babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » The evils of Libertarianism

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The evils of Libertarianism
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 August 2002 10:44 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my little world the most gallingly stupid ideas I'm confronted with regularly are those of the american libertarians.

It's extremely ironic and a cause for real concern to observe that they presently ride high upon the recent tide of public resentment over corporate scandal to the extent that they may break, this time, well beyond the high-water mark of public scrutiny to muster the legitimacy that comes with an even broader and deeper base of support.

Mind you, across the border, the Libertarians have been pamphleting campuses heavily ever since the repugnant phenomenon of Ayn Rand's objectivism began to bloom like a cancerous lesion on the fresh adolescent faces of america's youthful idealism.

Rather than hold the corporations or the market accountable for unemployment or poverty the typical libertarian would deflect the attention away from the holy market and the 'invisible hand' that moves it, back to government at the federal level.

Already the libertarians are the 'third party' in the USofA being on the ballot in every state.

What they call 'libertarianism' others refer to as anarcho-capitalism.

Clientalism replaces social justice in the libertarian worldview, and as we well know, clientalism is a new euphemism that belongs to the dominant counter-trend of the last century: fascism, or as we now call it - corporatism.

Clientalism, the inviolable rights of the individual, and the objectivism of Ayn Rand are the principle tenets of american libertarians. Strongly against almost all taxation and any government 'interference' those of us with strong convictions of social justice are refered to as 'statists', or even, 'Stalinists.'

The markets are best left completely unregulated says the libertarian. Always at the ready with a quote from one 'founding father' or another, the libertarian asserts that any demand for taxation is coercive and inappropriate, and I suppose their rationale is that, with all that new money available, the libertarian would naturally be all that much more charitable.

My point is that, with all the obvious idiocy that this 'libertarianism' implies, although the debate is soundly mine on the social front, I admit that I am becoming stumped for lack of a strong economic grasp.

So I am making an appeal for those who are well-versed in economics to make some observations that will provide yours truly with some 'econammo': to start making snowballs - 'cause these jokers deserve a collective thrashing.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 August 2002 10:54 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you can get too bogged down in details.

I just tell Libertarians I know that if they got in, I'd move next door to them and open up a toxic dump waste site. And, in fact I also tell them they got their name wrong-- it should be "Libertine", not Libertarian.

I consider myself somewhere on the libertarian end of the left spectrum, at least in terms of keeping government busybodys out of my business, in as much as I know what's good for me, and no one else, and if I don't it's my bed, I'll lay in it.-- As long as I've got access to information that enables me to make my own choices.

I think it is this that young people are attracted to, the rejection of people restricting your choices on the basis that they know what's best for you, but I don't think it necessarily means they are for the economic agenda espoused by the "Libertine" party.

I think the left would be better off if we were a bit more "libertarian" when it comes to people being allowed to make their own choices, that we need to regulate individual behavior less.

In fact, I think I'll start a caucus within the N.D.P. with this in mind. We could save money by meeting in a phone booth........

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 August 2002 11:52 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tommy Paine,
I do believe that there is such a thing as a 'minority of one' when it comes to the inalienable rights. The right to privacy carries with it the necessity for some exceptions - which says that I support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (notwithstanding the 'notwithstanding clause', or provinces veto.)

You probably knew that odious M.E. of the bookstore on Richmond street. I too know that fellow and I'm not talking so much of his brand of libertarianism but the flavour that, in Canada, is best represented by the Fraser Institute.

Anarcho-capitalism.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 02 August 2002 12:05 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Libertarian is a really dumb name. It means abolutely nothing. It is one of these awful words that seem to have some kind of seductive power. Liberty is another dumb word. We give it a name and then say in the 'NAME' of Liberty we will free you from your shackles. Gimme a break.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 August 2002 12:22 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right, and the american libertarians have co-opted alot of their earliest political commentary to their own purposes. They react to any criticism with astonishment - as if to say - "how can you be against freedom?" Nevermind that the same (slavemaster) Thomas Jefferson can be quoted just as frequently against libertarianism.

Libertarianism is an almost exclusively 'american' phenomenon, although we do have the Fraser Institute here which, of course, finds its ideological compass completely dominated by the massive iron pig to the south.

From the place where the ideologue is most blinded - libertarianism = freedom - it seems completely futile to continue except it's so important.

The U.S. is a scary place right now.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 02 August 2002 12:29 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it is like saying. 'What have you got against motherhood'.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 02 August 2002 03:05 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Critiques of Libertarianism
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 02 August 2002 11:35 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When you read Ayn Rant, you can see why her delusional megalomania is so seductive to certain people. She presents the reader with absolutes, and absolutes are attractive to a particular mindset. Anything that in any way infringes upon the individual's right to be entirely selfish is inherently weak and corrupt and will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it. How many of us didn't want to save the world when we were young?

Any reasonable person will read that shite and recognize it for what it is - the raving drivel of a humourless, unbalanced mind. Personally, I think we could use a more radical social democracy, a libertarian socialism that is more questioning of government and less dismissive of the individual. Sort of what Noam Chomsky will admit to wanting if badgered enough about his personal political preference.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rod Manchee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 290

posted 02 August 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for Rod Manchee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bear in mind that Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "left-wing libertarian." The approach involves some useful basic ethical principles. As it usually does, the right-wing version has appropriated the name while neglecting to pick up the principles. Ayn Rand calls her rather bizarre world-view "objectivism," and this is most of what the American version of Libertarianism(the right fringe at least) seems to adhere to.
From: ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 August 2002 12:51 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bear in mind that Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "left-wing libertarian." The approach involves some useful basic ethical principles.

For that matter, Orwell thought of himself as a libertarian socialist.

This, together with his absolute rejection of any form of cant, differentiated him from many of the other socialists of his time -- and since, for that matter.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 August 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One easy question to deflate libertarians:

Should the government oversee corporate accounting?

A second:

Should the government prevent a wealthy individual from creating a private army (or, if you prefer, a large group of security guards)?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 August 2002 01:32 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The american libertarians do not distinguish themselves from left or right. They are, nevertheless, extremely conservative. They advocate an almost complete dismantling of the three levels of government, almost zero taxation (imposed taxation is coercive) no 'social safety net' (the poor are abandoned to the Salvation Army one would assume) no environmental restrictions and an entirely unregulated market.

Anarcho-capitalism and social darwinism are the two dominant 'isms' in the libertarian movement.

It is very hard to imagine that the English George Orwell would advocate for the american libertarians were he alive.

Personally, I believe in the structures of governance and while there is a widespread abuse of power and privilege in government, I feel strongly that, were there a public that was largely involved - well before election day - in the debates and issues of the land, if we saw ourselves principly as citizens, then we would have the critical mass of accountability and good governance in the name of public service would be not so rare.

Thanks for that link, Meades, I'd been scouring it for days without luck.

I need economic realities - bold weighty facts that can splinter a desk.

For a reference on american libertarianism follow Meades' link...or think of the Fraser Institute on mushrooms.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 02 August 2002 01:32 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Should the government oversee corporate accounting?

Of course not, as I have recently read. See, Enron and Worldcom and all them have had their share prices deflated (popped?) and investors know to stay away. And those investors will be much more critical of companies in the future. The market is self-correcting, yah-dig?

I'm not sure how the question of private armies would be answered.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 August 2002 01:55 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good aim, clockwork.

The market is guided by the 'invisible hand' and therefor, it is self correcting.

I'm not sure what they would say to the 'private army' question, Jeff, it's a good one - and no doubt, one for which they're sure to have an assortment of flip answers.

A keeper.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 August 2002 01:57 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is very hard to imagine that the English George Orwell would advocate for the american libertarians were he alive.

Quite impossible, for me. He'd see them for what they are.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 02 August 2002 02:00 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, George Orwell is a champion of the human spirit and he would would implode if he knew how and by whom he was being misquoted.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 02 August 2002 02:03 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The flip answer, of course, is that one is free to work hard, earn money and buy one's own private army if one is having problems with other people's private armies.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 August 2002 02:08 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another would be that those with private armies can't enact regulations that would prevent others doing the same. With private armies, there should be a level battle field.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 August 2002 08:37 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Libertarians would snort and answer that as long as the private army is on one's personal property, then of course one can have a private army.

And why, if that army happens to belligerently infringe on YOUR property rights though you may own just a shack in the woods near the hacienda, you can sue them in the courts!


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 03 August 2002 09:55 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What courts? Can't have a government monopoly; that's coercive. The best scam is set up a private law-court: take a fee from both litigants and license the lawyers.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 August 2002 12:42 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I gather from the above that the libertarian position is that the state should be abolished, to be replaced by private enterprise. Private enterprise is then free to create an army, police, a court system, etc.

Only it wouldn't be democratic.

They used to have that in Nicaragua, under Somoza.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 03 August 2002 01:04 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The irony of the Libertarian Party is in their rejection of government. It stands to logic then that they want to be *the* government. Harry Brown, the known author and investment banker represented the US Libertarian Party both in 1994 and 2000 presidential elections. The same Harry Brown who is on record saying: “My first act, if I was elected as the President of the United State, would be to resign” (see “How I found Freedom in an Unfree World” )

You can have an idea about his main interest from some of the book titles he chose:

“How You Can Profit from the Coming Devaluation”

“You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis”

“Harry Browne's Complete Guide to Swiss Banks”

“New Profits from the Monetary Crisis”

These titles suggest a mindset and some well defined priorities to me. God help the US if he ever becomes president.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 August 2002 01:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's an odd intersection between gold-standard nuts and libertarianism, for some reason.

I think it has to do with the "eww, anything government is eeeeeeeeeevil!" syndrome, and governments usually own the money printing presses, AND our money isn't backed by anything anymore.

In any case these nutjobs keep predicting that all hell will break loose and everything will go boom. The last time such ideas had currency was in the 1970s, and in retrospect the industrial world came out mostly OK.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 03 August 2002 03:13 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I gather from the above that the libertarian position is that the state should be abolished, to be replaced by private enterprise. Private enterprise is then free to create an army, police, a court system, etc.

They'd say that only the Constitution should be retained, Jeff.

"The military should be only for homeland defence."

"Everything else goes to the market."

Those in poverty are abandoned to private charities.

They'd say "any efforts to help them will not be hindered."

The poor would then become 'clients' and their equal stake, as citizens, in the various tax funded and government structures, obviously, is lost.

Mix this with two parts 'compulsion of loyalty' and you've got fascism.

There is some degree of this approach of 'clientalism' in the US and here in Canada - it could just be that the euphemism is established first, and until it is widely acknowledged by society that "it has always been so" - taken for granted - that the actual legislation is held back.

Nader got something like 650 thousand votes and Brown got 450 thousand and change - but there is the very real possibility that the Libertarian party could become a real factor next time around. It stands to reason that they would be the naturally 'most favoured party' of the corporate hawks at least ideologically, of course they have no known political talent base.

But with ideas like these, is this even necessary?

Something to watch.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 03 August 2002 03:17 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One thing that puzzles me about Libertarians, is that they are supposedly anti-government and pro-freedome, but they support capital punishment. Who other than "big government" is supposed to carry out that punishment?
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 03 August 2002 03:29 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another glaring contradiction is the fact that anyone - any citizen - who believes in a changing or evolving government as a natural process of a society's growth, or evolution, and feels strongly that the way to get clear of the dilemma is through a drastic increase in public involvement - in debate - (a trend counter to the current public alienation that must have reached its peak in the US by now) this citizen who acknowledges the current corruption in govenment and its cause - a lack of accountability due to severe public alienation - will feel, very much so, the coercive brunt of a libertarian form of governance and it is this coercion that is at the top of the list of libertarian grievances.

This citizen will certainly not be alone, and to them libertarianism would be imposed.

I honestly fear that in my lifetime the US could thinkably turn to a form of libertarianism.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 03 August 2002 03:49 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
flotsom: I honestly fear that in my lifetime the US could thinkably turn to a form of libertarianism.
flotsom, I am not worried about *that* one. Libertarianism, in theory, is based on a very simplistic ethical principle as outline by Ayn Rand:
quote:
'laissez faire' Capitalism is based on the ethical principle that no human being has the right to force another human being to do anything against his own self interest. If we allow a human being to ‘initiate’ force against another, to force him act against his interests, then we have approved of dictatorships of the worst kind.

If no one initiates force against another, then all we have left is mutual, voluntary consent based on the perceived self interest of all parties. Then no one will be enslaved and exploited, justice will prevail by allowing the very best, competent, creative human beings to create wealth and everyone will benefit.

The alternative is the arbitrary rule of whim, need, envy and parasitic exploitation, by the weak and incompetent, against the strong and talented, that will drag the world down to the lowest common denominator and destroys human incentive to excel, create and produce the wealth we all depend on.


Americans are not famous about following clearly defined principles -- they seldom allowed a principle to intervene in the pragmatic pursuit of 'happiness'.
Even if Libertarians formed a government, it would soon go the same way as all the other governments that claimed to be based on ethical principles. I am thinking of Communism in particular.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 03 August 2002 08:15 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if Libertarians formed a government, it would soon go the same way as all the other governments that claimed to be based on ethical principles. I am thinking of Communism in particular.

I was thinking the same thing. A lot of people say Communism doesn't account for reality and human nature, but neither does Libertarianism.

Rand followers assume that all people know exactly what their true self-interest is, and that they know how to go about fulfilling it. They also claim that nobody will use force or exploitation to further their own interests. That's just as utopian as the extreme left radicals they oppose.


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 August 2002 11:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not sure what they would say to the 'private army' question, Jeff, it's a good one

I think Ayn Rand would say that it's perfectly reasonable for someone rich enough to build an army. After all, in a perfectly libertarian system, only the most capable people would be rich, and therefore justified to rule the earth economically. So why shouldn't they rule it militarily too? The strongest, most selfish people are the ones who are the most moral, therefore they are the richest and therefore they are perfectly justified in ruling the weakest members of society by force.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 August 2002 11:12 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Libertarianism means different things to different people. Simply the word means nothing.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca