Author
|
Topic: The evils of Libertarianism
|
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832
|
posted 01 August 2002 10:44 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832
|
posted 02 August 2002 12:22 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2002 01:15 PM
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
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
|
|
|
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832
|
posted 02 August 2002 01:55 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394
|
posted 03 August 2002 01:04 PM
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
|
|
|
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832
|
posted 03 August 2002 03:13 PM
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
|
|
|
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832
|
posted 03 August 2002 03:29 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|