justify allowing her to work in the factory assembling private jets, but she's attractive and can earn a higher wage by exchanging her "labor" for a spot in the adjoining residential unit. Evidently, she has a comparative advantage in providing services to the overlord, and it is a most distinguished honor. Your eldest son, unfortunately, wasn't productive enough and had to be euthanized for failing to pay his debts to the company cafeteria. Like some kind of parasite, he defaulted on his loan and had no appreciation for hard work.

After a modest 16-hour workday, you return to your pod with your son and take your nightcap--a modest dose of heroin. Television is on, and you appreciate watching a convicted felon eaten alive by a tiger (The fool was dumb enough to get convicted of a crime!). The only regret is that you couldn't afford seats to the event, but that is because you aren't productive enough to deserve the seats--only the best workers deserve that kind of privilege. Right before sleep, you fantasize about having a wife, but realize it is only just that you remain single...After all, you can't afford to take care of one anymore, since your marginal utility has decreased with age. No worries! By next month, you'll have enough company credit to purchase a hand-job, maybe even two. Content, you fall asleep knowing everything is in hand. Worst case scenario, you can just kill yourself at the company euthanasia clinic..after you've saved up enough company credits.

This is obviously an exaggeration, but I think you get the picture. No one with half a brain is going to buy into a system that is essentially slavery--give it up.

 

Sounds like life under many of the socialist/fascist leftists of the last century.

 

Most Libertarian's are phonies, imo. They vote for big government Republicans every election cycle. Bush, McCain, Romney, and they will likely be supporting Trump this time around. So despite what they say...they essentially do support big government.

 

The only difference being that something like this is the logical conclusion of libertarianism, whereas it might not happen with other systems.

Thank god they are phonies. Libertarianism is insane. If you doubt me, think of what a society in which everything was for sale would be like. The only cultural value is making money. The only restrictions are basically the ten commandments, minus five. You would have wide open borders, a weak national defense, rampant corruption, a huge number of accidental deaths, a toxic environment, and a number of other issues. You wouldn't have a culture worth calling a culture inside a generation. Many of the people on this website who support libertarianism seem to assume that Christian values will have a place in any libertarian society.

GDP would be phenomenal, but you might have a situation where the average income was 80k a year and the median was 5k a year. You would also end up a contractual slave, with no recourse to a higher power.

 

Well, if you say that's what liberarianism is, then it must be true. Who am I to disagree?

 

No doubt you have ample evidence to substantiate that claim. I know a super-duper smart, non-libertarian would never assert something that couldn't be demonstrated with logic and evidence.

 

It's a good thing that nobody in non-libertarian societies works long hours, is a prostitute, or commits suicide.

 

It might not happen, even though it always does. Great argument.

 

aren't libertarians against capital punishment?

 

Generally, yes. But not because capital punishment is necessarily inconsistent with libertarian ideology. It's more of a utilitarian argument than anything.

 

Sounds more like some Orwellian crap than real libertarianism. And then we could divide it into economic and social libertarianism. Mostly though, the bloke in the OP sounds like a useless retard with no skills to offer and therefore becomes a slave to his boss, and I don't think you can be a slave and a libertarian.

My idea of libertarian philosophy also teaches that each individual should strive to be the best he can be and find out what he can offer the world that may be missing or lacking. You can't teach freedom without teaching responsibility.

 

Ludicrous...

 

I'm not stopping you.

I just find libertarianism to be as dead end for most people. My criticisms of libertarianism are criticisms of the economic prowess as much as the social outcomes. I have no doubt that a libertarian society would experience high economic growth--I just don't think this should be the primary objective of society. High economic growth and quality of life don't have to coincide, and they wouldn't if you didn't have restrictions.

Plenty do, the only difference is that it isn't inevitable. Libertarians want to commodify everything and eliminate penalties for anything that isn't blatantly aggressive. They also have little to say about culture, which is the primary issue with the philosophy.

No, no it doesn't.

Varies, but capital punishment would only be logical under secular libertarianism.

You wouldn't have to be a retard to get screwed in a libertarian society. All you would have to do is get the wrong parents, and you'd be up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek. In fact, if anything happens to you that interferes with your productive potential up to early adulthood, it would probably ruin your life.

Welcome to libertarianism.

No borders
No culture
Weak defense
Slavery for the majority

 

And which of the spokespeople for libertarian ideology said "high economic growth" should be the "primary objective of society"?

They do?

How crazy of them.

Just because libertarian ideology per se doesn't say much about culture, does not mean libertarians themselves have little to say about culture.

Oh, okay. So please tell me about these wonderful societies where there aren't people who work long hours, have daughters who become prostitutes, or commit suicide.

 

Have you written more about this somewhere else.

It is something I have mentioned often in various essays...and I'd like to get a sense of where you are on the issue.

 

Basically, the OP is saying that in a libertarian society, all the men will be suicidal factory workers and all the women will be prostitutes by the time they turn sixteen. Because, you know, there won't be any other jobs except working in a factory or prostitution. And, of course, nobody who does those jobs could ever be happy.

Do I have that about right?

 

It is the only thing they ever talk about. The sole subject is almost always how to make markets more efficient. I used to consider myself libertarian and am quite familiar with their thinking and approach to problems, so don't try to claim this isn't the case just because there isn't a manifesto explicitly stating it. Libertarianism is all about commerce and the relaxation of laws that inhibit it.

Just about.

Yes, it is.

Anything that isn't legally forbidden or restricted would be exploited to its fullest potential, your values be damned. Whatever your values may be, and I'm not saying you don't personally have them, they wouldn't be very relevant in a society geared to the maximization of profit.

Now, if you do support a number of limits, then you might as well just call yourself a conservative Republican.

For what it's worth, I actually support many libertarian economic ideas--I just don't view markets as anything more than instrumental.

Here are some libertarian ideas I like:

Greatly reduced land-use restrictions
A reduction in credentialism and the power of guilds
Competition and decentralization in education

Just to name a few.

In the scenario, the family LIVES in the factory, and all of the children, despite being underage, also work there.

 

Well done RD! I can tell you have some economics in your background.

I have looked at the differences between a heavily regulated government versus a near non-regulated government in order to show the huge differences in economic growth. I found that when we look at the "Gilded Age" or more accurately the 2nd Industrial Revolution there was very little regulation. But we also had the most spectacular economic growth in our history. J.P. Morgan ALONE was able to bail out the U.S. government's debt around the turn of the last century. Now all the top "1-percenters" combined couldn't put a dent in the 20 trillion debt we ALL owe.

It all began taking us downhill with the Sherman Antitrust Act, aka 'competition law' outside the U.S. Not that it was bad, but it set the stage for the government to eventually swap positions with the so-called "robber barons" as being dangerous to ourselves. There has got to be a happy median between no regulation and complete stagnation from the overwhelming government bureaucrats where we can all enjoy job growth and economic growth as well as avoid facing the unregulated world in your OP.

Thanks for the perspective,
Steve

 

I have, but I can't recall where. I have always liked the way libertarians examine and analyze markets, but I've always found their tendency to use it as a moral system to be absurd. For them, making money is a moral prerogative, more important than just about anything.

That your first criticism is that I don't include the higher ranking people in society is a perfect demonstration of what I am talking about. The general idea is fine with you, but I failed to mention that others might be better off than the lowly factory worker.

Wow.

The point is that there would be very few labor restrictions, monetary restrictions, and an absurdly high level of inequality.

I, and most people, do not want to be ruled by veritable gods--in many ways, we already are. I do not care if they "earn" it in the market place, and neither do other rational people. The only people for whom it is a good idea are those who are already very well situated. For the most part, a great deal of financial success is inherited from parents, and those who didn't grow up with money would be at an even bigger disadvantage than they already are.

 

Thanks man.

Exactly. You don't want either extreme. A large number of people who seriously support libertarianism are those who grew up at least middle class, often upper-middle or above, and do not know what it is to truly compete in a free market. They think a free market starts after your parents have poured gobs of cash into raising you, and they do not factor in the average person who doesn't receive such a large "investment." That this situation exists in perpetuity does not bother them in the slightest.

That they believe this to be a meritocracy is beyond absurd, not to mention all of the other insanity libertarianism entails.

 

How am I supposed to respond to a sweeping generalization that is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence? Because I've never read anything even remotely supporting your earlier assertion that "high economic growth" should be the "primary objective" of a libertarian society. And I've been a libertarian for about fifteen years now. Granted, economics is an important element of libertarian ideology, but it's by no means the primary one.

And what are you basing that on? More anecdotes?

It's crazy to let peaceful adults make their own choices? Why?

What do you mean by "exploited"? And why do your values suffer because of what someone else chooses to do with their own body and property? You must not have very strong values if they cannot survive a voluntary social order.

Yea, I read it. It's a stupid scenario. Not only does it posit something totally unimaginative and self-serving, but it ignores all the same problems that exist under non-libertarian political systems.

I mean, you basically admit that a libertarian society would have a robust economy, yet you expect others to believe that most people in this society would be extremely limited their ability to leverage their skills and their labor, essentially confining them to living inside a factory and prostituting themselves out to some kind of slave master.

How do you reconcile that, exactly? How does an economy characterized by robust productivity, which would necessarily entail a vast array of affordable goods and services, have so few employment options and opportunities? Is there some reason why this girl couldn't, I don't know, go to a school and learn to become a nurse instead of prostituting herself to her father's boss? Is there some reason why her father cannot find a better job at another factory? Or are we also supposed to believe there are no schools in this libertarian society, and there is only one factory that people can work at?

Why don't you just admit to yourself that you didn't really think about this attack on libertarianism and that you're just trying to validate preconceived notions you have about it? It would be much easier than trying to defend this weak sauce from someone who actually does know quite a bit about the philosophy you're trying to discredit.

 

My criticism is that your scenario is dumb and not very well thought out.

I am merely trying to lead you to that conclusion with a few cutting remarks about how obviously silly it is to assume a libertarian society would necessarily devolve into some kind of plutocratic nightmare where the only jobs available to common people are working in factories and prostituting themselves out to oligarchs.

But I can see that you've already made up your mind about what libertarian ideology is and is not, which is why I made the first remark about "who am I to disagree"?

Can't really have much of an actual discussion when you've already made up your mind and have decided, for me, what libertarian ideology means.

Libertarians are crazy, they're insane!

Now let's have an intellectual discussion about libertarian ideology...

 

I don't agree with your premise. It essentially affirms that black people can say 'systemic racism' and blame racism for all their woes (which is essentially their parent's fault for giving birth to them into this society).

It doesn't matter if you get the wrong parents; your environment is not your master but merely a tool used to shape your life. Everyone has grown up in conditions that others would consider 'hard' even if not 'hard' in comparison to their own. You have to learn your environment and master it to be successful in that environment, regardless of how 'hard' it is. When we grow up to become men we don't get to say 'aw that's too hard soz' and cower and give up what we want. Libertarianism comes with a sense of 'this is the world you live in.. go and grab it by the balls'. But within this mindset, they set rules that in your endeavours you don't sabotage or infringe on others who are just doing what you're doing, so long as all parties agree on those same rules and morals, which is something like the NAP and the 'Golden Rule'.

This sounds to me like the far-Right's attempt to call Libertarians lefties lol. The Right is courting Libertarians lol.

 

I'm always amused by people who cite post-civil war America as if it were some kind of a libertarian society where the federal government had a light touch on the economy and on society generally. They always leave out the part where the federal government invades and occupies the south in order to maintain its taxing and regulating powers over the same.

 

The OP also admits that anything not legally forbidden or restricted would be allowed in a libertarian society. So there is nothing stopping people from pursuing whatever cultural ends they wish, so long as they were voluntary. But the OP also seems to think that nobody would ever value culture unless they were forced or induced into doing so by some kind of coercive authority. I guess it never crossed his mind that culture emerges largely spontaneously and voluntarily, without any centralized, authoritarian planning to prop it up. For example, Jesus Christ and his disciples didn't force anyone to become Christians. In fact, the existing political and religious order of the day was incredibly hostile to early Christians. Yet they still managed to disseminate their message by way of voluntary persuasion. Another example is the common law system, which was preceded by Anglo-Saxon customary laws, most of which developed organically without much if any involvement from a centralized authority. People simply engaged in a continuous process of trial and error over many centuries and adopted the customs that emerged voluntarily because they worked well. In fact, almost everything we value, from art, to music, to laws, to religions, to commercial products, emerged through largely spontaneous, voluntary social orders.