 |
| |
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
(or Boshkoism rears its ugly head after a long haitus)
(or some thoughts on the feasibility of libertarianism)
One thing that I've noticed in that in Libertarian debates libertarian types tend to focus solely on moralistic theories and tend to dodge questions of feasibility entirely. For once I'd like to talk with 'poly's libertarians without getting into the moral side of things (especially what libertarians believe to be the defintions of theft and freedom). Basically I want to talk about under what conditions would a libertarian set up be feasible.
Basically, as far as I can see it there's three possible ways to get libertarianism:
-institute libertariansism despite most people thinking its a bad idea (the "stop taxing us or we'll shoot you" solution). However I don't think that libertarians have much of a shot at instituting a functional Dictatorship of the Randians or whatever. I guess if enough big corporations decided that libertarianism was a good idea they'd have enough financial mussle to push it through against the wishes of the majority, but then you'd end up with a pretty nasty place that resembles some of the sillier of Cyberpunk distopias. Doesn't seem very workable really...
-institute libertarianism while having most people think its a good idea for moral reasons (the "moral utopianism" solution). A while ago I talked to Imran and this was his basic approach. Basically it means getting to libertarianism by fundamentally changing people's views on what is moral and make libertarian "new men" (think David Floyd). However, from what we know about human nature this is almost laughable difficult. I really don't think all that many people will be voting against any and all government benefits because they have moral objections about "stealing" from people richer than them. So unless libertarians somehow convince poorer people to be selfless in order allow perfectly self-interested capitalism to have free reign this isn't going to work either, after all there can only be so many David Floyds in the world.
-institute libertarianism because its in people's economic best interest (the "I already have plenty to eat, I don't need a handout" solution). This is the only one that makes any sense. However, its very important for even the most rabid of libertarianism to realize that it isn't always in the economic interest of the majority.
As a thought experiment, let's take two fairly extreme examples. In the first case there's an island country which is 90% owned by a giant foreign banana company that ships just about all of its profits back home with the bananas and the vast majority of the people on the island work on the banana plantation for subsistence wages. In this case the less libertarian the government is the better off just about everyone on the island is since the banana farmers would get money sucked out of the profits of their banana-planing employer in the form of health/welfare/retirement/educaton/whatever benefits and not really have to give up much of anything in order to get it. Also its in their interest to have government health/saftety/etc. regulations in order to minimize the deaths due to banana trees falling on them or whatever. As long as this economic situation persists its never going to be in the interest of much of anyone to have a libertarian set up.
Then there's a nearby second island also almost completely covered by banana farms. However on this island all the banana farmers own their own little farms and all these little banana farms are about equally sized. The local fertilizer and banana export companies are run on a co-operative basis by the banana farmers (this isn't anything terribly exotic, a lot of the biggest US food processing and marketing companies like Land O' Lakes butter are farmer co-ops). In this case it would be in the interest of the just about everyone to have a libertarian set up on their banana-filled island. After all, since they all make about the same amount of money selling their bananas, if there were government health/welfare/retirement/educaton/whatever benefits all they'd get is about as much money as they paid in after bureaucrats took a chunk. It'd be easier for them all to just pay of all of that themselves, since they could all afford it and nobody is poor enough to have to rely on the government for the basics. Similarly, they wouldn't want governmet workplace regulations since they'd all be self-employed.
Those are extreme examples, but basically to have libertarianism be in the interest of most people you need a massive middle class and very few people who need any government assistance at all to cover the basics. Also having as few filthy rich people as possible makes libertarianism more feasible since they're always such a tempting target for taxes. So basically I have a very very hard time seeing how libertarianism could possibly work unless you've got a very egalitarian socio-ecnomic system. I can't think of any cases at all where you get anything close to libertarianism without a whole lot of egalitarianism side by side (except in cases where you have something like libertarianism while the majority of the population doesn't want it and then proceeds to get rid of it as soon as possible or in cases where there's a small enclave of extreme prosperity where people are so much richer than the surrounding population that they feel that they don't need any government assistance). So basically libertarians won't get what they want without an egalitarian economic system and the biggest thing standing in the way of this is the inequalities generated by modern capitalist economics. Got to love the irony.
The only way I could possibly see libertarianism working over a long period of time over a widespread area without being imposed by a small minority at the point of a gun and without having a utopian change in human nature is to have some kind of bizarre economic change that leads to a massive renaissance of small businesses/self-employed people, a union movement with enough backbone to stamp out a lot of inequality and ensure everyone gets decent healthcare from their employers, (so they don't need the government to do it for them) or even better take over companies and hand over ownership to the employees (shouldn't be all that hard to do, ie "sell us the company really cheap or we'll go on strike until you do"). And so, because inequality is the biggest impediment to libertarianism all libertarians should be good (libertarian) socialists, right? 
And if I'm wrong what has to change for libertarianism to succead? After all, libertarianism is stronger in the US than anywhere else and the LP only polls are percent or two and not even mass-migrations to New Hampshire will change that...
 Attachment: wrench.jpg
This has been downloaded 127 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
--"One thing that I've noticed in that in Libertarian debates libertarian types tend to focus solely on moralistic theories"
Admittedly, I haven't been paying attention around here lately, but I think you've been missing out on even more than I have if you think this is the case. Libertarians know our system is the most practicle one as well, it's usually just that when we bring it up we get attacked for being heartless and the like.
The problem, really, is that as soon as you bring up practicle arguments, someone attacks you on the moral side. Then when you defend yourself there, well, they stay on the moral side. Morality has been a lot fuzzier than, say, economics over the past few decades. Makes it easier to disagree.
--"institute libertariansism despite most people thinking its a bad idea"
Contradiction in terms. You cannot impose libertarianism by force, by definition.
--"institute libertarianism while having most people think its a good idea for moral reasons "
--"institute libertarianism because its in people's economic best interest"
False dichotomy. Why not do it for both reasons?
--"So basically I have a very very hard time seeing how libertarianism could possibly work unless you've got a very egalitarian socio-ecnomic system."
We managed pretty well at the start of the country. There's just a few things that need to be rolled back for it to happen again.
--"And if I'm wrong what has to change for libertarianism to succead?"
It's called "grassroots". There's a lot more support for libertarian positions than the polls show. The elections suffer from the "wasted vote" syndrome thanks to the FUD the two major parties push. People have been starting to realize the reality behind that one, though, and the Libertarian Party is also steadily gaining membership from traditional non-voters. Other polls suffer from name-recognition; outside the net, the LP doesn't get much news coverage for various reasons.
That's why it's working a grassroots campaign. Get enough name recognition in the local area, where it's easier to get a message out (although even that's changing; some local campaigns are well over the million dollar mark these days) and will help with higher level races.
Wraith
"When dealing with the insane, the best method is to pretend to be sane."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
Aaaah, this threads bring back the memories 
quote:
Costa Rica's libertarian movement pulls a 10% share of votes in elections. |
Interesting, any idea if they're as radical as the US LP?
quote:
Damn, Boshkoism sure is long and uninteresting... |
I aim to please
quote:
"Any political philosophy named after it's creator is doomed to be silly." |
That was fairly tongue in cheek even years ago when I used it and I don't take myself anywhere near as seriously as I used to, a good dose of The Real World will do that to you.
quote:
Admittedly, I haven't been paying attention around here lately, but I think you've been missing out on even more than I have if you think this is the case. Libertarians know our system is the most practicle one as well, it's usually just that when we bring it up we get attacked for being heartless and the like. |
Haven't been paying that much attention either and most of what I've read has been from DF (good guy and smart but pretty disconnected with political reality) but what I've seen has concentrated completely on "Why Libertarianism Is Right" and very little on "This is How We're Going to Make Libertarianism a Reality." This isn't completely the libertarian's fault since they get attacked so heavily on the "Why Libertarianism Is Right" front that the whole "This is How We're Going to Make Libertarianism a Reality" issue never comes up.
quote:
The problem, really, is that as soon as you bring up practicle arguments, someone attacks you on the moral side. Then when you defend yourself there, well, they stay on the moral side. |
Exactly.
quote:
Contradiction in terms. You cannot impose libertarianism by force, by definition. |
Probably was phrasing things wrong. What I meant was having a libertarian system in a country where the majority of the country doesn't want a libertarian system. This would probably involve some kind of force on the part of the libertarians to keep the majority from instituting some kind of welfare state somewhere along the line. Of course according to libertarian morality this is simple straight forward self defence against theft, but I really want to stay away from moral arguements so I won't get into that.
quote:
False dichotomy. Why not do it for both reasons? |
Because of what Imran (a quasi-libertarian) told me. He said that both Libertarianism and Communism are utopian theories of morality that require a good sized changed in the way people act for them to work.
Now making people act in a more sensible way and having people think your system is morally right is a good thing, but relying solely (or even largely) on moral regeneration of whatever to make a system work is pretty wrong-headed. The left has been horrifically guilty of this sort of thinking over and over again, and its a shame to see some libertarians fall into the same kind of trap.
quote:
We managed pretty well at the start of the country. |
Right, because at the start of the country there was a COMPLETELY different socio-economic system to what we have now, namely huge numbers of freeholding farmers and self-employed craftsmen. Once that kind of system started to dissolve the quasi-libertarianism we had back then was doomed (and the South was never terribly libertarian for obvious reasons).
quote:
It's called "grassroots". There's a lot more support for libertarian positions than the polls show. |
So just a matter of building up the organization and spreading the word? Don't really agree with this too much, and organizations that are dedicated mostly to their own growth at least in the short-term get this scary self-consuming character (just look at the various commie groups, they're really horrible all they ever seem to do is recruit, sell their newspapers and squabble internally, with a few exceptions they're a real pain for the rest of the left to deal with). It think it'll take a lot more than organization to get libertarianism up and running, you need pretty profound socio-economic change.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Wraith, its much appreciated.
quote:
Morality is dead, long live utility. |
Utility makes a lot more sense.
No libertarians to answer my claim that the more egalitarian a society the easier it is to set up libertarianism? I'm disappointed.
Will probably get around to making a "Why Socialists Should be Libertarians" post next week, this sort of thing really cuts both ways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:32
|
|
Stefu's Philosophy of the World, part 358: "Any political philosophy named after it's creator is doomed to be silly."
Well that's the Stefuist approach, anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
--"What I meant was having a libertarian system in a country where the majority of the country doesn't want a libertarian system."
Well, it can't happen that way. Just like no other system can take over without at least the passivity of the majority towards it. All systems have this problem.
--"He said that both Libertarianism and Communism are utopian theories of morality that require a good sized changed in the way people act for them to work."
Yeah, I always disagreed with him. Libertarianism isn't very utopian. It relys on simple greed and self-interest, which hardly sounds utopian to most people.
Now, a real libertarian system would require a fair change in the way people behave these days, but that has a whole lot more to do with governmental conditioning (ie. public schools) than anything inherent in human nature.
I've noticed that the people coming out of non-public schools seem to be skewed far heavier towards the libertarian viewpoint, which makes sense to me.
--"Right, because at the start of the country there was a COMPLETELY different socio-economic system"
But with a few minor changes (such as tort reform and subsidy elimination) our current system would be even better suited for it. We're in an age where it's much easier to inform yourself of options and to gather the kind of information that can help you make a rational decision.
--"So just a matter of building up the organization and spreading the word?"
Pretty much. The Libertarian Party has been around for a while, and has been growing steadily. Growth isn't the primary purpose of the party, and we do have officeholders all over. We've spoiled a number of elections, and have started to get through to the media in spite of themselves. Some things just take time to build properly.
--"Most Libertarian thought would not look very favorably on that."
But compared to government spending that's... gee, what percentage of GDP is it now, anyway? Well, it's a lesser-of-two-evils thing. I didn't say it would have been perfect, but it's certainly closer than now.
--" I was saying that people are addicted to government."
Yeah, with the government the first hit is always free (actually, your neighbor has to pay for it, but you don't have to know that).
--"Certain things they want the government to do because they believe the government SHOULD do so."
With most people in my experience, it's more that it's simply what government HAS BEEN doing. People are used to what we've got now, and most of them don't ever think of it possibly being different unless someone leads the way.
It's bound to be brought up sooner or later, so I may as well get it over with. Remember that old story about cooking a frog? Drop him in boiling water and he'll jump right out. Put him in a pot of cool water and slowly warm it up, and you're having frog legs for dinner.
Wraith
"If you guys are selling insurance, we don't want any."
"No, Tick. We're with the government."
"Well, no thanks. We've got all the government we need."
-- "The Tick"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
What exactly would a libertarian utopia be? No taxes, no government services, nothing but the power of the people? I'd like to hear Libertarians answer that question.
My biggest criticism is that I think from what little libertarian theory I've seen here on apolyton that it discount the power of NGO's (non-governmental organizations). It seems like it concentrates on only two forces, the power of the government (which represents unwanted collectivism), and the power of the people (unrestrained individualistic self-determination). Much of the arguments about the morality of Libertarianism in my opinion comes from its pixie dust power. Inflicting harm on a Libertarian's individual freedoms won't happen because of the "magic" properties of moral indignation. Thinking good thoughts never stops the bad guys, and this flaw is a critical weakness in the theory.
Lets go back to Bosko's second Banana Island scenario, which worked to prove its point about the conditions needed to establish a Libertian society. However, lets add some real world complications. It is almost the same setup. You have an island almost completely covered by equally sized farms. Half of these farms are banana farms, and the other half are pineapple farms. With the current world market price of bananas and pineapples, both sets of farmers make an equal sustainable wage. However, if the farmers switched over to the other crop, prices for the crop they switched to would drop to unsustainable wages because of supply and demand and it would harm the island's economy. One year banana blight strikes all of the banana farmers, killing their crop. They can't switch to growing pineapples because it would cause a pineapple glut which would make the pineapples worth less than what it took to grow them. The banana farmers will experience a tough few years before they can recover, and many will starve. Banana Corp. from the first island offers to buy them out, taking advantage of their desperation. It then plans to bring in efficient but highly expensive banana picking machines that would only require a few workers. Taking advantage of economies of scale they could afford to cut banana prices while maintaining the same amount of profit or to leave prices stable and make additional profit. Once they have expanded their banana operation to the second island, they plan on using the additional profits to expand into the pineapple market by taking over all of the pineapple farms.
A solution to this could be a tax on the pineapple farmers to help subsidize the banana farmers till they get back on their feet. In the long run this tax would help both the banana farmers and the pineapple farmers because it would keep banana corp from taking over their island. Yet, in the short run it would harm pineapple farmers and help banana farmers. The tax would be very high, and push pineapple farmers almost to the edge of poverty till the banana crop recovers. Though it only brings the banana farmers up to the edge of poverty.
Often individuals will have competing interests that need arbitration by some higher authority. Since often there are no win-win solutions (win-lose if action is taken or lose-lose if not) both sides are unwilling to compromise. Also as mentioned earlier, corporations, religious organization, etc. can wield a great deal of collectivist power even in the absense of government that limits individuals. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, recently/currently NGO's are playing huge roles in local politics. The same holds true for America, many of the major political forces aren't political parties but are instead special interests groups that funds them. This ranges from the AARP, to the NRA, to Zenith. Even with fewer governmental controls on people these organizations are going to try and exert influence. Since people regard governmental control as legitimate for the most part since they at least have a nominal say in things, reducing the role of government could lead to unpleasant situations. It seems like everyone, both the powerful and the powerless have something to lose with extreme Libertarianism. NGO's have fewer legitimate ways to influence policy and public behavior, so they have to rely more on force and coersion, while individuals have less protection from these same NGO special interest groups. I think that is why it won't work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
What exactly would a libertarian utopia be? No taxes, no government services, nothing but the power of the people? |
Nooo! We aren't generally fans of democracy - "democracy" is just another word for "tyranny". I don't want the people to have the power to decide what I can and can't do, any more than I want the people's representatives to decide.
The reason it is hard to get anywhere, when debating Libertarianism with a non-Libertarian, is that they just don't tend to get it. We aren't democrats, we aren't tyrants, we aren't primarily concerned with whether or not we will get richer in a Libertarian system, and we aren't generally worried about what war crimes are being committed 3000 miles away. We are concerned with personal freedom, and we don't believe that personal freedom should be forcibly removed, regardless of what other people are doing somewhere else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Nooo! We aren't generally fans of democracy - "democracy" is just another word for "tyranny". I don't want the people to have the power to decide what I can and can't do, any more than I want the people's representatives to decide.
The reason it is hard to get anywhere, when debating Libertarianism with a non-Libertarian, is that they just don't tend to get it. We aren't democrats, we aren't tyrants, we aren't primarily concerned with whether or not we will get richer in a Libertarian system, and we aren't generally worried about what war crimes are being committed 3000 miles away. We are concerned with personal freedom, and we don't believe that personal freedom should be forcibly removed, regardless of what other people are doing somewhere else. |
total dodge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
No it isn't. If other people can't be bothered to understand Libertarianism before going off on it, then I can't be bothered to take them seriously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
No it isn't. If other people can't be bothered to understand Libertarianism before going off on it, then I can't be bothered to take them seriously. |
more dodging.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
David,
when i said power of the people I should have said power of the individual.
I don't enjoy having to follow rules with people I don't agree with, even if everybody else thinks it's a good rule. Yet the things I have yet to see properly addressed is how to prevent tyranny from non-traditional sources. If you implement complete freedom it seems like organizations from professional associations to the mafia will step in and fill this power vacuum. |
its obvious david floyd is not interested in what will happen. only what should.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
If I'm dodging, then your two word posts are nothing but more dodging.
But fine:
quote:
Much of the arguments about the morality of Libertarianism in my opinion comes from its pixie dust power. |
This should be interesting...
quote:
Inflicting harm on a Libertarian's individual freedoms won't happen because of the "magic" properties of moral indignation. Thinking good thoughts never stops the bad guys, and this flaw is a critical weakness in the theory. |
Now who exactly made this claim? No Libertarian I know of. I know for a fact that people will commit crimes, even in a Libertarian system. Fortunately, Libertarianism deals with that by providing for a)an armed populace, and b)a government that has it's duties limited to, among other things, a judiciary and law enforcement. Stands to reason the Libertarian government would be pretty good at this, seeing as how it has little else to do 
quote:
Lets go back to Bosko's second Banana Island scenario, which worked to prove its point about the conditions needed to establish a Libertian society. However, lets add some real world complications. |
The real world? What "real world" island is covered completely, half with banana groves and half with pineapple farms? If you want to make a real world example, then make one, but let's keep the world of banana and pineapple plants in Boshko's Fantasy Land.
quote:
Often individuals will have competing interests that need arbitration by some higher authority. Since often there are no win-win solutions (win-lose if action is taken or lose-lose if not) both sides are unwilling to compromise. |
Very true. Now you're getting closer to the real world. Fortunately, Libertarianism also provides a solution to this "problem". If the competing interests are a result of a contract, then we have courts. Again, you are showing your ignorance of Libertarianism by equating it with anarchy.
If, though, the "competing interests" are NOT a result of contracts, then I'm not sure what your example is. If there is a patch of land between our property, unowned by anyone, and we both want it, but I get there first, there may be a "competing interest", but the fact remains that it's mine, because I got to it first, and the courts will back that claim up as well. On the other hand, if I got there first by breaking your legs, the courts will listen to that objection as well. But if your objection centers on the fact that I happened to be faster than you, Libertarian courts will laugh at you, and if you try to take my land from me, you'll be prosecuted.
Again, though, the answer lies in the judicial system, which exists in a Libertarian system.
As for your point about NGOs, you are correct that they exert a lot of influence on politicians, who they often pay off, and on people, who they often sway to vote their way through emotional arguments. I'm sure that the corrupt people who run NGOs (not that all NGOs are necessarily corrupt, naturally) would have a lot to lose with Libertarianism, but this is more an indictment of corruption than Libertarianism, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Boshko - quote:
Utility makes a lot more sense. |
In that it may be more acceptible to the majority, not to morality.
quote:
No libertarians to answer my claim that the more egalitarian a society the easier it is to set up libertarianism? I'm disappointed. |
That's the old "the state will wither away once wealth is fairly distributed" argument. Once government and it's bureaucracies have a power, they'll use it to create more power. Just look at the results of the income tax... Now, if virtually everyone was wealthy there would be less "need" for a welfare state (one would think), so how do we achieve this wealth? Taxing the "rich" or baking a bigger "pie"? Libertarianism would try to bake a bigger pie, the socialist would tax the rich out of existence. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime... The socialist would give us fish, the libertarian would teach us to fish...
Btw, my  was for Stefu, not laughing at you. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by David Floyd
If I'm dodging, then your two word posts are nothing but more dodging.
[QUOTE]
if I'm a poopy head ur a bigger poopy head? haha
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
if I'm a poopy head ur a bigger poopy head? haha |
Hahaha keep laughing, out of the two of us, you still haven't made a post with any substance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2003 17:15
. I'll keep it as the 
.
|
