P.J. O'Rourke on Libertarians (and Others)

Sorry but this is a fantasy. Rights can't exist without private property and if you have a situation where you can't have private property....as Larry the Cable Guy might say, "What is this, Russia?"

And if this is the view of Libertarianism outside of America, then the "outside of America" is dumber than I thought.

 

I remember reading a story in National Lampoon back in the 70's that was the genesis of 'National Lampoon's Vacation.'

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086

The above is a good summary of Chomsky's intentions with his criticism of certain books that were written about the Khmer Rouge back then. I would agree that he was mistaken in his assumptions about the situation.

But again, I don't always agree with him. I haven't read or heard anything by him in more recent years about the regime, so I don't know specifically what his view on the regime is now. It would be rather surprising for him to voice support for what was done knowing what we know now, however.

He supported the land reform campaign mostly because of how poor and divided the population was beforehand. Granted, I would agree with many that he blames too much on American interventionism with respect to Vietnam.

On the one hand, he was correct in assuming our interest in Vietnam was about business and subverting nationalist movements in the region. On the other hand, he was too apologetic of Communist actions.

Again, while I agree with Chomsky on many things, I also have certain areas of disagreement -- particularly when it comes to interpreting certain historical events.

Oh, I don't expect it to go anywhere. I just find it interesting to discuss.

If I had to put money on it, America's political future will mostly just involve more wealth disparity and oligarchal markets.

We're basically stuck in a tailspin because both parties have been bought.

 

Socializing the means of production doesn't eliminate all private property.

That being said, I don't expect this sort of thing to ever happen. I'm more fascinated by the decentralization of authority proposed by this ideology.

 

So your ideology is one that you concede will never happen, and in fact it doesn't sound like it could ever happen.

It's sort of the political equivalent of listing your religion as Jedi.

 

Decentralization of authority could happen, although it applies more to private action than government action. In effect, if labor organized more effectively, we could have the sort of councils referenced in the ideology.

We already see something similar to that when it comes to labor culture in Germany. Instead of conventional unions, a lot of German corporations have very democratic organization of labor that gives every worker a voice in major company decisions.

The part that isn't likely to happen is socializing the means of production.

 

That's not the libertarian philosophy. Libertarian doesn't mean isolationist, it means individuals have the freedom to act as long as they stay within the confines of other peoples rights. It does not prevent the formation and operation of a federal military whose purpose is to protect the individual from foreign nations that threaten our rights and existence.

A libertarian would attack the Taliban & AQ because they attacked us multiple times and continue to be a threat.

A libertarian would not have toppled Saddam Hussein, or tried to "bring democracy" to Libya and Egypt.

 

Its not possible to operate a system with private property but socialized "means of production". The vast majority of businesses are started with the owners/founders personal property - actual cash through their lifetime of savings, mortgage on their house, loans, and "in kind" contributions such as working on a reduced paycheck (or with intermittent pay) until the company is profitable.

Why would these people essentially give away their hard won personal property by sinking it into a company which is socialized (not owned by the founders)?

 

For the most part, libertarian socialism advocates that all industry should involve people voluntarily working together and splitting the profits amongst each other. The means of production would be open to all to use, but when not in use, others can use them.

As the wiki link references, there is a difference between private property and personal possessions. "Private property" grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, "possession" grants no rights to things that are not in use.

Now, admittedly, getting everyone to put money into productive property for "common" use goes against how we think in a capitalist society, which is why it's not something I expect to change anytime soon (or probably ever).

However, again, the part that I focus on has more to do with decentralizing authority both within government and the private sector. I view our current society as far too "top-down."

 

That's syndicalism. Another utopian fantasy. Put five guys in a room and divide their money equally amongst them; come back in a year and one son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) will have most the money. That's human nature. Radical egalitarianism doesn't work because people are not all equal and those with superior strength, will, intelligence - or as Machiavelli described it "virtu" - will rise to the top.

 

Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism have a lot in common.

But yes, it is an ideal rather than a matter of practicality.

It's like how Christians try to be Christ-like but don't expect to equal Christ in morality.

Again, how I apply it is mostly with respect to authority structures rather than the economic side. However, I think several Scandinavian societies have done pretty well with socializing education and healthcare. That's pretty close to the libertarian socialist ideal while still acknowledging realistic limitations.

 

My original point remains, and its why "libertarian socialism" (an oxymoron) will never work. Nobody with any sense is going to start a company with their own "private property" so it can be run be a huge committee of people who didn't invest their "private property" and don't have a stake in the program.

Most companies start because an individual or a couple of individuals have a better idea, or want to do it "their way". They want to do the exact opposite of your proposal. Apple & Microsoft would not exist in your world.

 

That's Luca Brasi

 

Libertarianism is incapable of solving any problems on a nationwide scale. Their principles cannot accomplish this even in a setting like that of a small town. Their governing methods are suited only for clubs, organizations, and other gatherings of like-minded individuals.

In controlled situations such as these, a handful of elected officers makes all decisions, after first opening issues to discussion by the entire membership. Still, the final ruling is ultimately decided by the officers, and in a governmental setting of a diverse society, human greed and corruption will win out over the best interests of the whole.

Libertarianism is a utopian system, but it is not viable in the real world. Few libertarians understand this, and it is why libertarians are unable to offer any concrete solutions when given the opportunity to do so.

 

Lol, it's blatantly obvious why libertarians vote Republican even if they don't get much from the party. The libertarians are to the GOP as the greens are to the Democrats. Greens leaving the Democrats to vote third party helped Bish, the OTHER SIDE'S guy, win. So it's east to see why a staunch liberal would chastise libertarians up and down for voting Republican, but not say a word about greens.

 

Funny how it's been pointed out to you that a majority of people around the world practice libertarian principals everyday, and in a cowardly fashion you completely avoided that fact, only to come back and repeat the same inaccuracies that you were called out in the first place. This speaks volumes about you.

 

Of course, myself and others have shown that that isn't true.

As I pointed out, the Libertarian/libertarian prescription for a smaller, less-powerful, less-intrusive and less-expensive federal government would solve many of the problems we are experiencing on a national scale.

Just because you don't agree with the libertarian solutions to the problems that the Left is primarily responsible for creating and compounding, it doesn't mean that libertarians are incapable of solving them. Truth be known, you're just drinking your own Kool-Aid.

 

The starting point is different in an environment where libertarian socialism is the norm.

It's no more utopian than what Austrian economists assume. They assume you can have an environment where government doesn't intervene and corrupt industry and vice versa.

In that respect, libertarian socialists and Austrians both pursue ideals that aren't really meant to exist in reality. Instead, the focus is more about getting close to the ideal rather than ever reaching it.

 

Still, you guys got nothing concrete other than to blame the liberals for everything that's wrong, and claim smaller government is the answer. But you have no plans for what to do with well over half of the U.S. population (closer to three quarters), if you guys were in the driver's seat. Do you believe your smaller government would eliminate crime, poverty, homelessness, etc.? No, you truly do not. These are not problem to libertarians or any other branch of the right wing, so they would be ignored.

Your brilliant, simple system is all that is necessary, right? No, you are wrong. The very same corruption that brought the economy down in 2008 would be free to flourish in your deregulated utopia. The greed that motivated the crooks in the financial industry would remain, in fact, without government intervention, it would grow. That small, impotent government, the dream of libertarians, conservatives, and neoconservatives, would permit the rich and powerful to devour the weak and the middle class.

And you guys all believe that is a SUSTAINABLE economic and governmental system. WOW

 

There is a world of difference between an environment in which the govt doesn't intervene and corrupt people, and an environment in which people have to donate their personal property to the collective in order to create a new "means of production" (a new company).

Basic human nature says people are not going to work hard, save money, and then donate that wealth to start a business which is owned and run by everyone. Progress is made by individuals, not committees.

 

Funny how government and the fed played a role in the 2008 housing crisis, but you being the typical uninformed statist, don't fully understand what really happened, what is well beyond your comprehension.

 

I disagree with the last statement.

Every meaningful change has required the work of multiple people. A corporation doesn't run with the work of only one person, unless you're talking about a single individual who files as a corporation.

When "individuals" work together, that is working by committee.

Nevertheless, I wasn't saying that Austrians aren't different from socialists. I'm saying they aim for an ideal that is equally unattainable.

 

I suggest you read my post again - I didn't lay the blame for the problems associated with the federal leviathan exclusively at the feet of Leftists. You're not liberals, either.

I didn't say smaller government was the answer, did I? I said that reducing the size, power, intrusiveness and expense of the federal government would remedy many of the problems Americans are facing today, such as the exploding national debt and the government's erosion of our individual rights and freedoms.

More strawmen.

Tell me, has exploding the size and expense of the federal government eliminated crime, poverty and homelessness?

LOL - What is this "simple system" that you're prattling about? Governance is not a simple matter, as the relentless incompetence of the "progressives" in the Obama Administration have proven time and time again.

More strawmen again.

I'm not aware of any libertarian proposal to completely deregulate the country. What libertarians and the Right have proposed is reducing the over-regulation that is throttling our economy and liberty. On the other hand, your side of the political aisle wants to keep expanding the size, power, intrusiveness and expense of government until it destroys the entire country. "Fundamentally transforming" the United States into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a nihilistic project that will only lead to self-destruction.

Wow. You really don't know what libertarians believe. I can only what makes you feel qualified to engage in this discussion.

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing your fabrications, misconceptions and preconceived notions with us. You've illuminated and revealed a lot about the Left that many of us might not have been aware of in the past. RWers would do well to keep these things in mind.
.

 

libertarians are so liberal that they don't even care about their survival which is why they will always be a weak minority.

Lots of libertarians are in denial. They don't think their message is flawed, and that the only reason its not widely accepted is because people just haven't heard it lol.

 

The people who take the risk get the reward. Corollary, without reward, why would anyone take risk? Doesn't matter how many people are on the committee, the risk-takers split the reward from risk that others did not undertake. Inviolable rule of commerce. Anarchosyndicalism (just Chomsky's academic jargon doublespeak for socialism) = "OK, you go circumnavigate the globe, get scurvy, meet cannibals, fight pirates, to secure trade routes. I'll be waiting back here safe and screwing your wife for you to deliver my equal cut." Guess which ship never gets launched. Guess who gets no salt and silk. Apply that throughout history and we are still in the dark sh-tting in the outhouse, using corncobs for TP, grooming the horses. Capitalism is better.