This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What Libertarianism Is Not
Submitted by Logn Albright of the Mises Canada blog,
As libertarianism begins to gain in popularity and seep into the youth culture, there is increasing pressure from certain strains of the movement to attempt to modify the theory and transform it into something that it is not.
To begin with, let us examine what is meant by the term “libertarian,” what its limits are, and what it attempts to explain. Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor. This is where the philosophy begins and ends, and although some libertarians dispute the circumstances under which force is acceptable (the Night Watchman state versus no state at all), it still has the legitimate use of force as its core.
It is not an economic philosophy, although its conclusion tends to support free market capitalism due to the lack of coercion inherent in such a system. Still, there is no dictum against collective ownership so long as it is voluntary. This is what anarcho-communism is all about.
Similarly, libertarianism has little to say about politics except for what follows directly from its central precept. Taxes are immoral because they involve coercion. Democracy is no better than dictatorship if it imposes the will of the many onto the few by force. And so on.
But because libertarianism has become fashionable among a certain segment of the population, and because we wish to expand the movement and convert others to it, there has been a push to expand this simple definition into a more holistic ethical code encompassing every aspect of life, almost akin to a religion. We are told that non-discrimination based on superficial characteristics like race and sex is an inherently libertarian position. It is not. So long as discrimination does not violate anyone’s rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)
Where these well-meaning meddlers go wrong is in assuming that just because libertarianism per se doesn’t have a position on racism, that libertarians qua human beings do not have such a position either. This is absurd. Libertarianism is by its nature a narrow philosophy, with plenty of room to coexist along with other philosophies as well. Just as being a vegetarian does not exclude one from being Jewish, so does being a libertarian not exclude one from being a humanitarian.
We are more than a simple political philosophy, and while this defines the moral lens through which we see much of the world, it is not the totality of our being. For example, libertarianism has nothing to say on the subject of suicide. If we own ourselves, we have the right to terminate ourselves. Period. However, no libertarian I have ever met would encourage such an activity, and most would find it utterly reprehensible. The point is that you can hold a belief that something is wrong without having to fold it into a specific political philosophy where it has no business being.
Granted, certain ethical outlooks fit nicely within libertarianism while others do not. Kant’s categorical imperative that we treat humans as ends in themselves rather than means to an end works well, as does the Biblical Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. They are not explicitly part of libertarian theory, but they are compatible with it.On the other hand, one would be hard pressed to combine a restrictive set of laws, such as Sharia, with the non-aggression principle.
The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.
Let’s leave the philosophy of non-aggression where it belongs, and feel free to supplement it with any other moral or ethical codes we also hold. It is a mistake, however, to try to combine all our views about life into one amorphous blob of watered-down libertarianism.
»
- 28015 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Because a nation that built up an institution of slavery was not about controlling politics?
Duh, right.
Nope, what is going on is that people who swear they were not supposed to be on the wrong side of 'americanism' are tasted first hand well, that it was only a supposition.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen?
Plato was struggling with this over 2000 years ago and we've made little progress beyond what he came up with back then.
Put away the keyboard and save yourself the blah, blah. It's pointless to throw -isms around and engage in polemics until this question is answered. It is THE factor that matters.
Read Radical Marijuana carefully. He explains this in far more (excruciating?) detail than I do.
I don't see many Libertarians providing an adequate response. Most just naively assume that an unregulated system will auto-magically evolve internal checks and balances to prevent concentration of power, in the process ignoring all contrary historical evidence.
The Founding Fathers understood this problem and made a decent attempt with the checks and balances of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they fell short in the end due to their bias to protect their own tribe (the landed gentry), thereby introducing a fatal vulnerability. It's why they so willingly embraced the intrinsically corrupted bicameral system of parliament and delegated the corruptibility problem to an ethical framework, provided by religion, that has since evaporated.
Libertarianism is a fine theory but the devil's in the details. By what mechanism does one robustly, incorruptibly prevent concentration of power, money, and knowledge into the hands of a dominant few? Drop all -isms but mechanism and think it over. There are some great ideas out there in the ecosystem, lacking an aggregative force.
Libertarians simply iignore the fact that there a large numbers of people who can't, won't and/or don't want to regulate themselves in a society of laws. What makes them think they would in a society of little or no regulation? Such requires; 1 an intelectual capacity, 2 having that capacity educated in logic and reason and 3 decent respect for the rights of others. Sadly all three are in an apallingly short supply.
Every morbidly obese person supports your statement. When people can't self-regulate something so simple as what goes into their mouths, then I'm calling bullshit on ALL "self-regulation" as dependable and reliable.
'Americans' can not self regulate.
'Americans' have a very long history of breaking their own laws, creed, principles etc
No need to pin that only on Americans, it's true for all humans.
Buddhists demonstrate some wisdom. They recognize that the human mind is naturally vulnerable to temptation and that people cannot be relied upon to resist temptation (to be self-displined). They therefore reject the source of the temptation, physically removing the source, or themselves from proximity to the source, so that it becomes physically impossible to give in to temptation.
An alcoholic can't get drunk on alcohol that's not in the house.
'Humans' have a very long history of breaking their own laws, creed, principles etc
There - fixed it for you...
The neocortex is not limited to the American psyche, but rather, the American psyche has been mostly limited to the neocortex.
Manifest destiny's always a letdown once the somewhere is finally found over the rainbow. Maybe why that somewhere is always somewhere else over the rainbow...
.
Ditto liberals. Politicians. Self-righteous bigots and do-gooders.
You have the right to starve where you stand.
You can say that everyone should have the right to be obese if they wish, or starve where they stand if they wish, fair enough. The point I mean to make it that we should not expect people to be of a healthy weight when they have a choice to be unhealthy (which is exactly what so many people choose to be even though they say they don't want to be).
Hence, I take issue with anyone who demands "self-regulation" backed by an assumption of it leading to a healthy outcome. Like people who say anarcho-capitalism will lead to a healthy outcome for society.
Or people who said that a de-regulated / self-regulated financial system would deliver an efficient, optimal, healthy financial system. Pure naivity! What we got instead was a morbidly obese financial system eating everyone elses' pies, an utterly predictable outcome.
"Healthy" requires some form of regulation which, in nature, is death for those that don't survive the "selection pressure". We humans are more civilized so can create legal selection pressures (regulation), to promote optimal outcomes, but it isn't easy.
The fact that it isn't easy and often produces sub-optimal outcomes is no reason to demand that all regulation be abandoned (the result will be even worse). It's better to aim to evolve regulation, remove it where it is excessive or not needed, and insert it where it is helpful which, in today's world, starts with "de-regulate Main St, re-regulate Wall St", with the requirement that regulation comes with enforcement, and, most importantly of all, that the decision makers are accountable to popular protest (THE biggest issue referred to throughout these comments by me and others, and what's so badly broken in America right now).
What I can't stand is all the well meaning but sadly deluded and/or simply ignorant Tea Party people who talk about "returning to founding principles" in one momment and then babble on about "free trade" in the next. If they truely understood the economic forces drove the American Revolution not just the political notions of "self-ownership" they would understand that free trade is the antithesis of what the founders fought for. But who reads Alexander Hamilton or Henry C. Carey any more? Ask the average twit of any political persuasion what the "American System" of political economy is and be prepared for a blank stare. Hamilton was the most brilliant economic mind of his day but for most he's just some dead guy on the $10 bill. Henry C. Carey is a complete unknown.
Name one Tea Party person who talked about returning to founding principles and then went on about free trade. And be sure to provide a link.
I'm not saying that you can't do it. I'm just saying that you need to do it if you're going to make the accusation. Back up your claims.
Turn on Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck almost any day of the week.
lol you listen them them and actually trust that they are telling the truth or NOT pushing the tptb's agenda??
I've listened to enough to know they are full of shit. I shudder to think what you listen to that allows you to jump to baseless conclusions. But then you prove my point as well.
They may be full of shit, but they do not advocate free trade. Free trade is a LEFTIST ideal, not a conservative ideal.
What replaces 'free trade'?
Not to good at reading comprehension are you? "But who reads Alexander Hamilton or Henry C. Carey?" You make my point about educated intellect being in short supply.
Was it easier for you to insult the guy rather than answer his question, or just more fun?
By the way, Hamilton (who is to be admired for many things as a founding father) believed in a strong central government and a central bank (Bank of the US). Is that your stance?
Don't tell me what my beliefs are. Don't try to tell me liberty has nothing to do with equal protection.
How about "protect yourself" (since there is no fictional state to pretend to do it for you). And as a consequence, like every other human activity, some humans will be better at self-protection than others, while some humans will hire more bodyguards than others, and so forth. No way everyone will realize the same results, though everyone is equally allowed to decide how to protect themself, and how much of their time, effort and resources to invest in their protection. That is the only sense "equal protection" can exist.
There is no magic "protection" in any scheme, system or approach. In fact, today the so-called protector is the predator most of us need protection AGAINST. Which means, the only real protection is... protection you provide for yourself directly or indirectly (by making agreements with others (neighbors, body-guards, etc)).
thousands of years ago, early humans hired bodyguards,
these bodyguards tasted power,
the rest is History.
Nothing is perfect. Personally I prefer SELF-defense, but I would also be receptive to "you watch my back and I'll watch yours" type arrangements with people who seemed appropriate for such a collaborative arrangement.
Libertarian
definition: an anarchist with a haircut and a mortgage.
Ugh. This entire thread has been such an immature philosophical discussion. It's embarrassing, actually.
It reminds me of my favorite quote from DBCooper on MarketTickerForum:
"It's like looking out the window, watching the building across the street burn to the ground, while sipping on a martini."
Best quote ever.
Well, some would say that ALL philosophical discussions are akin to that quote. I found this particular one to be to be tastier than most served 'round the virtual lounges overlooking the apocalypse, but I like mine stirred with only a single shake. to each his/her own, no?
Great quote btw. That's a good one to keep in the file.
Oh, now you've gone and made me wonder if there's any such thing as a mature philosophical discussion. Do mature people wax philosophy? Or do they deal only in reality? That's a philosophical discussion of its own! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
(Running out of the thread.) LOL.
That DBCooper quote is PRICELESS. I absolutely love it.
Mises and men with open flies; think their economic version of natural male erection--greed of self aggrandisement being deemed good--is the ultimate dream of John Galt liberated (new entrepreneurial version of Prometheus).
They forget that one man's freedom is another man's servitude; whatever the market mechanism says about buyers and sellers. (That's why the Gods of old chained Prometheus to his rock as lesson to Mankind.)
Human nature being what it is there will always be a guy with a "KAISERIDEE" who will corner the market and then supply and demand will sing to a different tune ; his monopoly song. Pandora's box comes to mind. There is a "libertarian" in every good man whose spirit becomes evil spirit if it goes unchecked and unfettered.
Basically it comes down to asking yourself : Is man's nature Good or Evil and what makes it one or the other?
History's answer, (Not that of Ayn Rand's mythical rant but that of hard facts à la Piketty), invariably is : Man's nature is evil until he his regulated by OUTSIDE forces (Popes and revelatory ideology; philosopher's logic and/or Magistrates of state Rule of law). The elites LOVE to eat free lunches off the table of the work provided in Bengladesh or in Schenzen by the dumbed out poor, according to the perverted Ricardian theory of comparative advantage morphing into slave labour arbitrage under NWO capitalism-- (Thank you Oligarchy surrogate WTO).
Unfortunately that is the historical truth of Pax Americana rule since the 60s. As it was since capitalism was born under Pax Britannica and even before during feudal times or imperial Rome.
The pursuit of Happiness cannot be achieved in the belief that every man is Judge and PArty to his own redemption.
That is why life will always be an Odyssey where delusional man learns the hard way.
Especially when things get tough and he finds himself invariably in that narrow passage!
Fasten seat belts we are now there.
The only thing standing in the way of a good life are assassins who kill heroes.
I would say to any assassin who has his eye on a person who has gained a place in the minds of men is we will pay you double what they would pay you, to not do it. But the allegiance is far beyond a dollar figure for these crazed people who live on the fringe. That is our only battle. Capture the courts, economy, govt, military...soon, Texas.
So, you "carry" then.
libertarian was originally liberal, but thanks to our socialist pond scum, they managed to hijack the label in the late 1800s/early 1900s to call it their own - socialism under the guise of liberalism
the term liberal is derived from liberty. socialism is just nasty shit pushed by nasty people with nasty DNA
so here we go again - tampering with libertarian now.
sounds like those nasty socialists are at it again.
The large number of government programs that have failed to carry out their duties and the dim view many Americans have towards Washington may be starting to take its toll on those who think big government is the answer. The Democratic Party has long been thought of as the party of "big government" filled with believers that government can solve and is the answer to curing many of our woes.
Sadly cost and reality are quickly beginning to show the flaws in this theory, government is far better at providing access of citizens and good at passing popular laws, but the private sector tends to be more efficient and better at controlling costs. The way in which an increasingly better educated world population faces and deals with growing governments will determine the future of the Planet Earth.
The saying "be careful what you wish for" may again be proven true as those wanting more government intervention begin to recognize the limits of government and bureaucracy while at the same time seeing the true financial cost it imposes. More on the flaw in the big government concept below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/11/flaws-in-big-government-concept.html
So the realization of the coming crash is right around the corner.
"but the private sector tends to be more efficient and better at controlling costs. "
Yes, but that begs the ugly question as to HOW the costs are controlled, especially when one considers how a publicly-traded, government-chartered corporation within a centrally-controlled currency system based upon debt payed back with compounded interest usually answers it.
This is not to say that government provides any sort of productive or efficient solution.
Just highlighting another paradox to add to the thread. The list is getting rather long. Co-winky-dink?
"but the private sector tends to be more efficient and better at controlling costs. "
That's a popular notion but in my experience doing business with large and small Corporations and Government Agencies the large Corps make vastly more stupid wasteful spending decisions than the Public Agencies. Here's an example we have a load of Medical Equipment on our 53' trailer heading to the East Coast dispatch calls and says hold up in Omaha and tomorrow (Wednesday) take it all off at our dock and pick up an expedited exclusive use for Long Beach that has to be there by Friday. Ok, must be some big deal. Turns out to be one rolling tool box going to an Engineer at one of our fine Defense Contractors. We call him up on Thus. to confirm delivery and he's like Oh, I won't be here on Friday can you deliver it Monday or Tuesday? So, they spend $4,000 to ship a tool box. I could give you a thousand examples just like that but I can't think of one involving a Gov. Agency.
Like all idealisms, libertarianism suffers from some crippling simplifications of human nature, which render the philosophy an abstraction with no relation to human life. The libertarian premise is this: if all people are momentarily free, they will never after that coerce each other. This is simply not human nature. Rivalries and ambitions lead to some coming on top of others, confiscation of key resources and property ensues, and the most important of resources (labour) also ends up in the hands of power.
The underlying simplifications of reality that libertariasm makes are so deeply incorrect, that it is simply not possible to apply the theory to any realistic situation. This leaves us with something very similar to the communist fantasy of people foregoing all competitive rivalry. It is just a notion, a daydream, totally inapplicable to human life on earth.
If a group of "radical" libertarians were to somehow come to power, I can imagine what would rapidly ensue: abolished taxes would put power in the hands of capital owners. Material insecurity would create dissent, rebellion and violence. The owners of capital would then contract men to protect themselves from their rivals, and the emergence of totalitarianism would be complete within less than a few months.
So if libertarian philosophy is an abstraction, what is its real world application? In my view, its simply a fancy way for wealthy people to protect the property they have stolen.
This is an excellent post! Stick around here. I don't agree with your last sentence whatsoever, but I hope to hear more from you on ZH.
(And I up-arrowed you, by the way, even though I disagreed with that final sentence.)
Blah blah.
Libertarianism is the same as all religions/belief systems/ideologies, they all splinter into factions/sects.
Remind me how many varieties of Christianism there are, or Islamism, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Marxism, or Economosism.
Widespread diversity is the one law of nature you can always lookout for. I don't know why God (don't be offended if you don't believe, I'm referencing my personal God) had to make things so complicated.
Your "personal god"?
A god just for you and for nobody else, or just what is a "personal god"?
You did not otherwise name your god, so i cannot know if you mean the God of the Jews or not.
But anyways, the Jews believe that their God is the Creator, and one can easily find out where the complications come from.
Genesis 1:26
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over [everything]."
So, i am not a theologian, but my command of the English language leads me to believe that,
this God either is GovT, or he created GovT, or both.
Creating something like GovT would certainly "make things so complicated."
Which still doesnT answer the question "why"?
This jewish God seems to love to torment goyim. That might be the connection; although i realize, their is a fallacy in that premise.
A heap of a few cells is not an human. no way.
By the way abortion is legal in many states on earth.
So wealthy should not bother. The woman just have to travel to Germany for example.
I know of no country whre a female is forced to keep a foetus generated through rape.
This deamnd is due to american "religio-facism".
Fuck the christan fundementaslists.
Abortion is better than producing individuals without hope.
Sigh. Where to even begin deconstructing your ridiculous attempt at logic.
"A few cells is not an human" - straw man argument taken to an extreme. In many poor countries they don't name the kids until they are a few years old to make sure they make it...so then when do they become human? When they are named? So then, if your number (national ID, social security #, RFID chip, etc) means more than your name are you then less than fully human? Do you have less rights than those who can trade securitized pools of tax id's? Is that moral?
"BTW, x is legal in many states on earth" - You seem to imply that if it is legal, it is ok, as in moral. Look around, the entire financial system is based on legal rehypothecation. Hitler passed enabling acts that declared all his actions legal. "Law is often but the tyrants will..."
"Abortion is better than producing individuals without hope." So us Zh'rs have been studying whats going on and what can be done about it for a few years now. Few of us expouse hope that macro circumstances can be meaningfully improved. Many of us are taking preparedness actions but with full knowledge that our efforts are feeble compared to the asymetrical weapons of mass distraction and destruction that can be unleashed on us. Does this mean that we should simply be culled because we are people without hope?
What are you even doing on this site espousing such drivel? I hope you are here to learn and not to offer the sacrifice of fools...
so under religio-fascist libertarianism
she can do whatever she wants,
as long as the religio-fascists consider it to be moral?
religio-fascist libertarianism seems like a system whereby, you get to decide what is right and wrong, or?
The rest of us will be free to do, whatever you consider to ok.
Libertarianism is unadulterated, adolescently self-absorbed, ego onanism.
And impractical in the real world, to boot.
To quote Yogi Berra, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is."
Lots of folks here whom I suppose to be sympathetic to libertarianism rant on and on about "oligarchy" this and "oligartchy" that running eeevil capitalist USA.
Fine...except there's nothing - absolutely nothing...by design! - in a libertarian "system" [sic] which would prevent/correct an oligarchy from ever taking over even more quickly.
Oh yeah, and don't expect the libertarian next to you to have the same or even similar morals as you. Think where that leads.
No it's not. This article sums it up pretty well. Your first sentence just lists human foibles.
To the Libertarian, the state is a necessary evil to hold back barbarism and thuggery. How much state is up for discussion according to how libertarian one is.
"Oh yeah, and don't expect the libertarian next to you to have the same or even similar morals as you."
Well he's not really a libertarian?..... but I couldn't care less, just so long as he's banged up if he cause loss and / or harm to others.
Yes there is. Libertarians support laissez faire free markets. That means a level playing field that anyone can enter and compete without government choosing winners and losers. If the oligarchy is not doing right by people then they are free to recombine and compete politically in the marketplace of ideas, assuming an oligarchy can arise in that setting to begin with. An oligarchy is an elite set of rulers with tyrannical powers. The world has done oligarchy before. It ought to try libertarianism and laissez faire, for once, because we haven't had either yet.
"So long as discrimination does not violate anyone’s rights of self-ownership, the theory simply has nothing to say about it (although we can observe that a capitalistic system is unlikely to encourage such behavior due to the way it tends to impact profits.)"
Yeah, that worked really well in the old segregated south. White people were falling all over themselves to invite black people to eat at segregated restaurants.
And FWIW: I'm white.
I guess somebody needed to open up restaurants that catered to all races and ethnicities and served good food too. Probably would have made a nice profit if other commercial factors were right.
I like the Libertarian philosophy but like all belief systems it is based on the here and now.
That is to say the belief in a philosophy like libertarianism is a luxury of belief built upon the sometimes ugly belief systems like capitalism. To start anew, without a nickel or a land, no human philosophy would work for the human race without bloodshed and suffering by those before us.
Humans always, always, want better shit.
Exactly when does one become the onwer of and become responsible for one's body? When one is a zygote, sometime between then and delivery or sometime after that? Before one becomes the owner of one's own body, is the person owned by someone else?
Good point - some would find that ownership of oneself starts when it is convenient
Like, after one moves out of mom's basement.
Libertarianism is certainly not constitutional relativity. Libertarianism in its purity is not anarchism. Libertarianism is Constitutionalism, and it is politics that make the constitution what it is not, and why Libertarians are attacked as "kooks" and "anarchists". What is not to like about no onerous taxation, limited foreign entanglements, and to just be left alone? Only a statist would disagree.
See "the law of nature and nature's god" (i.e law of nations)--- Declaration of Independence.
.
"Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill"
FZ - The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing
What's in a name? In Lincoln's time, Republicans were more like Democrats and vise-versa. I don't know what the best system is. Whatever we have now is not working. Having a government is paradoxal. If they're in our lives, they control too much, tax us too much, spy on us too much. If they're not in our lives, corporations run a muck chasing profits by using up our precious resources and destroying our environment.
Re:- abortion
But under libertarianism there would be no state (other people) to pick up the tab. So, chances are, women would take more care against 'unwanted' pregnancy.
Of course people would be free to give to charities that supported unwanted pregnancy.
The author's description of libertarianism looks muddled to me. And I wouldn't agree with all of it, especially its narrow scope.
As someone who leans towards libertarianism, I see it as a life-style guide whereby I have the right to live my life according to my choices without coercion or interference, providing that my choices do not adversely and legitimately affect others. This approach extends into daily social interaction, economics, size and scope of government, foreign relations and everything else. Including a woman's right to abort if she does not wish to give birth and then spend 18 years bringing up an unwanted child, because the child (and by extension, society) is invariably the loser.
Where my choices conflict with legitimate choices of others, negotiation is necessary to find a way forward that's acceptable to both parties. The correct use of the Rule of Law plays a part in this.
On the sham that is democracy: in my life in Britain, there has not been a single elected government which ever achieved a simple majority of the eligible vote. A typical voter turnout is 65% and the winning party achieves <45% of that to win most seats and become the elected government. Meaning that we always get the will of the minority imposed on the majority. It's no surprise that one past leader of the British LibDems (Paddy Ashdown) described Britain's political system as "an elected dictatorship". That's what it is. And one would be wrong to assume that this elected minority government would exercise moderation when it comes to policies. They plough ahead as though they have a large majority of the electorate behind them.
But surely you can't 'lean toward' libertarianism.
You just have the simple fundamental rules AND THAT IS IT.
There would be no need of politicians.
Just administrators to make sure the simple rules are followed? I guess you could vote for guys, but they would probably be volunteers.
I can easily lean towards libertarianism. Meaning that I am not a 100% libertarian. Some libertarians wish to see government abolished. I don't buy that idea because I see government as a necessary evil. Precisely because of that I favor the smallist government possible, "minimum government".
Try this: minimum gov't and maximum personal freedom tempered by maximim PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions (the responsibility part is sadly lacking these days)
I couldn't agree more. Thanks very much for wrapping exactly my thoughts in one sentence.
Smacker, I stuck you with a down vote. Sorry, but you're the one with the muddling and the author of this is right. Don't be discouraged. I hope you will continue with you voyage of discovery.
Paraphrasing George Washington, government IS all about force and that is what libertarians are wanting to restrain because it can easily become abusive. It isn't some warm, fuzzy, benevolent, loving maternal force, merely wanting to keep things peaceable, it's a mean, powerful, vindictive, controlling bitch, if it's at all feminine. If it is in the hands of the wrong type of people it is pervy to boot!
Libertarians are dead set against slavery, insisting on the right of freedom of association. Freedom of association is an affirmation of self ownership. You DON'T have to associate with people if you don't want to, you can discriminate against those whose society you find objectionable. You can voluntarily associate with some for cause, but you should always be able to withdraw support if you don't like the way things are going. There should be no coercion.
Your current minority is in power because it has captured the electoral majority and is therefore a majoritarian government, which is the way your (and our) democratic system works. Our system is not supposed to be a democracy, it is supposed to be a representative republic. How we got this way is an interesting tale, but it's also a long one.
Libertarians are ideologues; they do stand for something.
Ckierst1, I also stuck you with a down vote. So there(!) ;-)
Why? Because you claim I am muddled not the author. But you then go on to write a load of stuff which I largely agree with, which extends beyond the narrow description stated by the author. And it confirms what I said previously which is that libertarianism is something more than simply a political philosophy. It essentially gets involved in most aspects of life, over and above politics. I cited the example of a woman's right to choose (pregnancy) which is a social issue, not really political.
And your assessment of the British political system is wrong. It all depends on how many seats a party wins (650 in total). The first party to get 50%+1 of the seats wins the election. But the votes required to win 50%+1 are never more than about 45% of the votes cast, due to parliamentary constituencies being of different sizes etc. As I said previously, no elected British government in my lifetime has ever achieved more than 45% of the votes cast, usually less, let alone of the eligible electorate. To describe that as any sort of majority government is a play on words. In my opinion.
Oh, you bitch! ;-) Seriously, though, and we are probably arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin, we're probably not very far apart on this where the rubber meets the road. I view the tenets of libertarianism narrowly with the other stuff naturally growing from the fertile bedding ideologically provided. Libertarianism is silent on some (many?) things (issues?) and encourages a healthy debate with people voluntarily buying into ideas or not, and perhaps walking away when they seem to not be the right thing to do after all (persuasion, not force).
To be honest, I'm in the camp that opposes abortion and considers conception to be the initiation of a potentially viable human being. I may be persuaded to abort if the foetus is demonstrably deeply flawed in utero - basically the same position as Ron Paul, although I don't know if he can be thusly persuaded. I would be interested in his take on this.
I'm still inclined to construe your system as majoritarian because I don't think that an absolute majority is implicit in the concept of majoritarianism. We commonly fail to elect with more than 50% of the electorate. There are several ways to look at this, I guess. Do you have proportional representation in your Parliament?
I'll give you a greenie uptick for that.
My view on abortion is that a woman's right to choose is supreme (but within limits, (say) up to 20 weeks before birth). My reasoning is that it is almost always the woman who has to bring up a child and if she is forced by law or obliged by social pressures to give birth to a child that she really doesn't want, that kid will not be brought up well and will probably discover s/he was unwanted at some time. Society is the loser and foots the bill for countless one-parent families.
There is one other issue which I usually disagree with the Mises Institute and other libertarians about. Namely, the use of violence where they say violence can only be justified in self-defence. I believe there are other scenarios which justify violence, eg: if I see a mugger assaulting an old granny. I feel fully justified in tackling the mugger and whopping him right in the face several times to knock his teeth out and send him back to last week.
No, the British voting system does not have PR. It is "First Past The Post" which never produces a voted majority.
Thank you for the greenie uptick!
On the abortion thing we'll likely have to agree to disagree. I suggest that most of the hale and hearty "unwanted" children would be gratefully grabbed up by doting adoptive parents and guardians. Some of the remaining children would present a challenge. Many single birth mothers who aborted have spent a lifetime regretting it. Many who chose to not abort have bonded to the tyke(s) and done their best to raise them as well as they can.
I doubt that many (L)libertarians, in or out of the Lugwig von Mises Institute, would find an ideological fault with your pummeling the snot out of the muggist. They may disagree with your methodology, however, and trample your civility a tad by suggesting that you ought to shoot the goon outright, instead. Consider it a post natal abortion. On deeper inspection I think you'll find that breaking up a criminal assault doesn't violate the non-initiation of force prime directive. It isn't ideologically limited to only self defense. Many (most) L(l)libertarians would consider it a duty to intervene, particularly if they are packing or otherwise armed.
I wish we had PR! :-(
How strange that the author would correctly state that libertarianism relates to all peoples' self-ownership and the rationally resultant non-aggression prinicple...
...And then declare that it is 'exclusively a political philosophy'.
Which philosophy, exactly, could possibly exist outside of self-owned humans?
I suppose we'll have to wait to meet aliens to know.
Otherwise ALL PHILOSOPHIES are the product of self-owned humans, and stand to be inluenced by said human condition.
MOREOVER, by declaring it 'Exclusively Political' Mr Albright implies that the self-ownership is by designation or assignment rather than that self-ownership is innate. And from this implication he further draws an incorrect conclusion - that it is possible to surrender self-ownership voluntarily to a collective.
Actually, it isn't possible. People own themselves.
Control ove rthemselves can be temporarily coerced from the outside by means of aggression, "Do what I say, OR ELSE!".
But the innateness of the ownership is simply tested by answering a simple question, "Is it possible for a person to choose the, 'or else' rather than submit to the coercion?"
Of course it is possible. To control a person people must interact with their consciousness. Those who coerce are unable to directly control. Therefore the person's consciousness is sovereign over their body ,not the person exercising coercion.
" Man is free, we say, who exists for his own sake and not for another's."
-Aristotle
The author makes a valid point. This happens every time some label gets hot- people with other agendas try to shoe-horn their own beliefs into it. My objection is more basal, I don't agree with the premise of self-ownership for the reasons described here... http://localismaphilosophyofgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-problem-...
If libertarianism is a philisophy, the Tea Party is a movement... of the bowel variety.
A good poop actually accomplishes something. :)
Who wrote this fucking article? I gave it one star.
Nothing but an insane propaganda piece. At no time, on any platform do I agree with this author as he "espouses" what libertarianism is. Wow.
Watch Deadwood.
The development of Anarcho-capitalism without a restraining force against those who violate NAP.
Somebody has got to limit the intake of Mr. Wu's pigs. The people voluntarily by consensus, elect someone to the task and renumerate him for his efforts on their behalf. They have a sheriff and build him a jail to secure malefactors.
Now what? To deal fairly with the accused, they need someone familiar with law and rules of evidence. They voluntarily, again by consensus, elect a fledgling lawyer as a judge to empanel a jury to hear cases and and decide guilt or innocence and mete out punishment for transgressions.
So far, so good right? Everyone is operating with consensus that this will improve the community as a whole and agree to a levy or tax for the wages for their new officers of the court. The levy is apportioned equally among the residents within the decided jurisdiction.
At this point, a condition for citizenship is that any person residing within the towns jurisdiction must contribute to the levy to avail themselves of the protection the tax provides for. This now includes costs for a pump wagon and hose for the newly established volunteer fire company.
The prospective newcomer faces a dilemma. Should he voluntarily pay the tax for the towns services or should he reside outside the towns limits and forego the benefits of law enforcement?
In the meantime, the town has voted to hire a person to remove trash and debris from the town and to drill a community water well. A teacher for the growing number of children has also been accounted for after a vigorous debate from the childless that they should not be held to pay for education from which they derive no benefit. The argument that carried the motion forward was that children whose parents could not afford a private tutor would also receive lessons in good citizenship and would eventually be an asset to the community rather than ne'er do-wells without good prospects. This was voted by the majority to be an indirect asset even to the childless that would prove it's worth in time.
Are these taxes forced on anyone? They were voted on by consensus by the townspeople themselves as a way to promote good order and safety. Anyone not wanting to pay the fees are free to live outside the town and not use the services the town provides.
All within the bounds of solid Libertarian principles of non-aggression.
Then the Territorial Governor shows up and wants the people to vote for Statehood.
And everything eventually turns to shit.
Immature Anarchist? yes. Pro-Russian forces? yes. Level headed mature US partriot adults? no
"Level headed mature US partriot adults"
Are these the guys who want to go beat up strangers who have never done them any harm?
I do not know these people.
And who exactly holds the patent to the term and conditions of Libertarianism? Apparently the author believes once a philosphy has been created it is forever set in stone and can never been changed. Clearly a narrow-minded thinker.
the non-agression principle is over simplistic. ultimately, it's easy for any 2 year old to understand the basics of non-agression and self defense when it comes to a physical beating or physical taking. but WHAT ABOUT NON-PHYSICAL AGRESSION? this is where oversimplistic libertarianism fails miserable. if the chinese enslave their own population through violence and then want to VOLUNTARILY TRADE WITH YOU. and you then buy their goods, and resell them and put people selling home-made goods in your town out of business, unable to sell their own products----------------then you just transfered VIOLENCE AND USED IT TO 'VOLUNTARILY' COMPETE and deprive someone of their livelihood by 'competition'. turning violent enslavement into 'voluntary' profits, by obscuring the source of labor and using cheap transportation services to 'outcompete' others producing goods without slave labor. this is raw socio economic darwinism. is this 'libertarian'? becuase if so, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WAR BEING BAD. without war, and large military power, the u.s. could not import goods from the chinese on u.s. terms. the terms of import would be even WORSE than they are now if the u.s. military were not dictating the terms.they would be even more mercantilist. NOW_-----if you understand that physical violence is not the only form of violence, but that voluntary TRADE can result in destruction by competition rooted in violent production ( slavery is violence , the violence of prohibiting a slave from leaving, and from forcing the slave to part with his wages ) . SO WAIT? IS PROTECTION LIBERTARIANISM NOW? IS LIBERTARIANISM MERCANTILIST? ultimately libertarianism is not a guideline that seeks to answer the problems of the world , it is very much like marxism, an insular political philosophy that attempts to be internally self cohesive and is thus mostly and usually CHILDISHLY unable to deal with reality as it is. if you ABANDON LABELS------------ONLY THEN CAN YOU FREELY PHILOSOPHIZE ABOUT HOW REALITY IS . FOR THE WORLD OF OUR THOUGHTS IS DERIVED FIRST FROM THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF US. you cannot create platonic thought worlds and see reality for what is is. because a platonic world requires you at some point close your eyes, and screen out imperfections. the world is full of those imperfections. it is only by accounting for them and honestly examining and analyzing them for what they are, and incorporating this into a world view------that you develop a realistic account for your world. there can be no labels for htis. not marxism, capitalism, libertarian-ism , etc...
Q: How to make a paragraph?
A: Press the enter key twice. (the big one)
This subject will never be settled. But I would like to see a different look explored.
Governments come in many layers, the individual (and family) being at the top layer. Each layer should do everything it personally can, handing down to the layer below it only those things which "require" additional cooperation to achieve. This would, right away, force things like welfare, medical care, auto and casualty insurance, etc. into the top layer ... the layer of the individual and the family.
Things like a road system, fire protection, justice system, etc. would fall to lower layers, but no lower layer than necessary. And they would be no more expansive than necessary.
Further, creation of the layers should be a republican exercise ... not a democratic one. To be republican, the members of a layer segment (of 50 people or less) elect a representative whom they personally know to act in their behalf at the next lower layer. And that layer would use a republican mechanism to represent them further below. Such a republican system would require that everyone in the group be able to know their representative personally. Thus, the groups making up all layers would necessarily be small and propaganda and mass campaigning would have little effect. It's an inverted pyramid or funnel.
Assume no collection electing a representative may be greater than 50 people. Further, assume people may form groups any way they choose (i.e. not be limited to a geography if the purpose of the layer is not geographic). That assures gerrymandering (people are naturally attracted to those who share their attributes ... let them). With 50 people at the bottom layer, 2,500 (50 squared) next layer up, etc. ... 300M people could be represented by 5 layers ... twice the current world's population would take 6 layers.
In the very olden days we had such a system and a very minimum of layers. As population grew we became successively less republican and more democratic in our selection process. The individual became the bottom layer, not the top. And people at the top were chosen directly by the people at the bottom ... who had no reasonable way of knowing them personally.
I don't think the current pyramid democratic system is working or workable. Flipping the pyramid and making it a funnel, with the powerful individual being at the top and layer of representatives of last resort being at the bottom, may make things better.
Fire away.
As usual, with 'americans', it starts with a big, thick propaganda trick to be swallowed to join the club. 'Americanism' is all about submission. Submit, submit, submit, submit.
The 'american' guy would like to sell the idea that the issue of suicide is not included in his libertarian set of beliefs.
As an evidence, he moves forward that many of his libertarian friends does not sound warm at a certain treatment of suicide.
He concluded: you can be a libertarian and a humanist. There is room beside libertarianism.
Since libertarianism is just 'americanism' redressed to ease 'american' minds, taking a look at history shows what is happening.
The order previous to 'americanism' valued honour. They were honourable people, more honourable people, less honourable people and people with no honour.
In 'americanism', honour has no value. But when they started, 'americans' were still under the influence of the older order values. As such, they were able to sell the idea that you can be an 'american' and honourable at the same time. Because 'americanism' was tainted by the previous set of values.
Yet, later, as the world got more and more 'american', it grew obvious that honour has no room in an 'american' society. 'Americans' cant be honourable because honour is not a value in 'americanism'.
Same is happening once again here. All his libertarian friends are tainted by another set of beliefs which he called himself humanist. That is because they are tainted they keep insisting that the issue of suicide is not dealt by libertarianism.
It is dealt and the answer by self ownership deriving, is that people can suicide and nobody should oppose them as long as they can pay society for that.