FTO Libertarians

[dr_esteban]

The more I read on Libertarianism the less it appeals to me but I would be interested to hear why many reasoned people are so passionate about it.

Any Libertarians out there care to share why they see it as the best way forward?

One of my personal problems is why government is seen as so much worse than private companies. In my view government is at least nominally bound to the will of the people while corporations often only answer to institutional shareholders or super rich individuals.

 

[borrofburi]

Well there are a few reasons, but generally it works like this: people have basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property they rightfully own. Free markets rock, they tend to create efficient and effective solutions to the problem of limited resources, that's simply an economic fact. Governments tend not to be awesome, because they tend to be inefficient, and when they are especially efficient (i.e. dictatorships) they tend to be tyrannical. Thus free markets are better than governments. Why do libertarians want any government then, why not anarchy? Because they recognize that governments are necessary to protect those basic rights from threats both foreign and domestic: that is the *only* valid governmental role to extremist libertarians (as with all groups there are extremists members), and thus if it is not explicitly preventing things like theft, slavery, or murder it is not a valid use of government.

Of course, the devil is in the details; most libertarians would be for the legalization of homosexual marriage, because after all both adults are consenting, but it gets a lot more tricky with things like addictive drugs (after all, that's kind of similar to slavery), or harmful activity that someone consents to (say non-addictive but still harmful substances, are people allowed to consent to be murdered/harmed?) (but the default is no-government involvement, the need for government involvement needs to be significantly demonstrated, as well as it needs to be demonstrated to be effective). Also, in reality there is no such thing as a free market, period. There are, however, some markets that are quite good approximations of free markets, and others that simply aren't a free market at all (e.g. roads), and thus many libertarians are for some government intervention in those cases.

In reality, or at least, in my experience, very few self-identifying libertarians are *true* libertarians in that most of them are for some governmental regulation, *especially* regulation requiring disclosure (like the nutrition facts and ingredients list on food), as well as government intervention for things like roads. Libertarian has become a label for those who are "sociall liberal and fiscally conservative", that is they don't care at all what you do in the privacy of your own home, or even to a significant extent of how you behave in public, but they want a smaller government because governments have, in all of history, either tended to become powerful corrupt evil institutions, or to become incompetent inefficient institutions.

So in the sense that I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I have been told I am a libertarian. I agree with some government intervention, but primarily that which serves to create or enforce free markets.


This is one explanation, there are a few nitpicky details I have with this video, but it does serve to illustrate the basic ideals of, at least, some libertarians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

 

[dr_esteban]

Well there are a few reasons, but generally it works like this: people have basic inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property they rightfully own. Free markets rock, they tend to create efficient and effective solutions to the problem of limited resources, that's simply an economic fact. Governments tend not to be awesome, because they tend to be inefficient, and when they are especially efficient (i.e. dictatorships) they tend to be tyrannical. Thus free markets are better than governments. Why do libertarians want any government then, why not anarchy? Because they recognize that governments are necessary to protect those basic rights from threats both foreign and domestic: that is the *only* valid governmental role to extremist libertarians (as with all groups there are extremists members), and thus if it is not explicitly preventing things like theft, slavery, or murder it is not a valid use of government.

Of course, the devil is in the details; most libertarians would be for the legalization of homosexual marriage, because after all both adults are consenting, but it gets a lot more tricky with things like addictive drugs (after all, that's kind of similar to slavery), or harmful activity that someone consents to (say non-addictive but still harmful substances, are people allowed to consent to be murdered/harmed?) (but the default is no-government involvement, the need for government involvement needs to be significantly demonstrated, as well as it needs to be demonstrated to be effective). Also, in reality there is no such thing as a free market, period. There are, however, some markets that are quite good approximations of free markets, and others that simply aren't a free market at all (e.g. roads), and thus many libertarians are for some government intervention in those cases.

In reality, or at least, in my experience, very few self-identifying libertarians are *true* libertarians in that most of them are for some governmental regulation, *especially* regulation requiring disclosure (like the nutrition facts and ingredients list on food), as well as government intervention for things like roads. Libertarian has become a label for those who are "sociall liberal and fiscally conservative", that is they don't care at all what you do in the privacy of your own home, or even to a significant extent of how you behave in public, but they want a smaller government because governments have, in all of history, either tended to become powerful corrupt evil institutions, or to become incompetent inefficient institutions.

So in the sense that I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I have been told I am a libertarian. I agree with some government intervention, but primarily that which serves to create or enforce free markets.


This is one explanation, there are a few nitpicky details I have with this video, but it does serve to illustrate the basic ideals of, at least, some libertarians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

tbf i'm socially liberal and fiscally well certainly pro free market

but surely the last couple of years has shown that "the market" is far too imperfect to be allowed to run without strong governments.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The more I read on Libertarianism the less it appeals to me but I would be interested to hear why many reasoned people are so passionate about it.

Any Libertarians out there care to share why they see it as the best way forward?

One of my personal problems is why government is seen as so much worse than private companies. In my view government is at least nominally bound to the will of the people while corporations often only answer to institutional shareholders or super rich individuals.

People are passionate about libertarianism because it is an emotional position that justifies and even celebrates what most people consider to be immoral(or at least amoral) behaviors... which is possibly the part that turns you off. It is based on a bunch of half-truths and outright lies, of the sort that are emotionally satisfying to a whole bunch of people.

First off, there's no such thing as a "free market"; that's just a nonsense term that in real life means "markets regulated in the ways that best serve corporate interests over other competing interests." So, "free market" systems favor rich people, often regulate against the best interests of labor, and also help to stifle competition.

Libertarians also very specifically work against the ideals of civilization, such as the social contract, social justice, countries providing safety nets for all of its citizens, and so on. Notice that while corporations fight paying taxes, and often pay a lower rate of taxes than the poorest citizens, they always have their hats out for government contracts and government bailouts.

He're the kicker: it just doesn't work, if by "work" you mean "creates an economy that encourages innovation, cost savings, while strengthening the country's economic position efficiently and ethically." What we have instead is an economic system that in large part avoids innovation, because R&D money takes away from the bottom line, and depends on government-sponsored research to produce new ideas. We have a system that works not to create value and wealth, but a system designed to remove wealth from the economy at every step, creating financial "bubbles" that look big from the outside, while being hollowed out by bankers, brokers, and other parasites on the system. When you put profit as the main and really only goal, what you see is a race to the bottom, where each company's executives try to pay its employees less, cut jobs, raise prices, pollute more than the law allows, and then walk away with billions when they run the companies into the ground.

Finally, libertarianism is a fundamentally immature position, that basically resembles a small child whining about having to play fair, do chores,and follow rules. When we had the highest taxes and regulations in America, we had almost a golden age. Before then, we had slavery and child labor and robber barons and that sort of thing. People forgot why the rules were made in the first place, why social programs were created and why higher taxes are BETTER for the economy... everyone except those who would most benefit from all of those things going away, to the detriment of the rest of us.

Ok, most finally now. :lol: From an ethical standpoint, people need to ask themselves if the unchecked power, growth of disposable income, and conspicuous consumption of the top 0.1% of the country is worth the damage done to the other 99.9% of us. Regulations and taxes won't end the existence of the ultra-wealthy, and it shouldn't: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rich people. What I'm asking is that the people who benefit the most from our system be required to contribute to the system, and live under its rules, so that the system can continue to benefit ALL of us as we go forward.

 

[dr_esteban]

The more I read on Libertarianism the less it appeals to me but I would be interested to hear why many reasoned people are so passionate about it.

Any Libertarians out there care to share why they see it as the best way forward?

One of my personal problems is why government is seen as so much worse than private companies. In my view government is at least nominally bound to the will of the people while corporations often only answer to institutional shareholders or super rich individuals.

People are passionate about libertarianism because it is an emotional position that justifies and even celebrates what most people consider to be immoral(or at least amoral) behaviors... which is possibly the part that turns you off. It is based on a bunch of half-truths and outright lies, of the sort that are emotionally satisfying to a whole bunch of people.

First off, there's no such thing as a "free market"; that's just a nonsense term that in real life means "markets regulated in the ways that best serve corporate interests over other competing interests." So, "free market" systems favor rich people, often regulate against the best interests of labor, and also help to stifle competition.

Libertarians also very specifically work against the ideals of civilization, such as the social contract, social justice, countries providing safety nets for all of its citizens, and so on. Notice that while corporations fight paying taxes, and often pay a lower rate of taxes than the poorest citizens, they always have their hats out for government contracts and government bailouts.

He're the kicker: it just doesn't work, if by "work" you mean "creates an economy that encourages innovation, cost savings, while strengthening the country's economic position efficiently and ethically." What we have instead is an economic system that in large part avoids innovation, because R&D money takes away from the bottom line, and depends on government-sponsored research to produce new ideas. We have a system that works not to create value and wealth, but a system designed to remove wealth from the economy at every step, creating financial "bubbles" that look big from the outside, while being hollowed out by bankers, brokers, and other parasites on the system. When you put profit as the main and really only goal, what you see is a race to the bottom, where each company's executives try to pay its employees less, cut jobs, raise prices, pollute more than the law allows, and then walk away with billions when they run the companies into the ground.

Finally, libertarianism is a fundamentally immature position, that basically resembles a small child whining about having to play fair, do chores,and follow rules. When we had the highest taxes and regulations in America, we had almost a golden age. Before then, we had slavery and child labor and robber barons and that sort of thing. People forgot why the rules were made in the first place, why social programs were created and why higher taxes are BETTER for the economy... everyone except those who would most benefit from all of those things going away, to the detriment of the rest of us.

Ok, most finally now. :lol: From an ethical standpoint, people need to ask themselves if the unchecked power, growth of disposable income, and conspicuous consumption of the top 0.1% of the country is worth the damage done to the other 99.9% of us. Regulations and taxes won't end the existence of the ultra-wealthy, and it shouldn't: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rich people. What I'm asking is that the people who benefit the most from our system be required to contribute to the system, and live under its rules, so that the system can continue to benefit ALL of us as we go forward.

tbf i was looking for reasons in support of libertarianism but I pretty much agree that as a system it works for "the man" against "the people"

I was more looking for ideas to challenge my thoughts on the matter. For example the cult of ron paul puzzles me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

tbf i was looking for reasons in support of libertarianism but I pretty much agree that as a system it works for "the man" against "the people"

I was more looking for ideas to challenge my thoughts on the matter. For example the cult of ron paul puzzles me.

He's a jerk, his supporters are jerks, they get together and form a circle jerk, and everyone feels better about themselves? :lol:

I might could challenge your thoughts on the subject, if you want to explain what you mean by "fiscal conservatism"... but I can't do it from a libertarian or "free market" position, because neither of them is intellectually robust.

 

[dr_esteban]

tbf i was looking for reasons in support of libertarianism but I pretty much agree that as a system it works for "the man" against "the people"

I was more looking for ideas to challenge my thoughts on the matter. For example the cult of ron paul puzzles me.

He's a jerk, his supporters are jerks, they get together and form a circle jerk, and everyone feels better about themselves? :lol:

I might could challenge your thoughts on the subject, if you want to explain what you mean by "fiscal conservatism"... but I can't do it from a libertarian or "free market" position, because neither of them is intellectually robust.

in terms of economics I would view a controlled free market as being the best solution currently. I would fall to the left of the current labour government in the UK but right of previous labour governments. I would never claim to be conservative, I;m Scottish ffs we generally dont do right wing.

 

[borrofburi]

but surely the last couple of years has shown that "the market" is far too imperfect to be allowed to run without strong governments.

Libertarian response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3xMypfblOI
(he mentions great depression, so this video is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubmjc83yAtI )

People are passionate about libertarianism because it is an emotional position that justifies and even celebrates what most people consider to be immoral(or at least amoral) behaviors... which is possibly the part that turns you off. It is based on a bunch of half-truths and outright lies, of the sort that are emotionally satisfying to a whole bunch of people.

Says one of the more emotional and insulting members of our forum; oh and of course a return to your favorite "the other guy is a liar".

First off, there's no such thing as a "free market"; that's just a nonsense term that in real life means "markets regulated in the ways that best serve corporate interests over other competing interests." So, "free market" systems favor rich people, often regulate against the best interests of labor, and also help to stifle competition.

This is simply factually incorrect and anyone who has taken even the most basic micro-economics course knows what a free market is and exactly why it isn't a nonsense term and exactly why a perfect free market doesn't exist (namely that there are always barrier to entry). To say "free market" is code for "governments empowering business" is simply completely and utterly factually false (note how I don't call it a lie nor do I call iJoe a liar, just simply wrong) and is akin to saying that evolution is code for social darwinism (well maybe not, at least there's a tenuous connection between evolution and social darwinism, not so for free-market and government empowered companies).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

in terms of economics I would view a controlled free market as being the best solution currently. I would fall to the left of the current labour government in the UK but right of previous labour governments. I would never claim to be conservative, I;m Scottish ffs we generally dont do right wing.

I was going to say, living in Europe your view of the American system must be... interesting. Our Democrats must seem pretty right wing, and the Republicans and Libertarians must look like lunatics in bunny suits eating their own shit. :twisted:

Of course, part of the problem is one of scale. When most of the economic models were created, things were on a much smaller scale. The American economy is so large, lawless, and convoluted that none of the models seem to actually apply. For instance, in a normal old school model business executives generally act in the best interest of the company. In America, it is more profitable for executives to act in the worst interest of the company, drain all of the value from the company, fire everyone and walk away with hundreds of billions of dollars while bankrupting the shareholders. That's the sort of "free market" that advocates are working towards.

It is also sort of a religion, where people honestly believe that businesses are ALWAYS more efficient than the government(which isn't true) and that market "solutions" are always the right solutions, no matter what the human cost. Libertarians will tell you that regulations aren't the answer, because eventually people will stop investing in companies that need regulating. Of course, what they ignore is that the most damaging behaviors are also often the most profitable, and it will take a lot of people dying before there's any real effect. One Libertarian told me that we shouldn't regulate drug companies, and if their products kill enough babies to cause the company to lose market share... well, that's the perfect situation, because "the market" did it. No comment about how we should feel about the deaths of all those babies, but avoiding ethical questions is the whole point of being a free market libertarian.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

was going to say, living in Europe your view of the American system must be... interesting. Our Democrats must seem pretty right wing, and the Republicans and Libertarians must look like lunatics in bunny suits eating their own shit.

Living in Germany I can confirm that. Although I've always pictured the Republicans as wearing clown suits. I guess Bunny suits will do the trick too.

 

[scalyblue]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarianism

 

[Nogre]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarianism

I'm not going to lie...that guy kinda scares me. :|

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Like any political philosophy, Libertarianism isn't absolute or black and white.

I personally find that everything is good in moderation. Anything controlled by humans is capable of corruption. Government's have historically shown that the will of the people means squat if it doesn't fall in line with the will of the leaders. Americans live privileged lives, but many of us simply lie down and take it when the government slowly starts infringing on what are supposed to be our constitutionally protected rights.

I believe everything needs some amount of regulation, the private sector included. Some Libertarians believe that the consumers can control the policies of private corporations by simply not giving them their business if the company undertakes practices they don't agree with. I don't share such and idealistic view. Wal-Mart is a great of example of why this wouldn't work. Yes, some consumers may stop spending the almighty dollar at the store when the company is caught red-handed in wrong-doing, but if the company is large enough and popular enough, people will probably still keep coming.

On the other hand, the government wields a great deal of power. With great power comes great responsibility, and our government has already acted pretty irresponsible. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the FCC, DOMA - all are examples of the government stripping away rights in favor of their own wants.

In essence, if it has power, it can do a great deal of damage if used the wrong way. So the less power, the better.

 

[Kevin R Brown]

This is simply factually incorrect and anyone who has taken even the most basic micro-economics course knows what a free market is and exactly why it isn't a nonsense term and exactly why a perfect free market doesn't exist (namely that there are always barrier to entry). To say "free market" is code for "governments empowering business" is simply completely and utterly factually false (note how I don't call it a lie nor do I call iJoe a liar, just simply wrong) and is akin to saying that evolution is code for social darwinism (well maybe not, at least there's a tenuous connection between evolution and social darwinism, not so for free-market and government empowered companies).

...Do you care to actually bring an argument to bear, rather than simply repeatedly asserting that Joe is wrong and that he should get educated?

This would be known as an 'ad hominem' logical fallacy.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

...Do you care to actually bring an argument to bear, rather than simply repeatedly asserting that Joe is wrong and that he should get educated?

This would be known as an 'ad hominem' logical fallacy.

That guy is my own personal troll... don't worry about it. You can see him post the same thing right after my posts in a whole bunch of different threads. It is pretty sad, but I guess everyone needs a hobby? :lol:

 

[borrofburi]

...Do you care to actually bring an argument to bear, rather than simply repeatedly asserting that Joe is wrong and that he should get educated?

This would be known as an 'ad hominem' logical fallacy.

This is an incorrect understanding of what an ad hominem logical fallacy is; namely, it would have been ad hominem had I said "iJoe is an asshole therefore what he said is wrong"; instead I said more along the lines of "a basic economics course will teach you that iJoe is wrong". It is certainly not a valid closed form argument (even if you incorrectly identified the problem with it), however I figured people reading it would either (A) be educated and know what a free market really means as economists define it, or (B) look up how economists define free market, or, maybe, (C) ask me to provide the economic definition of a free market.

While free market does not seem to be used to mean low barrier to entry anymore (as it was taught to me in my microeconomics class), free market economy is still a term economists use to mean "lack of regulation" and is thus still not a nonsense term nor is it code for regulation that promotes corporate interests (especially when government regulation is one barrier to entry (barriers to entry are what prevent perfect competition (and I am all about competition)))

 

[Kevin R Brown]

Well, looks take a look at what you actually said (it certainly was not, "a basic economics course will teach you that iJoe is wrong,") and dissect that, shall we?

This is simply factually incorrect and anyone who has taken even the most basic micro-economics course knows what a free market is and exactly why it isn't a nonsense term and exactly why a perfect free market doesn't exist (namely that there are always barrier to entry). To say "free market" is code for "governments empowering business" is simply completely and utterly factually false (note how I don't call it a lie nor do I call iJoe a liar, just simply wrong) and is akin to saying that evolution is code for social darwinism (well maybe not, at least there's a tenuous connection between evolution and social darwinism, not so for free-market and government empowered companies).

The first part ("This is simply factually incorrect and anyone who has taken even the most basic micro-economics course knows what a free market is...") is the ad hominem component; it belittles your opponent's position through insulting their intelligence rather than providing a counter-argument, positing a No True Scotsman appeal.

The second part ("To say "free market" is code for "governments empowering business" is simply completely and utterly factually false...") is simply an empty assertion, followed u by an appeal to your own civility (as though the fact that you did not directly call your opponent a liar somehow makes your argument stronger).

The last part is a bizarre analogy that goes utterly unexplained. How is your opponent's position similar to decrying evolution as 'social Darwinism'? Without a substantiation for such a comparison, this is merely character assassination - another form of the ad hominem fallacy.


Perhaps you need to revisit Philosophy 101 (...see what I did there? )

 

[borrofburi]

as though the fact that you did not directly call your opponent a liar somehow makes your argument stronger

Eh, I was worried that someone might say I was doing the same thing as iJoe likes to do, namely, insult people or groups of people, especially by calling them liars, rather than respond to their words and ideas and wanted to respond to such a criticism before it ever occurred. Ironically, in retrospect I see that just brings the two concepts together and really doesn't serve to accomplish much of anything (I guess responding to criticisms in advance really only works in academic publications).

The first part ("This is simply factually incorrect and anyone who has taken even the most basic micro-economics course knows what a free market is...") is the ad hominem component; it belittles your opponent's position through insulting their intelligence rather than providing a counter-argument, positing a No True Scotsman appeal.

I wasn't "insulting [iJoe's] intelligence"; I was simply saying he was wrong about a basic term in economics (without any guessing or implication of *why* he was wrong), which has very very little to do with intelligence, nor really any quality of iJoe's. If someone was to tell me I was wrong about a basic term in astronomy they would not be insulting my intelligence by that fact alone, they would, at most, be insulting my knowledge of astronomy, but more realistically they would simply be pointing out that I was wrong about the meaning of a singular term (for whatever reason, whether ignorance, momentary confusion / "brain fart", etc.).

I don't understand what the phrase "positing a No True Scotsman appeal" means in this context; I mean, I know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is, but I simply don't understand how it applies nor do I understand your meaning, perhaps you could elaborate?

Furthermore, and more importantly, the ad hominem label applies to logical arguments of the form "person Y has quality X therefore argument Z is wrong", and I see no point in that post where I ascribed any quality "X" to iJoe, nor (and this is the important part) do I see any point where I stated that iJoe is wrong *because* he has quality "X" and thus I see no manner in which I was making an ad hominem argument.

The second part ("To say "free market" is code for "governments empowering business" is simply completely and utterly factually false...") is simply an empty assertion

So what would you prefer? Every statement everyone makes to come with 3 well document sources? I was more than happy to provide the most basic of sources at the drop of your first post. To continue criticizing my first post (unrealistically, in my opinion) when my second post specifically addressed such a weakness, is flawed. Incidentally, iJoe made a "simply empty assertion" (you know, the thing I was responding to) and yet you continue to attack me, even after I already addressed this.


Also we're *really* getting off-topic here... I'm not sure what to do about that...

 

[Kevin R Brown]

I wasn't "insulting [iJoe's] intelligence"; I was simply saying he was wrong about a basic term in economics (without any guessing or implication of *why* he was wrong), which has very very little to do with intelligence, nor really any quality of iJoe's. If someone was to tell me I was wrong about a basic term in astronomy they would not be insulting my intelligence by that fact alone, they would, at most, be insulting my knowledge of astronomy, but more realistically they would simply be pointing out that I was wrong about the meaning of a singular term (for whatever reason, whether ignorance, momentary confusion / "brain fart", etc.).

Well, but (to go with your astronomy analogy) it would not be logically congruent to simply say, "Well, anyone who has taken astronomy 101 would know that you're wrong," (See: My tongue and cheek statement about philosophy 101).

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy (positing that your opponent isn't presenting the 'real' information without actually presenting what that information is).

If you have an argument, that's fine. You should'e presented that argument.


Simply deferring to an economics class is not an argument.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the ad hominem label applies to logical arguments of the form "person Y has quality X therefore argument Z is wrong", and I see no point in that post where I ascribed any quality "X" to iJoe, nor (and this is the important part) do I see any point where I stated that iJoe is wrong *because* he has quality "X" and thus I see no manner in which I was making an ad hominem argument.

The Not True Scotsman fallacy is a form of ad hominem attack (ascribing that your opponent is wrong based on a proposed inferior understanding on a topic - in this case, economics)

 

[borrofburi]

Well, but (to go with your astronomy analogy) it would not be logically congruent

It wasn't part of the logical argument, and I happily provided sources in my second post. This is the third and final time I am going to say that.

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy (positing that your opponent isn't presenting the 'real' information without actually presenting what that information is).
...
The Not True Scotsman fallacy is a form of ad hominem attack (ascribing that your opponent is wrong based on a proposed inferior understanding on a topic - in this case, economics)

This is an incorrect understanding of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. The "no true scotsman" fallacy is an ad hoc rationalization in which someone attempts to redefine (or simply define) a universal claim in order to specifically exclude any evidence that would contradict it. It is in no way an ad hominem and indeed is not anything like either of the two contradicting definitions you posited.