Libertarianism...A Parody

As evidenced by your post, most people are obedient because they don't think.

Yep, slavery, Jim Crow, the ongoing war on human behavior, endless acts of aggression around the world. The mob demands it, or simply doesn't pay attention.

Libertarians have a principle for law. You have might is right and obey because you are told to do so.

 

Nice try...no cigar. My point was that most people realize laws and rules are in place in order for society to function reasonably. And most sane people adhere to them for that reason.

Some crazies, however, do want to do away with the rules and laws.

No problem. Let 'em want to. They are not going to succeed. Which is probably why the Libertarians are such a minority.

As I said, laws and rules are in place in order for society to function reasonably. That holds for the most primitive societies to the most advanced. Most people are smart enough to see that this is a necessary ingredient in true freedom. Some just don't get it.

Most people have the interests of society in mind when they live in an ordered, lawful society.

Too bad there are some who want to return society back to a barbarian thing. That is why libertarianism must be rejected...because the logical result of libertarianism is chaos and anarchy.

 

Here are two points (this is a response to all of you):

1. Your chief complaints consist of me confounding political libertarianism and economic libertarianism. Unless you are arguing that the two are different enough to justify labeling my criticisms as mischaracterizations, you need to explain yourselves.

2. None of you have addressed my list of complaints. I made some very direct criticisms, and the only thing I've seen is a denial that these positions are libertarian.

Now, you can either stop calling yourself libertarian, or convince me that economic and political libertarianism have nothing in common.

I should also point out that I am not advocating for the removal of individual rights, communism, or anything not based in capitalism and constitutional law. In fact, I am more libertarian than most:

1. I want fewer land-use restrictions
2. Less credentialism
3. An end to drug prohibition
4. I am a staunch supporter of the 2A, and some of you may have seen my arguments supporting it in other threads.

The difference between me and you guys is that I don't believe these things out of axiomatic principle. I believe these things because I think they make lives better.

I'm not confusing anything. All of the points I made are things libertarians usually support.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Yet another denial of what libertarianism is...

It's close enough.

How'd that work out?!



It felt great to be a Longhorn last night. I hope some of you guys saw that game!

I've always appreciated Nozick as a "general" philosopher more than as a political philosopher. I have his book Philosophical Explanations. He isn't the best writer, but he's brilliant. I can't say that I've read much of his political work, though.

What did you think of Rawls and "The Veil of Ignorance"? I think it is an excellent way to think about ethical issues.

It's tough...My political beliefs are not nearly as axiomatic as that of a libertarian, so I don't have clear answers for everything. I derive my political beliefs from evolutionary theory, biology, neuroscience, the philosophy of mind, and egoism.

Generally speaking, it is easier to have a free society when you have a strong culture to support it. If the average person were more competent, and the difference in competency between people weren't so great, I'd support libertarianism more than I do.

I believe in decriminalizing drugs, but I don't want them advertised like Doritos, which is precisely what you would see in a true libertarian society.

I think that the decline of marriage has been a catastrophic disaster and that an efficient, legal prostitution market would make the situation even worse, especially for the lower classes.

I'm fine with alcohol and marijuana, but you need strong cultural norms to mitigate their harmful effects. I'm actually far more libertarian than any of you think I am, but I do not accept it as a valid philosophical position. In other words, I support something until I don't--it isn't nearly as axiomatic.

Like God, inalienable rights, and equality?

The first can't be proven and the other two have no basis in reality. If your philosophy rests on this, you are in deep trouble.

So "political libertarianism" has no relationship to economic libertarianism?

Come on, man...

So political libertarianism and economic libertarianism have no connection?

 

Of course you aren't talking about charities or other private organizations that take care of the destitute and less fortunate.

Their very existence destroys your entire argument.

 

There is no economic libertarianism. There is libertarianism: The idea that it is unjust to initiate aggression against the body or property of one's fellow man.

 

No I am not denying anything you are simply ignorant and out of touch with what libertarianism does and what it stands for.

 

Your Longhorns played a great, tough and gritty game against a formidable opponent. Good luck to you and your boys for the remainder of the season!

 

I'm so proud...Half of my family went to UT, and we are freaking out.

I'm really happy about all of the other people who have enjoyed our decline in recent years, especially the SEC teams. What they don't realize is that we are potentially better than all of them. When we are good, our team is all TEXAS and they are all good. The 2005 Longhorns would kill any modern bama' team, and get ready for us to get that good again. The guys you saw are all underclassmen. I think we will play for a title either next year or the year after.

ND is very good. Kizer, Hunter, and Anderson were really good. I think the talent at Texas just showed up. People don't realize that when Teas is down, it is still equivalent to being one of the most talented teams in the country.

Texas is hardcore, and I can't wait for the rest of the country to be pissed when we take over again--this especially goes for you SEC fans. We will be crushing you as well. The three best teams in history are the following:

1. Miami (2001)
2. Texas Longhorns (2005)
3. USC (2004-2005)

Alabama ain't (*)(*)(*)(*). When Texas comes back, we are gonna bend the mover just like we would have back in 09', if Colt hadn't been injured. I'm just ready to shut everybody up.

 

Oh, and then there is this:

[video=youtube;eTXV4AdZ-dE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTXV4AdZ-dE[/video]

 

U

The Longhorns showed real character when ND came back with 21 unanswered after being down 17. Then after apparently taking the lead late and having it turned into a 37-37 tie by that bizzarre turn of events, they played tough defense keeping the Irish from scoring with over 3 minutes left. I think that the injury to Tory Holt hurt us in the end of the game, but the better team won this one. Cheers

 

Appreciate it man. I'll tell you what...I'm glad we don't have a rematch. The teams who think that ND is easy prey because they lost are in deep (*)(*)(*)(*). Texas just wanted it more, but ND is very good. I'd say ND can beat anyone except Bama'--no one can beat Bama' this year lol.

The thing that pisses me off about Bama' is thta they should have lost the 09 title, but Colt got injured. They've won 4 titles since then...

I can't wait to beat them for a national title. In two years Bama', and the entire SEC, is going down.

 

I am unsure what exactly you mean by political libertarianism and economic libertarianism, but I'll do my best. My response to posts #26 and #34 are below.

My broad response to your general line of inquiry is that there is no single philosophy called libertarianism, just as there is no single philosophy called communism. They all have something in common, but can vary wildly on the specifics. Eg: all communists want to in some way abolish private ownership of the means of production, but call a Trotskyist a Syndicalist and you're in all sorts of (*)(*)(*)(*). Same goes for libertarians.

The way I see it libertarian philosophies are structured as such:

[hr][/hr]

1. Rights based or consequence based:

Since you're familiar with Nozick and Rawls, I'd imagine you're familiar with the basic trolley cart ethics experiment? This will give you a quick primer if you're not: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/

Basically, there's a broad distinction in ethics between action and inaction. Is there a difference between killing and letting die? Consequentialists think not, deontologists think so.

There is a very similar split in libertarian philosophy, because it's basically an extension of individual ethics to collective politics. I will make this clear by contrasting Friedman and Rothbard:

Milton Friedman: clear consequentialist libertarian. He thinks liberty is justified because it leads to pleasant results: it maximizes utility/pleasure/growth/egalitarianism. Hence his support for things which other libertarians vehemently dislike: a negative income tax, education vouchers, etc. Does not support the non-aggression principle when it leads to undesirable consequences. Somewhat like John Stuart Mill in this respect, who supported free speech because it created a more perfect society where good ideas win out over the bad.

Murray Rothbard: clear deontological/rights-based libertarian. He thinks liberty is justified in and of itself, without reference to the consequences that it brings about. Supports the non-aggression principle as an axiomatic position. If liberty results in less economic growth, utility, pleasure, etc - Rothbard is not concerned. Somewhat like Kant in this respect, who would not lie to Nazis to protect Jews hidden in his basement, no matter the consequence.

[hr][/hr]

The method to realize these goals: politics vs counter economics:

So given the above goals, there are several ways to achieve them: through the political process, or through disobedience and counter economics.

Political process: What it sounds like. Practically all consequentialist libertarians fall into this category, though they might have nothing ethically against breaking the law.

Counter economics: Some libertarians feel that voting gives the state legitimacy it does not deserve. They oppose voting, and propose individual disobedience as the means to the libertarian end. Samuel L. Konkin was the pioneer of this idea within the movement. He thought that libertarians focus too much on extending liberty to all at once, and ought to seize it for themselves and their local communities first. Ever heard of the Silk Road and similar darknet markets? They're online, encrypted markets where you can purchase illegal drugs, firearms, etc and have them delivered to your door. This is the ideal example of counter economics in action: creating your own underground economy in opposition to the regulated state-run one.

[hr][/hr]

Left vs right libertarianism

I'll be quick on this because it's of little note.

Basically, some on the left describe themselves as libertarians too. Noam Chomsky is a decent example of this sort: someone who opposes the state, but still wants to use force to create monopolistic workers' cooperatives. I mainly include them here because they are also advocates of counter economics as a means to their (very different) ends.

[hr][/hr]

You seem to be insisting on right-wing, consequentialist, political process libertarians as the only sort, or at least the only sort worth considering. Deontological ethics/politics is categorically opposed to economic growth at all costs. While you might very reasonably disagree with this sort of libertarian, they do exist.

Do yourself a considerable favor and purchase 'Anarchy, State and Utopia'.

I like the approach to philosophy (starting with Nietzsche by my count) of refraining from simply stating "truths" and defending them to the death. I adopt Nozick's approach to philosophical discussion (from Phil. Explanations) most of the time simply because I am convinced that there are no right or wrong answers to any normative questions. Politics, ethics - it's all subjective. It hence makes no sense to preach to people as if they aren't.

I can see the attraction, but think that Nozick absolutely and conclusively demolished Rawls' position in ASU. I don't really want to just repeat what he's said, but I'll give a quick primer:

Rawls never properly distributes property rights. Rawls is in the business of patterned theories of justice. Simply by knowing the income of every individual in society, without reference to the unjust or just acquisition of that property, he can determine whether the system is just.

Consider:

Person A: $220
Person B: $240
Person C: $700

Without reference to how they got there, Rawls states that the above allocation is unjust. This is complicated by his endgame. The classic example given by Rawls is Wilt Chamberlain (bloody brilliant basketballer by the way), but we'll work with LeBron. Let's say that Rawls gets his way: he reallocates the above system based on the minimax principle. As it turns out, person C is LeBron James.

They all go to a basketball game. LeBron is playing, persons A and B are spectators. They all have $20 in their pockets. LeBron places a jar with "Donations for LeBron" on it next to the court. At the end of the game, LeBron is back to his $700, and persons A and B are worse off again. Rawls would demand another redistribution, as the pattern has become unjust nce again.

But... have any unjust acts been perpetrated by LeBron? Not at all. Persons A and B freely gave their property to him, creating a significant imbalance. Does LeBron's talent contribute? Of course, but Rawls has already corrected this system. To do so again is an admission that the prior reallocation was itself unjust.

This seems to me to be an irreparable blow to Rawls' theory.

The above was pretty basic, so do yourself a favor and purchase ASU!

See, now you're admitting deontological libertarians into the fold. Be aware that they are categorically opposed to simply maximizing economic growth, just as deontological ethicists are categorically opposed to maximizing utility.

Fair enough. Because this leads to unpleasant consequences?

So you support the Portuguese model. Could you stretch to the Dutch model? That is, shops which sell it openly, no fine for possession, but still stringent regulations like we have for alcohol?

So despite the consent of both the prostitute and the husband, you would still use the force of the state to presumably imprison both parties? Because the consent of the wife is not given?

Do you support a given idea because of the pleasant consequences it brings? What makes you support an idea? Is it an arbitrary whim of the moment thing, or do you have some metric behind your choices?

I emphatically agree. I am very opposed to the idea that the NAP is objectively embedded in the fabric of the universe; how absurd.

You cannot derive how the world ought to be from how it is, and we only have reference to descriptive phenomena. There are no normative phenomena. Normative ideas are therefore inherently subjective.

That doesn't mean I don't support certain ethical principles, and I do think the NAP is a fairly decent summary of what I believe - but objective make that not does

Could you explain the distinction?

As outlined above, this is not so. Consequentialist libertarians do not have a monopoly on the philosophy.

Unilateral free trade is pretty self explanatory. Libertarians support unilateral free trade between individuals, the state doesn't come into it.

Free movement of persons can divide because of the existing moral hazards the state has established. For instance, I too am hesitant to simply open all borders overnight, because we have these things called entitlements which will cause millions to come for free money. My money.

If we abolished such programs, they would either come and act voluntarly, or they would die. You cannot refrain from working (incl. charity) in a libertarian society and survive. You will die. The free movement of persons hence comes back to free trade. Prohibition of immigration is effectively a cartel in the labor market: you're protecting lazy union workers from competition in the same way that tariffs protect lazy steel mills from competition.

See above.

True, but is it your place to protect people from themselves? This fully deregulated setting is, with some minor exceptions, what we had until the FDA was created by Teddy Roosevelt. Heads didn't explode.

Again, a prohibition on prostitution effectively seizes your person and gives control of it to the state. It's my penis, if I can cut it off I should be able to stick it up some consenting hoe.

The US had no national bank from Andrew Jackson through Woodrow Wilson: almost 100 years. There were crashes due to some banks overextending their credit, but it wasn't significantly worse than what we have now. Fractional reservists have this peculiar idea that the boom-bust cycle simply ended with the adoption of the Fed.

I am opposed to a standing army. I support Machiavellian ideas around what a Republic is and how it should be defended. A Swiss system with substantive gun freedom and no requirement to serve.

Please do!

Ahh, seems like we have a simple disagreement here, shouldn't be too hard to clear up. Yes - while your ability to produce and provide a service to others would (excepting luck and charity) determine your economic status in life, that is not to say that you are valued by the amount of dollars in your account. The two are completely different propositions.

Roughly, yes.

Libertarians believe (again, with obvious exceptions) that there is no objective value: that value is in the eye of the beholder. That your value as an individual is your own to determine, and that others should not be able to force their valuation of you onto you through force: only through voluntary processes.

You seem to ally with consequentialist libertarians like Friedman. As per my above comments, do you think people have an obligation to save others who will perish due to inaction? Society doesn't think so. You have no obligation to save a drowning person, unless you have a higher duty of care.

Can all of your criticisms of letting people freely move between nations also be leveled at our legal notion that you aren't obligated to act to save lives?

This assumes that I think the NAP will lead to the best results. I do not.

I think liberty itself is not possible to fully explain. There is no possible collection of words which can fully describe it. It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, although there are general principles which can approximate it.

I suppose the easiest way to explain my perspective on liberty is to say that it's like a complex number, or an asymptote. There is no answer to root(-2), that doesn't mean we can't use that concept to great effect. y=1/x never touches zero, but it does approximate it.

I would like to explain further but I've been writing this post for an hour and am short on time. Please respond if you want it in more detail, as I am unhappy with my comment.

Voluntary association makes control innocuous, given we don't have the current economic fascist system of cartels and entitlements.

No doubt. But those problems in the libertarian model are their own, and you have no business coercing them into making a decision which you see as right for themselves.

We are owed nothing in life. The only reason why we have more than the grass under our feet is because of the voluntary association of those who came before. To redistribute that property is to suggest that those originators of today's wealth were not worthy of the fruits of their labor. Ownership implies a right to transfer.

I do not support a standing army, as per my previous comments.

It is the choice of the individual to do what they wish with their capital. I am unconcerned with the prowess of the nation state.

It won't be harmless. It will cause considerable harm, but that harm will have been consented to by the individual being directly impacted. Once we sway into harm to others by them not having the privilege of my presence in their life I start getting frankly insulted.

I am a strange sort of libertarian. I will describe where I diverge from both the Rothbard and Friedman types in a future post if you're interested, as I can feel the carpel tunnel coming and I have a math tute 10 minutes ago!

Thanks.

 

I'm going to have to go back through the thread to try and find out exactly what you're attempting to imply but would point out a couple of points.

Personal liberty, that is embraced by Libertarians, is the freedom to exercise one's natural (inalienable) rights but the caveat exists that the person must do so responsibly. Government regulation restricting the "freedom to exercise" a "natural right" to ensure that the person is responsible is not an infringement upon the actual natural right. This is perhaps best understood by those that have read Thomas Paine's book Common Sense where he states, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." By necessity, to ensure that people act responsibly in society, our freedom to exercise our natural rights must sometimes be restricted. If all people always acted responsibly then these restrictions would not be necessary but because we don't the are necessary.

You attempt to separate "political" from "economic" but it must be understood that "economic" refers to commerce and commerce isn't a natural right. Commerce is a statutory privilege subject to government regulation. To understand that we have to understand the criteria for a natural right.

A Natural (inalienable) Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the Rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

When addressing "commerce" it is always dependent upon two or more people and therefore can't be a Natural Right of the person. Additionally, without government regulation acts of commerce can, and often do, violate the Natural Rights of the person or can reflect the irresponsible actions of one of those involved in the transaction.

Perhaps the most important factor when addressing "economics based upon commerce", and a point that even many Libertarians don't have enough knowledge about, is that or "Laws of Property" are not based upon the "Natural Right of Property" as best expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. Our Laws of Property are based upon "Title of Ownership" (either explicit or implied) while under the Natural Right of Property a person can only establish a "Right to Consume or Use" that which is necessary for their "support and comfort" and they don't actually "Own" anything.

Let me provide an example. When my father passed away I inherited the home he'd built and acquired the "Title of Ownership" to that house and the lot it was constructed upon. I didn't have a "Natural Right of Property" to it because a Natural Right is nontransferable. It was only after I moved into the home, to "Use" it as my own personal dwelling and when I began to expend my personal labor on it's upkeep that I finally acquired a "Natural Right of Property" to the "Use" the house and the land upon which it sits. Had I never moved into the home and never expended my personal labor on it to provide for my "support and comfort" I would have never had a "Natural Right of Property" to it.

Under the Natural Right of Property "title" is granted based upon the "Use" but it's conditional upon the actual use by the person (i.e. expending of personal labor related to the "property" in providing for their support and comfort) but is lost if the person stops using the "property" while under our laws of property a person can "own" property by "Title" regardless of whether they've personally used the property (i.e. expended personal labor associated with it) or not in providing for their support and comfort.

Basically our "Economy" isn't even based upon a "Natural Right of Property" because our laws are based upon "Statutory Title of Ownership" that's literally a holdover from the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings that can, and often do, violate the Natural Right of Property. It was the fact that "Statutory Title of Ownership" violates the "Natural Right of Property" that lead to Locke's arguments for the "Natural Right of Property" in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. The two couldn't be more juxtaposed to each other.

 

While many "libertarians" cite Rothbard and Friedman it must be noted that neither Rothbard or Friedman were libertarians. They were economists and their economic models were based upon "statutory ownership of property established by title" that evolved under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and those laws certainly aren't based upon, and generally violate, the "Natural Right of Property" as expressed by John Locke.

This is a philosophical flaw by those "libertarians" that cite Rothbard and Friedman because Libertarianism is about the "Freedom to Exercise or Natural Rights" while Rothbard and Friedman both advocated economic models based upon "Statutory Title of Ownership" that violate the "Natural Right of Property" of the person/people. Basically these "libertarians" either knowingly or unknowingly are selling out the libertarian philosophy based upon personal greed by embracing laws of property that were established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

In all honesty there isn't a "Libertarian" economic model based upon the "Natural Right of Property" because it's so juxtaposed to what we're familiar with (Ownership Established by Title) that few would even understand it.

 

This is an interesting example where we can point out a difference based upon the Natural Right of Property as expressed by John Locke.

Locke's arguments for the extent of Natural Right of Property hinge upon, and are limited by, that what is necessary for the "support and comfort" of the person. While "comfort" is a variable the basic "support" of all people is the same and it's based upon the minimum-mandatory expenditures necessary for the person.

In the above example it's assumed that "A" and "B" both have more than the necessary assets (dollars) to provide for their "support" because attending a basketball game that exclusively relates to the "comfort" of the person. We can pick any arbitrary amount below the "assets" (dollars) that "A" (and "B") have as defining the "cost of support" and that same value applies to A, B, and C equally. So let's just assign $150 as the "cost of support" for everyone. So A has "$70" that's related to "comfort" and "B" has $90 that's related to comfort and, of course they can spend this money anyway the choose including giving it to person "C" in the example.

Now we hit a caveat related to the Natural Right of Property. Person "C" is going to receive $700 from persons "A", "B", and others paying for tickets to the basketball game. That's $550 more than person "C" requires for their basic "support" so the question arises is whether they can literally use that additional $550 exclusively for their comfort. We're not talking about "investing" but instead "spending" that additional $550 dollars on their personal comfort.

If person "C" can't logically spend all of that $550 on their "personal comfort" then they're violating the "right of property of the common" (i.e. all people) by acquiring too much wealth.

Once again though "comfort" is a variable value and it's impossible to draw an exact line as to how much wealth is too much wealth but, as Locke points out, there come a point where it's so obvious to everyone that a person has accumulated too much wealth it can't be denied and in doing so it was both "useless and dishonest" for that person to take more than they needed.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

So if LeBron accepted the full $700, of which only $150 was required for "support" and the other $550 was for more than he could use for his personal "comfort" then it was both "useless" for him and "dishonest" of him to accept it even though "A" and "B" (and others) were willing to voluntarily give it to LeBron. To be "honest" LaBron would have to rebate the difference between the $550 he received for "comfort" and the amount he could actually spend on his comfort to those that contributed the excess to him or he could provide the excess to those that didn't even have the necessary $150 required by others for their basic support and if he didn't then, because he didn't have a Natural Right of Property to the "excess" it could be forcibly taken from him by society (e.g. government) and distributed to those that didn't have enough for their basic support.

The key being that LeBron doesn't have a Natural Right of Property to more than is required for his own basic support and comfort.

 

Rotherbard might be surprised to hear you say that, considering he wrote a book subtitled "the libertarian manifesto".

https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto

 

Considering that Rothbard argued against the very existence of the state, it would seem ridiculous to say his economic model was based on either statutes or kings. In the absence of a state, neither statutes nor kings could exist.

 

And the violations of the natural rights of the person by others in society would exceed even what the most tyrannical government could accomplish. Trade would not exist. Only theft would exist.

 

Hm, I'm not sure what you're saying here, or what it has to do with what I said.

I was simply pointing out that your assertion was innacurate. You said that Rothbard's model was based on statutory titles and divine right of kings. This is clearly false, as he advocated for the elimination of the state, in which case there would be no statutes or kings.

 

I am utterly shocked that your circular argument has failed to convince anyone! /s

 

Well...stay shocked.

Bottom line: Libertarianism, carried to it conclusion, leads to chaos and anarchy.

 

No, no it doesn't.

I think it is more complicated than that.

I did not pull those ideas out of thin air. Go look up the beliefs of Milton Friedman and Murray Rothtard.

 

Fair enough. Do you agree that the characterizations I made are fairly representative of many who call themselves libertarian?

Give me some time to respond to this post, if you don't mind. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and depth of your post, but it will take me a while to address everything in it--I may not get around to it until tomorrow!

 

Yes it does. Your argument is dependent on this idea that without government welfare, the destitute would be forced into slavery or prostitution.

When you put private organizations that take care of the destitute in the mix, that argument falls apart as absurd.

 

Yes, you've already flopped that out there...numerous times...with the supporting argument of, "just because." How ingenious.