I do not understand Libertarianism.

Dr. Baltar · 08-06-2010 6:00pm #1

I've done research and I'm confused as to what people mean when they say "Libertarian".

Is Libertarianism the belief that government should not exist and that A Laissez Faire system is introduced? Surely this is simply Anarchy or Corporocracy?

Is Libertarianism the belief that government contiunes, but plays a very small role in the lives of people?

The reasons why I ask these questions is I believe completely in the removal of laws against drugs ect. as I believe that is a personal choice.
Essentially, laws for the road are required, and also laws against theft/damage to a person or their property.

However, it is the economic (and particularily where the working class comes into the system) beliefs of Libertarianism that I cannot truly getm y head around.
Assuming that governments tax extremly lowly they are not able to pay out social welfare, health benefits or even education?
How can people be truly equal in a Libertarian society if someone is born into a working class family, is unable to go to school and learn the skills needed to get a job ect. ??

Libertarianism seems to me to make a hell of a lot of sense socially, but economically it just seems like a way for the rich to not only get richer but a way to let the poor starve.

Denerick · 11-06-2010 6:18pm

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which calls for minimal government intervention in the lives of individuals. The only functions of government would be the maintenance of law and order and National defence. And I believe some are more hardcore than others - many, for example, see no need for the government to provide basic infrastructure such as roads.

All other actions would be the actions of individuals. Your social safety net, currently funded by taxes, would instead be provided by private institutions and civil society.

There is a reason so few people adhere to it.

Permabear · 11-06-2010 6:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 12-06-2010 12:29am

Anything more substantial to offer than an argumentum ad populum in its basest form?

Most people aren't libertarians; therefore it must be wrong. Please.

Permabear · 12-06-2010 12:48am

This post has been deleted.

Denerick · 12-06-2010 10:48am

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying its a narrow and obscure philosophy and there is clearly a reason why so few follow it (Outside the internet at least)

Permabear · 12-06-2010 1:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Denerick · 12-06-2010 1:22pm

Oh please. Libertarianism in its modern day Ron paul form can be found in at most 20 people on this island.

Valmont · 12-06-2010 9:47pm

Don't forget Cicero, lest people think it is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Catsmokinpot · 14-06-2010 12:07am

That's an intelligent answer, What do you mean by "Ron Paul form"? and do you know the entire population of Ireland, or just the 20 people in that are libertarians?

I thought his form was the same general side that libertarianism takes (that's the side of personal liberties), the only difference I can see is that some are centre left and some are centre right when it comes to Healthcare and Public services such as education and social welfare (Ron Paul's side believing that spending should come from the private sector to fund these, instead of the public sector).

If I'm wrong please tell me why and what's different about Paul's Libertarianism?

Denerick · 14-06-2010 12:24am

You can take a rather silly interpretation of Libertarianism if you like. For example, you can call me a Libertarian because I'm quite permissive socially and culturally. But doing this makes a mockery of the term, Libertarianism is an ideology which revolves around extravagant Liberty, and there is little distinction in the Libertarians mind between economic Liberty and Political Liberty.

Permabear · 14-06-2010 12:27am

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton · 14-06-2010 12:41am

Locke - believed that a person is only entitled to the product of their labour. More similar to Marx than Rand.

Hobbes - believed that we all enter a social contract whereby we all live by an agreed set of principles and we collectively create government for the betterment of us all.

Mill Snr - utilitarian, therefore did not put individual benefit over collective good. Mill Jnr's views must be taken with a touch of Oedipus complex to them.

Thoreau more of a hippy than a libertarian.

Again, you conflate "Liberalism" with "Libertarianism" and seem to adopt a very broad view of Libertariansim's influence, including the assimilation of the Austrian School which is more accurately described as free market capitalism rather than libertarianism.

The OP makes a valid point, and one which I find inescapable whenever I consider the idea of libertarianism - 100 years ago the people who would be championing Liberty and Freedom would be trade unionists, socialists, anarchists etc. This is because over time the absence of government redistribution of wealth allows wealth to concentrate in the hands of a few, who hold all the bargaining power and thus stifle growth.

The USA was a good example of how this works. In the early days of the US it really was the land of opportunity where someone who worked hard or was prepared to take a risk could go out, claim lots of land and find new resources. There were also lots of opportunities to build infrastructure, cities and factories to supply the new lands. All very well and good, until you see that the new lands were taken by kicking out its previous inhabitants, that the best businesses were not necessarily the most productive but rather the least scrupulous and, of course, much of the work was done by slaves brought over from Africa. The legacy of all this is still felt in modern America, which is not a good model for how to run an economy.

Going back to first principles of political economics, it is essentially the system by which wealth is divided among a society. Allow people to do what they want and eventually a few will have the vast majority of the wealth and become unproductive. Impose too many restrictions and you prevent people from innovating and thus they become unproductive. Crucially, if a large majority feel that they are not getting their fair share then they will revolt (or, in a democracy, vote for someone who will give them a fairer share). So I fail to see how libertarianism can work in practice.

That is not to say that some of the temporary goals of libertarians e.g. reduction of the bloated public sector, decreasing social welfare payments, reduce tax, don't bail out banks, reduce red tape etc would not have a positive effect on the economy, but I don't think the current problems with the country are reason enough to go all the way over to the idea that we should have no government whatsoever other than a tiny army and a justice system that ensures property is respected. Actually, that prompts me to start another thread.

Denerick · 14-06-2010 12:45am

+ 1. What I didn't have the energy to say. Libertarianism was certainly inspired by classical Liberalism, but in its modern day manifestation its relatively recent. And outside America basically unheard of (And not exactly mainstream over there either)

Permabear · 14-06-2010 11:41am

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 14-06-2010 4:44pm

This alludes to what I consider the best criticism of libertarianism: lack of responsibility. I've always maintained that libertarianism is based on cultural presumptions that simply aren't evident in our society in 2010. A lack of responsibility in adults' own lives is of comparatively small importance (if you choose to mess up your own life with stupid decisions, so be it), but can be catastrophic when it comes to parenting.

Of course, the current scenario, where single women are given plenty of monetary incentives by the government to be thoroughly reckless in child management, is only accentuating (rather severely, in my opinion) the problem it's designed to tackle.

It boils down to a positive liberty argument. I think that adults should have enough responsibility to provide positive liberty for themselves (for example, by saving while working so as to provide their own "jobseekers benefit"), but the issue of children is totally different. I can't personally say I'm opposed to the kind of school voucher system donegalfella has mentioned on boards.ie before.

johnnyskeleton · 14-06-2010 5:16pm

But Locke would also be against Joe employing Jane and making a profit from her productivity, which is hardly what libertarians want.

I'd prefer to rely on what he said rather than what someone else said that he said. In any event this conflation of liberal beliefs and libertarian beliefs is becoming absurd. Jesus could be a libertarian because, you know, he told the taxpayer not to collect any more taxes (ignoring all the hippy commie **** he did as well).

Oh, so you are talking about Mill jnr then? I don't think On liberty is actually putting forward any political view - rather it is a direct critique of the utilitarian views of his father.

That's anarchism. Your, if you'll forgive the expression, liberal interpretation of the concept of libertarinism seems to encompass free market capitalism, austrian school economics, champions of personal liberty, anarchism and a whole host of other ideas. Bascially every idea you like is "Libertarian" and everything you don't like is, what? "Looterism" or the like?

I suppose the difference is many people will say "I agree with the Austrian school of economics, but I am not a libertarian" and others will say "I agree with the Austrian school of economics and I am a libertarian" so while there is a co-incidence of certain Austrian views with libertarians, the two are not synonymous. I also think you overstate Hayek's role as a philosopher and legal theorist.

In fairness I haven't seen any impirical evidence of this and would love to see some links to it. However, the fact that some governments are corrupt does not mean that all governments are corrupt. On the other hand, in a completely laissez faire economy monopolies are more likely to form and exploit their dominant position.

The private sector pays taxes into the public sector of in the region of 35bn a year at present. The government pays out a lot more back into the private sector in terms of social welfare etc. The appaling state of government finances aside, I don't see how the main flow of wealth is currently from the private sector to the public sector. The government redistributes some private wealth back among the wealth. Bear in mind that although a doctor may take public sector pay, he provides a service to the private sector by seeing patients. Money is not wealth per se. Health services are wealth, which are redistributed using money.

I'll refrain from commenting about how I see your views. However, do you dispute the land grabbing policies and massive use of slave labour in the early USA? If so then I really take my hat off to you. Of course, since slavery was bad, it had nothing to do with the free market, right? Government intervention (when it eventually came) to abolish slavery is a perfectly acceptable incursion into property rights?

imme · 27-06-2010 4:32am

just think of that famous journalist and you'll understand it
http://www.libertarianism.com/pop_celebrity/36

Denerick · 27-06-2010 11:41am

There is no such thing as a victimless crime when you're a parent.

On the other hand, as you mention, the present system is largely a dead hand resting in the midst of the family. But I would argue that the institution of the family has gotten quite used to that dead hand. Many families whollely rely on that dead hand. Remove it, and there will be social chaos.

Eliot Rosewater · 27-06-2010 11:56am

Obviously you're not going to just pull the rug from beneath them; any welfare reform would have to be introduced gradually. But not only is the current system bad, it's only prolonging the problem and delaying the solution. It's a tough issue to discuss because it touches upon sensitive nerves and necessitates political in-correctness. But I think if we're to be honest with ourselves we have to admit that welfare dependency is something that is partly carried down through families. Council housing estates have notorious reputations and partly justified too: most of the bullies and drug dealers in my town come from there.

There's a serious propagation issue going on.

simplistic2 · 27-06-2010 1:40pm

Id argue that this is actually and argument for libertarianism because if people in general lack responsibility then creating a monopoly of power will logically lead to a irresponsible government.

As you can see people dont exactly vote for sound long term economics and personal liberty. They vote for "the guy they like".

In a libertarian system you let your wallet do the voting. Walk down the shopping isle and youll see people putting more time into picking what soup packet they should buy then they will when voting time comes around. And at least most supermarkets give you your money back if the food tastes like ****.

If the supermarket was a state they would probably fine you for going up the wrong isle and charge you for bring food back.

(note: Im arguing for anarcho-capitalism)

Eliot Rosewater · 27-06-2010 7:37pm

I can see where you're coming from, but the fallout from lack of responsibility in the alternatives is a lot different. In the current system the lack of responsibility means a lot of money is squandered at government level. In an instantaneous libertarian system where the rug has just been pulled out without warning, there would be a lot of parents simply unable (or unwilling) to help their children. Same cause, extremely different results.

As I said, it's a cultural issue whereby parents don't make adequate provision for their children.

I wonder what would happen if the government decided to stop giving child benefit to new applicants from, say, a year on. Would there be a drop in the number of children? Would prospective parents suddenly think twice? Would it improve parental responsibility?

simplistic2 · 02-07-2010 6:47pm

To be honest the quicker the rug is pulled out the better it will be for the dependent underclass that the state is constantly creating.

Where does a lack of responsibility come from? I think it comes from too many incentives from the state to parents. A cousin of mine had a child at 18 and she seems to talk more about her nice house and pocket money that the state steals off someone else to support a lifestyle that she would never of gotten her self into if that economic incentive was never there.

I dont even think people are acting irresponsibly , they are acting perfectly logical by chasing the incentive. There would of been no way of affording the child otherwise and she would of been of on a plane for an abortion and a hard learned lesson. What is even sadder is that a lot of the children are being used as cash prizes. Its also not likely that these kids are going to grow up as functional human beings since their parents see them as a means to an end. "Mammy doesnt love me Mammy loves welfare".

There will be a huge decrease in young families and that is one sure way to escape the underclass. What would society look like if people didnt have children until they were in their 30s and had a steady job?

johnnyskeleton · 03-07-2010 4:56pm

If this is the problem, surely the solution doesn't have to be to remove all social welfare payments absolutely but to make them less generous. The problem is that a person can get a better quality of life on benefits than from the market. And this is a serious social issue. However, it can be dealt with by reintroducing incentive into it by, for example, giving people on benefits a lower standard of living than those who are working. Of crucial importance is that the difference between benefits and minimum wage is often negligible, sometimes the benefits are more attractive than working and in a few cases benefits provide a way of life that the person could never hope to achieve by themsevles.

So I would think that reducing benefits to encourage her to work is a much better option than simply leaving her to her fate and thus impacting on the life of the innocent child.

simplistic2 · 05-07-2010 4:48pm

I assume that this is going to happen anyway because welfare payments at this rate are unsustainable its just a matter of time. But within that time between now and the collapse of the welfare state the government will constantly be insentivising and helping create a larger pool of underclass.

The state being a ponzi scheme is only creating the short term illusion of security for these people and for the public. They are the ones that are going to feel the most pain when the state is unable to afford to support them anymore.

The whole point is that there would of been no innocent child if there was no incentive.

ANarcho-Munk · 08-07-2010 6:57pm

Are you seriously trying to infer that the state wishes to incentivise teenage pregnancy?
I think i've heard it all now...

oscarBravo · 08-07-2010 7:55pm

I'm only about a quarter way through this book, but I find myself regularly feeling the desire to write [citation needed] all over it.

I think there are a number of conceptual leaps in it that almost amount to arguing from his conclusion. I'll comment further when I've finished it.

Sand · 08-07-2010 9:03pm

I think the problem with libertarianism is best summarised by trying to imagine an unmoderated boards.ie....

It might be beautiful, but chances are it would degenerate into some horrific cesspit of humanity unleashed without consequences.

Permabear · 08-07-2010 9:46pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 08-07-2010 10:01pm

Accepted, but there have been several places so far where I've said to myself, "ah, come on!" It strikes me as a book that's aimed at an American centre-right audience, and it comes across as a little patronising towards non-Americans.

Fuller review when I've finished it. It will be a wee while.

Permabear · 08-07-2010 10:31pm

This post has been deleted.

I do not understand Libertarianism.

Comments