Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Akrasia · 12-05-2010 04:47PM

mcmickey wrote: »

Libertarianism, whether left or right, is not about the actual believes that they say their ideologoy can bring about. No, it's more about taking hard line positions at one extreme or another. Something like what students studying Sociology or Commerce in say Letterkenny IT get up to with too much time on their hands.

The most interesting thing libertarianism (left or right) has to say about anything is in the nature of democracy and our relationship to property.

Right libertarianism think stronger property rights = better outcomes (democracy is bad)
Left libertarians think more direct democracy and social control over property = better outcomes.

This is at the root of the debate of where we need to go following the widespread collapse of western economies over the last 2 years.

In the end, hopefully we'll end up somewhere with a properly tweaked balance between private and public interests.

If we dodge the debate, we're just going to stumble in the dark until the status quo screws up just bad enough that it gets itself overthrown, and then the replacement is whatever populist dogma shouts the loudest and ceases control of the mechanisms of power.

Akrasia · 12-05-2010 04:51PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What kind of lunatic would come to that conclusion from what I said?

I was clearly implying that merely having the 'right to defend yourself' does not mean you will win, nor does it make for a very pleasant future where might is right, those with the ability to defend themselves survive and those aggress against others can expand their influence

Nitochris · 12-05-2010 04:53PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Did you see the LibDems policies?

They were more left wing than Labour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8515961.stm?subject=economy

Guy Debord was also a libertarian (and considered himself to be one) and left wing (and also opposed trade unions and Soviet apologists), considering how he ended up that may not be a good example.

I won't dispute your point, LibDem libertarianism is far more nuanced than many other forms seem to be. In part this is due to the necessity of a compromise between the social and economic liberals, for example Clegg's recent book argued that state intervention in preventing international regulation contributed to the world recession and left Britain particularly vulnerable.

Here's a quote:

Liberalism is not a doctrine of anarchy. Mill, who I quoted
earlier, did not argue that power should never be exercised
against an individual but that power should be exercised against
an individual to prevent harm to others. So liberal economics is
not laissez-faire economics. Liberal economics understands that
our prosperity depends on regulation to challenge monopolies
and disperse economic power, creating a level playing field
between big and small players. Liberal economics understands
that regulation is necessary to keep trade open and fair, to ensure
short-termism in business does not usurp our long term duty to
the environment and the economy, and to give consumers the
rights and information that is vital for the effective functioning
of competitive markets. It is no more liberal to let markets rip as
an experiment in social Darwinism than it is liberal to argue that
the state should run all our major industries.
It is because liberals are so hostile to concentrations of
power – be they in corporate or government institutions – that
we were the first to identify the risks of Labour’s economic model
and have been able to lead the way in proposing solutions. A
liberal model would not have given the banks more freedom, but less. We understood earlier than others that the City was not
being adequately regulated, that an overheated housing market
demanded new policy responses, and that the geographical and
social inequality of development was breeding economic
instability even while Gordon Brown promised an end to boom
and bust. But looking back to say ‘I told you so’ is not enough: a
liberal approach also offers us a way forward out of this recession
to a better and more sustainable future for our economy, so these
mistakes are never made again. Central to that is a reinvention of
our banking system, based on liberal principles, dispersing
power within the banking sector and levelling the playing field
between banks and their consumers.
That is why regulation must match the scope of financial
institutions and operate across borders where necessary,
recognising that no one nation state can adequately control
multinational businesses. We need new supra-national
institutions – with real teeth – to regulate banking. In my view
they should be modelled on the World Trade Organisation that,
uniquely among global institutions, is a treaty-based organisation
operating with the force of law among member countries.
It is this model that should form the basis of a new global
agreement on financial service regulation that can bind national
governments, regulators and business into a framework that
prevents, permanently, a return to the crisis of today. It should
be able to identify risk and intervene to stop it from spiralling
out of control. And this new global financial regulator must
have the power to bring into line, and enforce sanctions on,
any organisations or countries who fail to meet their
obligations. The London Summit in March made a tentative
nod in the right direction, but stronger leadership could have
delivered this. (Clegg, 2009: 38-9)

And on the concentration of power which is where libertarian rhetoric can be clearly seen:

This has got to change. We should start from first
principles. Power belongs to citizens, not politicians. That
simple fact must be written down in a simple constitution setting
out what rights people enjoy, and making clear the subservience
of Parliament to the people. (Ibid:48)

Incidentally Clegg is a member of the economic liberal end of the party and a contributor to the Orange Book (2004), a text which was written to foster debate on the free market, which wikipedia hasn't noted on his biography. (edit - Just notice Donegalfella mentioned it while I was writing the above, wikipedia still doesn't)

Permabear · 12-05-2010 04:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 12-05-2010 05:03PM

Fair enough Nitrochris, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Permabear · 12-05-2010 05:03PM

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 12-05-2010 05:16PM

I blame donegalfella for the rise on boards of libertarianism :P

If only so many of the things he said made less sense than they do! If only...

But seriously, I have a lot of sympathy for both the libertarian right (although very, very little for the traditional or neo-con right) and the not-quite-far-but-further-left-than-centre-left-left, but pragmatically I must say I find the centre ground to be the most appealing to me.

thebaldsoprano · 12-05-2010 05:20PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I was clearly implying that merely having the 'right to defend yourself'...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where was anybody advocating not having the right to defend yourself?

Laminations · 12-05-2010 05:21PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why if you own something are you more likely to take care of it?? explain

Permabear · 12-05-2010 05:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 12-05-2010 05:39PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I'm just wondering because under libertarianism, people can still respect their own property, as you say mowing their privately owned lawns and trimming their privately owned roses, but can just go and dump their rubbish by the side of the publicly someone else's privately owned road. If people do not respect property that is not theirs, we'd be in a worse state minimising their property rights to just their own plot as opposed to the current situation where they have their own plot and also a share (and responsibility) in a commons (i.e. the public road). The problem with quoting people from Harvard is that merely quoting them doesn't make you right, because often times they are just speaking catchy drivel.

donegalfella wrote: »

To quote former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car." In other words, if you don't own something, you are less motivated to respect it, or take care of it.

Not washing the car does not show disrespect or lack of care, people still have duties in relation to the car - one being not to crash it, another is filling it up before bringing it back. Washing it is surplus to contract and requirement.

You dont own other peoples mistakes and problems and you have no obligation to fix them but we do have social contracts, with family, friends, communities, societies, other countries etc. We have an obligation to help. This may be implicit but it is basic duty of care towards others and others property and it is usually made explicit through law and taxes.

Obligations should never be voluntary.

Akrasia · 12-05-2010 06:55PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My mother always washes her rental car before bringing it back.

Before we check out, my Fiance always tidies up and makes the bed of every hotel room we stay in even though the staff will strip it and make it again anyway.

It's a matter of attitude. respect and pride in oneself. You seem to have a very dim view of human nature.

Not everyone is out to extract the maximum for themselves and screw people around them. Public spaces are maintained by volunteer committees, the tidy towns competition being the perfect example of communities taking pride in their place without having the incentive of a commercial transaction.

Akrasia · 12-05-2010 06:58PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

so you're saying that the only alternative to state totalitarianism is right libertarianism? It's either freedom, or the gas chamber?

Sandvich · 12-05-2010 09:11PM

Laminations wrote: »

I'll feel happy if I can save one person from the clutches of libertarianism. Firstly you are giving yourself a false choice. We do not have to choose between a totally free society or a totalitarian government controlled one. There are many alternatives to libertarianism in between.

Exactly. And that's what most european states are.

thebman · 12-05-2010 09:36PM

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=8&e=3

Laminations · 12-05-2010 10:26PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I blame donegalfella for the rise on boards of libertarianism :P

If only so many of the things he said made less sense than they do! If only...

Yes, libertarianism is a bastion of sense. Oh wait, no its not, at all. The following saga and the limitless questions it generates hopefully illustrates this adequately.

So lets start from the following position

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So in a libertarian system, I dont own anything outside of what I own, other people own all that. Since I dont own it why should I care for it?

So I dump waste of DFs land.
He catches me.
Who does he call? Libertarians usually admit that the state should exist to provide defence (usually army) but maybe there is still stste gardai so he calls them or some private security force.
He tells them what?
My reg?
Why shoulkd I have registered my car and with who?
I'm assuming there are many private car registration comopanies?
All of which would be undercutting each other so who is to say that their records would be accurate? and if I intended to commit crime it'd be in my interest to go with a shoddy company, I mean who would check the standards? The government? wouldn't that be a type of dreaded reg-u-la-tion???
So assuming they get my reg and track me down, why should I agree to be arrested by a private security company? and assuming I do, and I'm charged, where do I go to court??

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So multiple competing courts. Who gets to choose which one I get tried in??
And who makes sure the judges are all legit?
I mean with private education....

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

a college could be set up by Captain Crackpipe who gives out law qualifications for blowjobs. Who ensures a good standard of education? A private standards body? Joe down the road will set up a standards company and grade your college cheaply, and based on the quality of blowjobs, also. I mean just look at how the private financial ratings agencies behaved recently, totally independent?? no.

So I want to choose crackpot court, you want a court with a more hardline judge. Where do we go?
Oh and BTW I have no money, or at least I claim to have no money. Is there legal aid or am I left to represent myself??

I have plenty of money but thats none of your business and there is no state that monitors what I earn because we pay no taxes and well... there is no state.
So is there a private company that would investigate my assets and see if I had money? After all, this is a civil case, you want to sue me for dumping on your land. So who pays this private company to investigate my financial situation??

What if it becomes a criminal case and I get sentenced to jail???:eek:
(Although I still dont know why I'd respect a ruling from a private judge who graduated crackpipe college).

Where do I go to prison?? there are many competing prisons, each one trying to undercut the other, am I sent to the cheapest? and who pays for the prison? is it a collective in DFs area who voluntarily contribute to a prison because they see it as a priority? what if its totally underfunded?
What if I have an accident in prison and I need medical treatment? Who would pay voluntarily out of a godly sense of charity to have a prisons arm sewn back on?? What if nobody pays? I die through blood loss in my ****ty private prison whose standards are assessed by a ****ty private standards company owned by Joe down the road.

Any libertarians want to tackle the quagmire of issues raised in the above scenario, or is it the case that 'in a libertarian society, that wouldn't happen!!' :rolleyes:

Lolbertarianism is ridiculously unworkable, unworkably ridiculous.

Eliot Rosewater · 12-05-2010 10:41PM

Laminations wrote: »

a college could be set up by Captain Crackpipe who gives out law qualifications for blowjobs. Who ensures a good standard of education? A private standards body? Joe down the road will set up a standards company and grade your college cheaply, and based on the quality of blowjobs, also.

The last time I looked, the rankings for Universities across the world (on which much of their reputation is presumably based) were compiled by private companies such as the Times newspaper, not government bodies. Captain Crackpipe can set up a ratings agency, it's just that no one's going to listen to him.

Akrasia · 12-05-2010 11:52PM

Laminations wrote: »

Yes, libertarianism is a bastion of sense. Oh wait, no its not, at all. The following saga and the limitless questions it generates hopefully illustrates this adequately.

So lets start from the following position

So in a libertarian system, I dont own anything outside of what I own, other people own all that. Since I dont own it why should I care for it?

So I dump waste of DFs land.
He catches me.
Who does he call? Libertarians usually admit that the state should exist to provide defence (usually army) but maybe there is still stste gardai so he calls them or some private security force.
He tells them what?
My reg?
Why shoulkd I have registered my car and with who?
I'm assuming there are many private car registration comopanies?
All of which would be undercutting each other so who is to say that their records would be accurate? and if I intended to commit crime it'd be in my interest to go with a shoddy company, I mean who would check the standards? The government? wouldn't that be a type of dreaded reg-u-la-tion???
So assuming they get my reg and track me down, why should I agree to be arrested by a private security company? and assuming I do, and I'm charged, where do I go to court??

So multiple competing courts. Who gets to choose which one I get tried in??
And who makes sure the judges are all legit?
I mean with private education....

a college could be set up by Captain Crackpipe who gives out law qualifications for blowjobs. Who ensures a good standard of education? A private standards body? Joe down the road will set up a standards company and grade your college cheaply, and based on the quality of blowjobs, also. I mean just look at how the private financial ratings agencies behaved recently, totally independent?? no.

So I want to choose crackpot court, you want a court with a more hardline judge. Where do we go?
Oh and BTW I have no money, or at least I claim to have no money. Is there legal aid or am I left to represent myself??

I have plenty of money but thats none of your business and there is no state that monitors what I earn because we pay no taxes and well... there is no state.
So is there a private company that would investigate my assets and see if I had money? After all, this is a civil case, you want to sue me for dumping on your land. So who pays this private company to investigate my financial situation??

What if it becomes a criminal case and I get sentenced to jail???:eek:
(Although I still dont know why I'd respect a ruling from a private judge who graduated crackpipe college).

Where do I go to prison?? there are many competing prisons, each one trying to undercut the other, am I sent to the cheapest? and who pays for the prison? is it a collective in DFs area who voluntarily contribute to a prison because they see it as a priority? what if its totally underfunded?
What if I have an accident in prison and I need medical treatment? Who would pay voluntarily out of a godly sense of charity to have a prisons arm sewn back on?? What if nobody pays? I die through blood loss in my ****ty private prison whose standards are assessed by a ****ty private standards company owned by Joe down the road.

Any libertarians want to tackle the quagmire of issues raised in the above scenario, or is it the case that 'in a libertarian society, that wouldn't happen!!' :rolleyes:

Lolbertarianism is ridiculously unworkable, unworkably ridiculous.

I too would like a/some libertarians to respond to these points....

Laminations · 13-05-2010 12:24AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The last time I looked, the rankings for Universities across the world (on which much of their reputation is presumably based) were compiled by private companies such as the Times newspaper, not government bodies. Captain Crackpipe can set up a ratings agency, it's just that no one's going to listen to him.

And here was me thinking the Dept of Ed sent inspectors to schools and had quality assurance checks in colleges and universities. Someone should tell them that people like Tony O Reilly or Rupert Murdock have it covered.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 12:26AM

Soldie wrote: »

Fixed.

Ok enlighten us. What would be the procedure for sanctioning me for dumping waste on your property under a libertarian system?

generalmiaow · 13-05-2010 03:51AM

How did someone get past the nuclear landmines to dump something there in the first place?

I don't think you need to swallow any ideology whole, and in a thread where the purpose is to investigate why libertarianism is suddenly popular, there sure is a lot of hate. My thinking pretty heavily influenced by libertarianism but for practical reasons I don't think separating the courts and the state is possible.

On the other hand I believe in keeping morality out of public policy and clerics out of government, and definitely government out of my house.

Likewise the founders of this country thought democracy is a great idea but gave us representatives because voting on everything is insane.

Anyway, the reason libertarianism is popular suddenly is because of the internet.

silverharp · 13-05-2010 07:56AM

generalmiaow wrote: »

Anyway, the reason libertarianism is popular suddenly is because of the internet.

interesting point, It would be like saying that the Reformation became popular due to the printing press. I'd say young people just see the that the current system is failing them and will fail them in the future due to the pay-as-you-go ponzi style welfare and pension system
I dont expect to see a Libertarian government anywhere, it will be more like the people will eventually call for reforms combined with the necessary roll back of the state due to bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. If the Libertarians have helped articulate the central problems of statists idiology so much the better

that there must be an element of cognitive dissonance amongst centerists.

BluePlanet · 13-05-2010 09:36AM

It's funny that DF raised the issue of illegal dumping and thought it was a criticism of the State.
But in a Libertarian society what is to stop someone from setting up a dump on the site adjacent to DF?

Yet can't you predict the Libertarian response?

"Illegal Dumping" is a Statist concept.
There is no problem.
If an entrepreneur is landfilling waste it's entirey his right.
And if that waste leeches chemicals into your ground water then you have the freedom to move or get your water elsewhere.

See, no problem!

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 10:28AM

silverharp wrote: »

interesting point, It would be like saying that the Reformation became popular due to the printing press. I'd say young people just see the that the current system is failing them and will fail them in the future due to the pay-as-you-go ponzi style welfare and pension system
I dont expect to see a Libertarian government anywhere, it will be more like the people will eventually call for reforms combined with the necessary roll back of the state due to bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. If the Libertarians have helped articulate the central problems of statists idiology so much the better that there must be an element of cognitive dissonance amongst centerists.

Would you not agree then that Libertarian is a critique on Statism in the same way that Marxism was a critique of Capitalism? Both give valuable insights but fail to offer workable solutions.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 10:45AM

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Would you not agree then that Libertarian is a critique on Statism in the same was that Marxism was a critique of Capitalism? Both give valuable insights but fail to offer workable solutions.

Spot on. I cannot disagree that libertarianism has many appealing ideas but overall as a replacement ideology it falls to pieces. Foe example Elliot Rosewater seems to think we can rely on the media to rank our university sector. Under libertarianism there would be no regulation on media ownership, so one rich madman (ala Murdock) could buy up 100% of the media in a state. Wouldn't it be against his liberty to prevent him from buying up companies?
I'm in no way trying to disparage all libertarian thought, (and hopefully I'm not expressing hatred) but I am in awe at the naiveity of die hard libertarians and disgusted but certain views they have (like the reply of tough beeswax to the poor)

Permabear · 13-05-2010 10:49AM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 10:56AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well that does not a rebuttal make. Fantastical? It's a simple question. Or set of questions. One: why should I respect property that is not mine (you said yourself that people don't, quoting a Harvard professor no less) and Two: what would the procedure be after a crime is committed? Also I'd love to hear how you feel about someones right to bold a dump next to your land.

Permabear · 13-05-2010 10:59AM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 13-05-2010 11:05AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even if the media is run by one man with a vested interest? My issue isn't with the media currently playing a role, my argument is that without government you can get a media monopoly ghat would be just as bad as your ficticious enemy 'pure statism'. We have a public and private mix currently. You want fully private using the converse of fully public as the strawman alternative

Anonymous1987 · 13-05-2010 11:07AM

The private sector is just as responsible as government for the current crisis, private credit rating agencies were paid by the companies they were rating. Do you not see a major conflict of interest there. In fact the roll back of regulation lead the explosion of complex financial instruments which masked real risk. No-one mentioned social control over all property, you're looking at things through absolutes of liberty versus control but the real world is far more complex than that, markets are designed and despite the popular idea are not spontaneous natural phenomenon.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments