Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Deep Easterly · 29-09-2009 03:41AM

Isn't O'Leary great. A true hero of the neo-liberal/capitalist regime

Deep Easterly · 29-09-2009 03:49AM

George Orwell also understood that the vast majority of people had no property of worth to guarantee those said freedoms. Freedom was, and still is, the preserve of the few, that is, those that can afford it. Increasingly today, we see banks repossessing people's homes because they can't afford to keep up payments etc. There seems very little difference between property owned by the state, the socialist ideal, and property owned by the banks as per capitalist ideal.

Either way, we are slaves.

Lockstep · 29-09-2009 09:37AM

Indeed. Orwell was also a socialist himself.

Permabear · 29-09-2009 05:29PM

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly · 29-09-2009 10:35PM

Isn't that the point I was (admittedly) trying to make? What is "freedom"? You claim that in a society where all property is owned by the state is not a free society. How is a society that has a high percentage of its property under the gripe of institutional tyranny any different?

Perhaps I am missing your point though, so maybe you could explain what you actually mean when you use the word "freedom" in the context of sociopolitical ideology

Permabear · 29-09-2009 10:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 29-09-2009 10:51PM

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 29-09-2009 11:10PM

To be fair, that refers to European socialist parties and their loss of support to the Christian Democratic parties, which by and large favour centre left social policies (The Flemish Christian Democratic party has strong links with trade unions for example), rather than declaring an end to the social democratic model.

brianthebard · 29-09-2009 11:19PM

Socialists were just elected in Portugal.

Deep Easterly · 29-09-2009 11:22PM

Obviously you don't follow. I ask a question, and get a question in return. :rolleyes:. Property, as you put it, equates to freedom. So you tell me, who is "free" in capitalist totalitarianism?

The many? the few?

You tell me

Permabear · 29-09-2009 11:41PM

This post has been deleted.

johnathan woss · 29-09-2009 11:43PM

Donegalfella;

Where and when has the libertarianism you propose EVER worked in practice ?

Permabear · 29-09-2009 11:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 30-09-2009 09:27AM

You mean a time where your rights depended on your property/sex/race and things like slavery and conscription existed?
As well as things like property tax in the US and income tax being introduced in the 18th century (Britain) and 19th century (US)

Permabear · 30-09-2009 11:48AM

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 30-09-2009 12:02PM

Then surely you accept that 18/19th century Britain and the USA were far from libertarian, given that many people were far from free to control their own destiny, purely for being being born with a dark skin colour or for having a womb. A society so hierarchichal cannot be called libertarian, regardless of how far back such practices stretch.
Also, the struggles extended far more beyond just libertarians; certain forms of Christianity played an important part (Quakers for example)

Surely such a regime is economically liberal rather than libertarian; going by the libertarian principle that taxation amounts to theft, it would be not be right for me to steal from someone, no matter how wealthy they were.

Strange that you are referring to the introduction of income tax in the early 20th century; the link clearly states that American income tax was introduced during the civil war (Albeit abolished later on and reintroduced in 1913)

Permabear · 30-09-2009 12:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 30-09-2009 07:20PM

So does this mean we can attribute the term "libertarian" based on how liberal it was compared to previous regimes?
By that case, surely we are more libertarian than they were, given our protection of civil/political rights.

Would disagree with you there; possibly the most powerful group in the fight against slavery were the Saints; a religious group.

I was under the impression that libertarianism was an ideology; one where the state is prevented from enacting force unless it is defence of things like life, liberty, defence of property etc. Surely a state doing what has already been listed (slavery, conscription etc) is the very antithesis of a libertarian state. Even if it's taxation was more liberal than todays, it would not be libertarian. In the same way that stealing someone's wages is still theft, regardless of how wealthy they are.

Indeed; in the US case.
Britain has had income tax since George III. Albeit abolished for one year under Addington and then abolished for around 25 years until Peel reintroduced it. Pretty regular since then.

Deep Easterly · 30-09-2009 08:52PM

Again, my question to you remains unanswered. I will ask it again though. How does owning property equate to freedom? This is the classic rhetoric of the neo-liberalist; yet I personally don't see any evidence that this might be an actual fact.

I may well be wrong in this though, and you just might convince of the contrary, if you would be good enough to answer my original question..

Permabear · 30-09-2009 10:06PM

This post has been deleted.

silverharp · 30-09-2009 10:10PM

Libertarians favor self-ownership (freedom) over other-ownership (slavery). Property rights allow scarce resources to be used in a conflict free way. what do you mean by "owning property" ? from a Libertarian perspective it starts with the oneself.

Permabear · 30-09-2009 10:10PM

This post has been deleted.

johnathan woss · 01-10-2009 01:05AM

hmmmmm I'll ask again....

When and where has the libertarianism you propose ever worked in practice ?

If you are going to stick with 19th Century USA and GB you'll have to explain
1) How they followed the libertarianism you propose
2) How the libertarianism "worked"

Permabear · 01-10-2009 01:17AM

This post has been deleted.

johnathan woss · 01-10-2009 01:25AM

There is no need to be condescending.
I am well aware of British and American history.

YOU are the one who posts incessantly about libertarianism, along with the shallow and overly-simplistic view of history and moral philosophy that is inherent in it.

Lockstep · 01-10-2009 01:29AM

I find your logic strange here; given that you claimed that such societies were libertarian despite their repressions, surely our societies, with their much greater liberties (prohibition on torture and slavery, equal standing before the law etc) are more libertarian than theirs were?

I'm in Belgium at the moment, so my sources are limited, given that all my notes on the British empire are back in Ireland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml
Do you have any citations that say that libertarianism was more influential in ending the slave trade?

Indeed, but I disagree utterly that 18/19th century Britain and USA were more libertarian than nowadays. Given the reasons I have previouly posted; surely treating a human being as a mere item of property is infinetely less libertarian than merely taxing them?

Grand but given the abject poverty that so many people in the industrialised world lived in, were they really at liberty (given that they're lives were completely constrained by the whims of their masters, and the state had no problem in using it's strength to repress demonstrations and so on, as with the Flemish strikers in 1893?)
Ultimately, this arises the question; which is more important; social or economic freedom?
I would say that social liberty is more important; the right to collectively bargain, practice homosexuality, have equal standing before the law, freedom from being treated as a chattel and so on. These are far more important than merely being taxed.

silverharp · 01-10-2009 05:33AM

so how the medical service is run or how kids are educated are not important issues?

Lockstep · 01-10-2009 05:38AM

Of course they are but I'm referring to libertarianism here; and that the treatment of people in 18/19th century Britain and the USA was far more a violation of liberty than merely being taxed.

I don't think that economic/social/cultural rights automatically trump civil/political rights.

silverharp · 01-10-2009 06:44AM

you mentioned poverty in the 19thC , but wasnt that more a function of productivity or lack thereof compared to today.

Lockstep · 01-10-2009 09:40AM

Would disagree with you there;countries like Britain were economic powerhouses while poverty still persisted.

Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Comments