American libertarian party

[Divergedwoods]

Reading up on the American libertarian party, which is based on the idea of a society with minimal government regulation replacing with personal liberties with their adjacent personal responsibilities, under the premise of "as long as you're not hurting anybody, you can do whatever you like". This idea takes the liberties to a maximum, held back only by your personal sense of morality and responsibilities both to yourself and to the society.
Hearing this I immediately think that I would like to live in that society, a utopia of modern social interaction, progress and free thought, I know I would like that king of freedom. But thinking it trough I don't believe I want other people to share that liberty, I can handle my actions, but analyzing our species as a hole, we are horrible beings, and history is not on the libertarian's side. This brings up the question of, what is the source of the order in society; and is it possible to extrapolate our personal liberty to a maximum without sacrificing our wellbeing? , can we handle it?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Reading up on the American libertarian party, which is based on the idea of a society with minimal government regulation replacing with personal liberties with their adjacent personal responsibilities, under the premise of "as long as you're not hurting anybody, you can do whatever you like". This idea takes the liberties to a maximum, held back only by your personal sense of morality and responsibilities both to yourself and to the society.
Hearing this I immediately think that I would like to live in that society, a utopia of modern social interaction, progress and free thought, I know I would like that king of freedom. But thinking it trough I don't believe I want other people to share that liberty, I can handle my actions, but analyzing our species as a hole, we are horrible beings, and history is not on the libertarian's side. This brings up the question of, what is the source of the order in society; and is it possible to extrapolate our personal liberty to a maximum without sacrificing our wellbeing? , can we handle it?

When I first read it I was also all for it, the philosophy espoused in the wikipedia article sounds great. Now there's some nutjobs out there who think roads and police should be privatized, but let's ignore them.

The problem is in your title. While (at least mild) libertarianism sounds nice, The American Libertarian Party is not, as I expected them to be, socially liberal with a tighter wallet. They're out in right field fiscally conservative, and then pay lip service to marijuana legalization or gay rights. A lot of them oppose abortion. I think someone here recently mentioned that they support freedom everywhere, except your uterus. In short, I've found the ALP to be basically Republicans with delusions of grandeur courtesy of Ayn Rand.

 

[Deggial]

Reading up on the American libertarian party, which is based on the idea of a society with minimal government regulation replacing with personal liberties with their adjacent personal responsibilities, under the premise of "as long as you're not hurting anybody, you can do whatever you like". This idea takes the liberties to a maximum, held back only by your personal sense of morality and responsibilities both to yourself and to the society.
Hearing this I immediately think that I would like to live in that society, a utopia of modern social interaction, progress and free thought, I know I would like that king of freedom. But thinking it trough I don't believe I want other people to share that liberty, I can handle my actions, but analyzing our species as a hole, we are horrible beings, and history is not on the libertarian's side. This brings up the question of, what is the source of the order in society; and is it possible to extrapolate our personal liberty to a maximum without sacrificing our wellbeing? , can we handle it?

In libertarianism, there are a few different schools of thought concerning the role of a central govermental authority as the guardian of order and personal freedom, to differing degrees of goverment intervention; from its non-existence in anarcho-capitalism to central macro-financial planning.

Personally, I am mostly in favor of "minarchist" views, that advocate a minimal state that only supplies the legal system, police and national defense. I consider this a "necessary evil" to maintain order, as national defense and civilian protection are a sort of geographical "natural" monopoly. On that issue, you can read Nozick's critique of anarcho-capitalism in "Anarchy, State and Utopia".

Furthermore, it is my opinion that a second "necessary evil" exists in the form of compulsory, though somewhat limited, taxation. A libertarian society needs to be able to protect personal freedom from discriminatory tactics, including any form of financial discrimination. For instance, if poorer families are not able to pay tuition fees for their children's education, this would run contrary to the libertarian axiom of equal opportunities. To that extent, a redistributive taxation system is needed to provide financial support where needed, so as to avoid social class-based discrimination.

Although I do not consider man as a horrible being (sic), I think that we cannot rely on trust of everyone simply behaving properly or making the right decisions and that's why I consider the above as fundamental necessities in a libertarian society.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I agree with many of your points,

To that extent, a redistributive taxation system is needed to provide financial support where needed, so as to avoid social class-based discrimination.

but now the ALP considers you a left-wing socialist.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I agree with many of your points,

To that extent, a redistributive taxation system is needed to provide financial support where needed, so as to avoid social class-based discrimination.

but now the ALP considers you a left-wing socialist.

LoL... I caught that too. Pretty much the only thing I agreed with :lol:

I wish libertarians would all just move to an island and prove that it works before trying to push their idealistic social experiment on the lives of innocent people. I'm not sure what type of logical shortcuts they're making to think that social necessities can just magically transpire without some sort of socially binding organization (aka government).

IMO, the only likely outcome of the libertarian dream is the biggest class warfare the world has ever seen. The super rich would end up migrating together creating their own little socialized micro-economies while the rest of the nation fell into disrepair. The "outside" economies would all fall apart because of all the lost capital - Namely the disrepair of infrastructure and loss of intellectual capital due to the degradation of the education system. After the upper classes realized how dependent their own lives were on the health of the rest of the nation, they would all move to healthier economies. This would leave the rest of the population trying to play catch up with the rest of the world which chose to work together and ride the tech-wave into an advanced socio-economical civilization (assuming the libertarian experiment sucked all the dumbasses into its web of doom)


I repeat, I wish libertarians would all just move to an island and prove that it works... But that'll never happen because the definition of "libertarian" is more diverse than "god" :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The super rich would end up migrating together creating their own little socialized micro-economies while the rest of the nation fell into disrepair.

Or, more likely, the rest of us would realize that the super-rich are parasites who contribute nothing of value to society. Guess what? The super-rich can't make, grow, build, or repair anything. Those of us who can would be fine without them. Where would they be without us?

 

[JustBusiness17]

The super rich would end up migrating together creating their own little socialized micro-economies while the rest of the nation fell into disrepair.

Or, more likely, the rest of us would realize that the super-rich are parasites who contribute nothing of value to society. Guess what? The super-rich can't make, grow, build, or repair anything. Those of us who can would be fine without them. Where would they be without us?

Trading baseball cards?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Trading baseball cards?

Isn't that sort of what they do now?

 

[JustBusiness17]

Trading baseball cards?

Isn't that sort of what they do now?

Precisely my point

Derivatives anyone? I've got Derivatives for sale!!

I'll trade you my package of unsecured mortgages and bet you that they don't go up in price. They're top quality highly screened mortgages though... You can trust ME :mrgreen:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Precisely my point

Derivatives anyone? I've got Derivatives for sale!!

The worst of it is that they get taxed at a lower rate than people who actually do productive things for a living, while many of them spend their free time whining that their taxes are too high.

"Libertarianism" is a fucking joke anyways. It is a way for people who have enjoyed the fruit of other people's labor to pretend that they did it on their own, while attempting to avoid preserving and expanding the system that they leech off of. They are just like people of every other political stripe, in that they want the government to support the things that they want supported, with an extra layer of hypocrisy because they claim to want "limited government" when what they mean is they want the government limited to serving their needs and desires.

 

[RichardMNixon]

"Libertarianism" is a fucking joke anyways. It is a way for people who have enjoyed the fruit of other people's labor to pretend that they did it on their own, while attempting to avoid preserving and expanding the system that they leech off of. They are just like people of every other political stripe, in that they want the government to support the things that they want supported, with an extra layer of hypocrisy because they claim to want "limited government" when what they mean is they want the government limited to serving their needs and desires.

That's what's so amusing about Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was a great novel, but very divorced from reality. Galt's crew are all outrageous superheroes who are better than everyone else at everything. The CEO's are somehow also better miners and laborers and farmers than the miners, laborers, and farmers they employ. I read it not as a social commentary, but as a modern Lord of the Rings where the fellowship of engineers have to defeat President Sauron.
It tickles me pink to see some redneck tea-partier think he'd be included with them. I also wonder how many of them missed the antireligious sentiment that also laced the book.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's what's so amusing about Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was a great novel, but very divorced from reality. Galt's crew are all outrageous superheroes who are better than everyone else at everything. The CEO's are somehow also better miners and laborers and farmers than the miners, laborers, and farmers they employ. I read it not as a social commentary, but as a modern Lord of the Rings where the fellowship of engineers have to defeat President Sauron.
It tickles me pink to see some redneck tea-partier think he'd be included with them. I also wonder how many of them missed the antireligious sentiment that also laced the book.

What makes me giggle is that the current "let's go Galt!" assholes are all pundits, politicians, and folks who have inherited wealth, who have never held a "real" job, let alone have the skills to make it through a weekend without handlers, assistants, and lots of take-out Chinese food. These are people for whom hotels without room service would be an intolerable cruelty. How the fuck do they think they could survive without all of us "lesser people" to take care of them?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Just out of curiosity, Joe, where is this vitriol coming from? You sound like you were personally bullied by Bill Gates as a kid.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Reading up on the American libertarian party, which is based on the idea of a society with minimal government regulation replacing with personal liberties with their adjacent personal responsibilities, under the premise of "as long as you're not hurting anybody, you can do whatever you like". This idea takes the liberties to a maximum, held back only by your personal sense of morality and responsibilities both to yourself and to the society.
Hearing this I immediately think that I would like to live in that society, a utopia of modern social interaction, progress and free thought, I know I would like that king of freedom. But thinking it trough I don't believe I want other people to share that liberty, I can handle my actions, but analyzing our species as a hole, we are horrible beings, and history is not on the libertarian's side. This brings up the question of, what is the source of the order in society; and is it possible to extrapolate our personal liberty to a maximum without sacrificing our wellbeing? , can we handle it?

In libertarianism, there are a few different schools of thought concerning the role of a central govermental authority as the guardian of order and personal freedom, to differing degrees of goverment intervention; from its non-existence in anarcho-capitalism to central macro-financial planning.

Personally, I am mostly in favor of "minarchist" views, that advocate a minimal state that only supplies the legal system, police and national defense. I consider this a "necessary evil" to maintain order, as national defense and civilian protection are a sort of geographical "natural" monopoly. On that issue, you can read Nozick's critique of anarcho-capitalism in "Anarchy, State and Utopia".

Furthermore, it is my opinion that a second "necessary evil" exists in the form of compulsory, though somewhat limited, taxation. A libertarian society needs to be able to protect personal freedom from discriminatory tactics, including any form of financial discrimination. For instance, if poorer families are not able to pay tuition fees for their children's education, this would run contrary to the libertarian axiom of equal opportunities. To that extent, a redistributive taxation system is needed to provide financial support where needed, so as to avoid social class-based discrimination.

Although I do not consider man as a horrible being (sic), I think that we cannot rely on trust of everyone simply behaving properly or making the right decisions and that's why I consider the above as fundamental necessities in a libertarian society.

I'm in support of this as well, but I also think that a few industries need to be regulated. Education, for example, as well as medicine. Privatizing them is fine, as long as - much like today - they are required to meet certain quality standards to avoid endangering the public. We don't want poisonous vaccines and medical quacks.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm in support of this as well, but I also think that a few industries need to be regulated. Education, for example, as well as medicine. Privatizing them is fine, as long as - much like today - they are required to meet certain quality standards to avoid endangering the public. We don't want poisonous vaccines and medical quacks.

The problem for the libertarians is that once all of the "I'm in support of this as well, but..." suggestions get tallied up, what we wind up with is not anything remotely like libertarianism at all, and most resembles traditional/moderate progressivism.

 

[borrofburi]

I wish libertarians would all just move to an island and prove that it works before trying to push their idealistic social experiment on the lives of innocent people. I'm not sure what type of logical shortcuts they're making to think that social necessities can just magically transpire without some sort of socially binding organization (aka government).

They think people are rational, intelligent, and capable. They fail to realize that people are often times irrational and easily manipulable.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Just out of curiosity, Joe, where is this vitriol coming from? You sound like you were personally bullied by Bill Gates as a kid.

I guess we have a libertarian in the conversation

Tell them the "Empty Calorie Argument". You know, the one where we starve if large corporations don't make our food for us :geek:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

They think people are rational, intelligent, and capable. They fail to realize that people are often times irrational and easily manipulable.

Not exactly... I think that they think that THEY are rational, intelligent, and capable, and that everyone else is irrational and easily manipulable. That serves to explain why all their ideas are total failures in practice: if only everyone else agreed with them, their idiotic ideas would magically become sensible and create a libertarian utopia. The reality is that their ideas in practice look most like Rwanda.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I guess we have a libertarian in the conversation

Certainly, the lack of ability to make a substantive defense, instead resorting to some sort of character assassination, points to a libertarian mindset. He'll next claim something stupid, like I'm jealous of rich people or that I hate capitalism... anything to avoid the fact that libertarian views are both stupid and hypocritical. That's why I refuse to engage with that sort of person. It is like screaming at a dog... it raises your blood pressure but the dog is incapable of understanding a word you say, so why bother?

 

[borrofburi]

They think people are rational, intelligent, and capable. They fail to realize that people are often times irrational and easily manipulable.

Not exactly... I think that they think that THEY are rational, intelligent, and capable, and that everyone else is irrational and easily manipulable. That serves to explain why all their ideas are total failures in practice: if only everyone else agreed with them, their idiotic ideas would magically become sensible and create a libertarian utopia. The reality is that their ideas in practice look most like Rwanda.

Libertarians are not anarchists advocating for no government, and their desired lack of government falls on a spectrum. Ideally (read: before the super right wing republicans saw a chance to coopt a "grassroots" movement), libertarianism is for fiscal responsibility, low government intervention (not "no government intervention"), and social "do whatever you want" (as long as you don't hurt someone else) "liberalism". The intelligent and articulate libertarians I have met argue that this would work for a variety of reasons that *do* work *if* people in general are intelligent, rational, and capable individuals (though of course you might argue that they, who are for police departments, fire departments, usually roads, and other natural monopolies being owned by the government, are not *real* libertarians); though due to that previously mentioned hijacking, most of them seem to be quickly abandoning the label "libertarian" (which is ironic, because it doesn't seem like it was that long ago they picked that label to run from the super-right-wing corruption of the "republican" label).