52 replies to this topic

[Pong Messiah]

I can totally see how a like-minded, small community could thrive living by libertarian codes. But what about a nation of 300 million people? Is it even possible?

[Destiny Skywalker]

As someone who has a bit of a libertarian outlook on things, yes, I do think it's too difficult to impose on a large-scale. Just like communism is a nice idea in theory but ultimately ends up being corrupted by human greed and power given to those in charge.

The problem is that as a community grows, more people are going to disagree. Someone people want to stick their nose in everyone's business and have rules that make them live the way they think they should be lived. You're going to have anarchists who there there shouldn't be any rules. And then there's everyone in between. I would say that even in a small community this happens but most forms of "ideal" government work much better on a small scale.

As an engineer, I am for a minimum number of constraints to make the system work. Too many constraints (laws or rules), and you have to make loopholes or special exemptions (more rules!) to make the system work. Or you have so many nitpicky rules that no one can keep track of all of them (which I would say is where our society is today). It's also easier to keep track of the rules when there are less of them. But for some people that's not enough. Or too much!

[Pong Messiah]

So you would say "naive."

That is probably fair, but of course I'm coming from my own bias.

I do, however, think society would be much better off if we had one quarter the rules, balanced out by more clarity and enforcement.

[Destiny Skywalker]

I agree whole-heartedly. But politicians seem to stay in office by MAKING laws. For some reason we think if they're not making a new law, they're not doing anything.

[El Chalupacabra]

I can totally see how a like-minded, small community could thrive living by libertarian codes. But what about a nation of 300 million people? Is it even possible?

What libertarian codes do you mean?

[Pong Messiah]

What libertarian codes do you mean?

"Codes" is quite possibly the worst word I could have used, since most libertarian thought trends toward free-association and deregulation.

So basically, a minimally or totally unregulated market, freedom to commit any sort of victimless crime you choose. Low or no taxes, etc....

[Evolence]

I think elements of libertarian ideology can be successful on any scale. Issues of personal liberty can NEVER be too liberally applied in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you're talking about 30 people or 300 million people, an individual should be free to put chemicals in their body, have sex with prostitutes, make personal medical decisions (abortion), own guns, and engage in other victimless behavior which our current society categorizes as "crime."

Now I'm less convinced of other elements of libertarianism...Specifically economic tenets. The belief that markets will regulate themselves is painfully naive belief, especially the larger the scale. Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

[The Kurgan]

Like any blueprint for widespread social organization, libertarianism works better as a hypothesis or a kind of heuristic tool than as something that can be implemented "by the book" so to speak. I'm encouraged by the comparisons to communism. The same basic principle applies, except freedom rather tjan equality serves as the sovereign moral principle. Were it to be tried in the real world, the results would be just as bad, albeit in a different sort of way.

[El Chalupacabra]

What libertarian codes do you mean?

"Codes" is quite possibly the worst word I could have used, since most libertarian thought trends toward free-association and deregulation.

So basically, a minimally or totally unregulated market, freedom to commit any sort of victimless crime you choose. Low or no taxes, etc....

so basically Republicans who smoke pot and bang hookers?

[Pong Messiah]

so basically Republicans who smoke pot and bang hookers?

Kinda, but not really; Libertarians (and libertarians) are opposed to corporate welfare.

[El Chalupacabra]

So more like ronpaulian

[The Kurgan]

A kind of a catch 22 is involved in the widescale implementation of a libertarian social order - that it requires an authoritarian political structure to do so (again, like communism, which was also supposed to be stateless in theory). The problem in both cases is that in democratic systems, the populace will tend to oppose the thorough privatization OR socialization of the economy. The general public isn't that ideological, they care instead for "what works" if even in a piecemeal sort of way. Libertarians would find themselves contending with a populace that doesn't want social security or medicare privatized or scrapped all together, just as communists would be dealing with people who don't see the need for the government to take over the mom-and-pop store down the street. Both groups would have to insulate themselves from the demands of the populace, ultimately requiring a totalitarian social structure to impose their views. Communists couldn't suppress the black market. Libertarians would find themselves at odds with a rampant labor movement. The 20th century proved that to be the case with communism. I wonder if the 21st century will prove it for libertarianism.

[Darth Kcorbe]

I think elements of libertarian ideology can be successful on any scale. Issues of personal liberty can NEVER be too liberally applied in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you're talking about 30 people or 300 million people, an individual should be free to put chemicals in their body, have sex with prostitutes, make personal medical decisions (abortion), own guns, and engage in other victimless behavior which our current society categorizes as "crime."

Now I'm less convinced of other elements of libertarianism...Specifically economic tenets. The belief that markets will regulate themselves is painfully naive belief, especially the larger the scale. Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

pretty much this. libertarianism(or at least the brand i follow) can largely be summed up thus: people who value liberty, security, privacy, and equality applying reason, logic, and common sense to the creation and enforcement of law. or, in layman's terms: "i can ____________ until it kills me if i want to, as long as i don't hurt anyone else in the process. no, "butt-hurt" doesn't count." in other words, hands off my personal life.
this disallows most of the stuff that can be universally agreed-upon like theft, rape, murder, and putting sexting tweens on the sex-offender registry.

Edited by Darth Kcorbe, 11 June 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[Pong Messiah]

Now I'm less convinced of other elements of libertarianism...Specifically economic tenets. The belief that markets will regulate themselves is painfully naive belief, especially the larger the scale. Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

"Too big to fail" would not fall under the libertarian "code" (those banks would just fail).

I do agree that when a business is capable of having a negative effect upon the environment or public health and safety, it's foolish to trust the market to sort it all out.

One tenet of libertarianism that I have a really hard time buying is that people are generally smart and ethical when left to their own devices. Or that people can be trusted to make the right choice. No. Just no.

[Evolence]

Oh, sorry for the confusion Pong. I was not trying to suggest that "too big to fail" was libertarian...Obviously, libertarianism would call for the failure of such banks. I was using the "too big to fail" more as an adjective to describe the types of banks that engaged in risky business propositions (and ultimately failed to police themselves). You could have substituted the phrase "too big to fail banks" with something like "megabanks," etc.

[The Kurgan]

Now I'm less convinced of other elements of libertarianism...Specifically economic tenets. The belief that markets will regulate themselves is painfully naive belief, especially the larger the scale. Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

"Too big to fail" would not fall under the libertarian "code" (those banks would just fail).

I do agree that when a business is capable of having a negative effect upon the environment or public health and safety, it's foolish to trust the market to sort it all out.

One tenet of libertarianism that I have a really hard time buying is that people are generally smart and ethical when left to their own devices. Or that people can be trusted to make the right choice. No. Just no.

Absolutely. In fact, decent people left to their own devices can actually degenerate into selfish bastards without at least some governing structure or source of common morality such as a unifying church or other cultural institution. Look up "The Prisoner's Dilemma" and "The Tragedy of the Commons" to review precisely how that happens.

[Obsidian]

Not only is it naive, it is dangerous. Perhaps the most dangerous idea any human has conceived of.

Libertarianism relies too much on the idea that people will act ethically. They will not. And that is what makes it so dangerous.

Because libertarian philosophy could ironically lead to totalitarianism, due to the concept of a lassez faire, unchecked and unregulated market. It would be a simple matter for someone to gain control over the population by owning or controlling access to some essential resource, and using it to essentially set yourself up as a dictator.

Don't believe me? There is a biotech company called Monsanto, which produces both the weedkiller Roundup and a strain of corn that is resistant to said weedkiller (look them up). And they are responsible for something like 80% of the corn grown in America. In a world absent of corporate oversight and regulation, how easy do you think it'd be for Monsanto to just withhold access to the weedkiller unless the corn growers do what the corporation wants? It would leave people with little recourse. Only through compliance would people have access to what they needed to grow corn, and without the corn, many products couldn't be produced, including food. Rationing of the required resource would force people into smaller scale, subsistence farming, further suppressing any resistance to the leader's rule.

I am not saying Monsanto would necessarily do what I described, but is just an example. It needn't rely on weedkiller or corn. Controlling the manufacture of essential farming equipment, or the infrastructure required to transport supplies over long distance would serve just as well. The result would be the same regardless: A small group of people would essentially control the country by controlling access to a crucial resource, and there would be no government agency, no oversight to stop them.

Widescale libertarian philosophy could easily turn into a corporate oligarchy (well, more of one than we have now, anyway) through a system very similar to that which I described.

Such a scenario occurring is certainly not a guarantee, but the risk of it is far too great, and therefore arises the danger I mentioned. It is a result that adherents to libertarian philosophy do not consider or given thought to.

[The Kurgan]

Well said Obsidian. Pure libertarianism would really look a lot like feudalism - notice that some even advocate private military, law enforcement and so forth. That's pretty much what monarchism was - private ownership of government.

[Obsidian]

Well said Obsidian. Pure libertarianism would really look a lot like feudalism - notice that some even advocate private military, law enforcement and so forth. That's pretty much what monarchism was - private ownership of government.

The thing is, I often find myself wondering if the advocates of libertarianism have any knowledge of history, as what they advocate has been practiced many times over the centuries, to disastrous results. Colonialism in Africa and Asia were largely the consequences of libertarian economic policies, unchecked and unregulated corporations like the East India Company (who at one time was so powerful, it not only controlled all of India and Burma, but had it's own Army and Naval forces). And we see how THAT turned out. Discontent with such unchecked corporatism was one of the driving forces in the American Revolution. The rise of communism in places like China and Vietnam is a direct result of such practices, as the populaces of those countries adopted it as a reaction to the exploitation they had undergone under colonialism due to the unchecked, unregulated corporatism that was allowed to flourish under European rule.

So, it's not like unregulated capitalism hasn't been tried before. It has, and in fact is a direct cause of many of the problems the Western World is still dealing with today.

Why is it so hard to understand that their needs to be checks? Checks on governments are good. Checks on the market and capitalism is also good. You cannot have an ethical, fair and equitable and a truly FREE market without SOME regulation on it. Without said regulation, humans being humans will result in exploitation and oppression in the name of greed.

[Pong Messiah]

You cannot have an ethical, fair and equitable and a truly FREE market without SOME regulation on it. Without said regulation, humans being humans will result in exploitation and oppression in the name of greed.

Agreed.

The fatal flaw of virtually all extreme political ideologies is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Interestingly enough, it's often a flaw based in optimism, of all things, which is something rarely associated with extremism (e.g. communitarian beliefs that humans will cease to be greedy and tribalistic if their material needs are met, libertarian beliefs that humans will behave ethically and intelligently enough to avoid sliding into feudalism if given enough economic freedom, etc.).

[Evolence]

Regarding Monsanto (and a bit off-topic):

Fortunately, the Roundup has gone off-patent and is open to generic competition. However, one of the most despicable things about Monsanto is how they have sued small farmers whose crops were contaminated with pollen from their GMO seed. The GMO-Roundup Ready seed is obviously patented; therefore, farmers are not allowed to save seed (saving seed instead of buying it would be patent infringement). Well...Crops are wind pollinated...And some farmers who were growing non-GMO crops ended up having their crops contaminated with pollen from GMO crops. That's bad enough...Because having a crop contaminated with GMO's can lock you out of selling your product to Europe and other areas. But to add insult to injury, some of these farmers who saved seed that had been contaminated with GMO genetics were taken to court by Monsanto...And in many cases successfully sued for patent infringement.

[The Kurgan]

So, it's not like unregulated capitalism hasn't been tried before. It has, and in fact is a direct cause of many of the problems the Western World is still dealing with today.

Why is it so hard to understand that their needs to be checks? Checks on governments are good. Checks on the market and capitalism is also good. You cannot have an ethical, fair and equitable and a truly FREE market without SOME regulation on it. Without said regulation, humans being humans will result in exploitation and oppression in the name of greed.

Does the England of Charles Dickens' time sound like a nice place to you?

Fifteen hour days (to start) sweating away for starvation wages in a dank, dark and dirty mill until you go blind or lose limbs from machinery accidents ... yeah. Sign me up for some of that. (Registers as a G.O.P voter)

The fatal flaw of virtually all extreme political ideologies is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Interestingly enough, it's often a flaw based in optimism, of all things, which is something rarely associated with extremism (e.g. communitarian beliefs that humans will cease to be greedy and tribalistic if their material needs are met, libertarian beliefs that humans will behave ethically and intelligently enough to avoid sliding into feudalism if given enough economic freedom, etc.).

Eloquently stated Pong.

[Joey Ramone]

I can totally see how a like-minded, small community could thrive living by libertarian codes. But what about a nation of 300 million people? Is it even possible?

Yes. It will happen when enough people want it.

Look what happened with democracy. I doubt there were very many people who supported democracy in 1676. A few centuries later democracy is widespread and synonymous with good. At least among certain people.

I agree whole-heartedly. But politicians seem to stay in office by MAKING laws. For some reason we think if they're not making a new law, they're not doing anything.

Exactly. It’s like Thoreau said about the machinery of government: as long as people hear the machine running they are happy.

I think that in a lot of situations it’s best for the government to do nothing.

I can totally see how a like-minded, small community could thrive living by libertarian codes. But what about a nation of 300 million people? Is it even possible?

What libertarian codes do you mean?

I can’t speak for Pong but I’d say the Non-aggression Principle covers it.

Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

Are you saying that the current system of government regulation solves that problem? Are you aware of what’s going on in Germany?

I’m no fan of bailouts or the institutions that took them. However, it is unfair to criticize the free market in this scenario since there was no free market

A kind of a catch 22 is involved in the widescale implementation of a libertarian social order - that it requires an authoritarian political structure to do so (again, like communism, which was also supposed to be stateless in theory). The problem in both cases is that in democratic systems, the populace will tend to oppose the thorough privatization OR socialization of the economy. The general public isn't that ideological, they care instead for "what works" if even in a piecemeal sort of way. Libertarians would find themselves contending with a populace that doesn't want social security or medicare privatized or scrapped all together, just as communists would be dealing with people who don't see the need for the government to take over the mom-and-pop store down the street. Both groups would have to insulate themselves from the demands of the populace, ultimately requiring a totalitarian social structure to impose their views. Communists couldn't suppress the black market. Libertarians would find themselves at odds with a rampant labor movement. The 20th century proved that to be the case with communism. I wonder if the 21st century will prove it for libertarianism.

You seem to be describing something besides libertarianism. Authoritarian political structures , heck any political structures, and words like implementation have nothing to do with libertarianism.

We agree on one thing. This:

“The general public isn't that ideological, they care instead for "what works" if even in a piecemeal sort of way.”

is very true. I think the biggest obstacle in the path of libertarian society is convincing people that it will work.

And we disagree on this:

“Libertarians would find themselves contending with a populace that doesn't want social security or medicare privatized or scrapped all together…”

I’d love for Social Security and Medicare to be scrapped. Barring that I’d like the option of opting out.

“just as communists would be dealing with people who don't see the need for the government to take over the mom-and-pop store down the street.“

That’s sort of an apples and oranges statement . Libertarians putting an end to large scale theft and wealth redistribution is not the same as communists putting an end to freedom. I partially agree with you that there would be a labor movement that opposes the libertarian establishment. But I don’t think it would be fair to say that they would be treated the same as capitalists in the USSR.

One tenet of libertarianism that I have a really hard time buying is that people are generally smart and ethical when left to their own devices. Or that people can be trusted to make the right choice. No. Just no.

I’m not aware of any libertarians who think we should not have justice system.

Absolutely. In fact, decent people left to their own devices can actually degenerate into selfish bastards without at least some governing structure or source of common morality such as a unifying church or other cultural institution. Look up "The Prisoner's Dilemma" and "The Tragedy of the Commons" to review precisely how that happens.

Of course there are bad people in the world. Churches and other institutions such as the family do more to fight this problem than the State.

Tragedy in the Commons is an example of collectivism and can easily be solved by the herdsmen owning private property.

…

It’s late. I’ll get to Obsidian’s posts tomorrow. They’ll take awhile.

[Evolence]

Take food safety...By the time the free market punishes a business that manufactures tainted milk or E. coli infested produce, thousands of people can get sick. Let's also consider how well the too big to fail banks self-regulated...A complete and utter failure.

Are you saying that the current system of government regulation solves that problem? Are you aware of what’s going on in Germany?

I’m no fan of bailouts or the institutions that took them. However, it is unfair to criticize the free market in this scenario since there was no free market

Obviously our current food safety inspections are not wholly adequate to prevent outbreaks. But at least there is infrastructure in place to track down tainted food and recall it. This is more than a laissez-faire state would produce.

And regarding the bailouts...My use of the term "too big too fail baks" has been taken entirely out of context...AGAIN. Even after I explained it once. So I'll explain it again. I was using the "too big to fail" moniker simply as an adjective to describe a certain type of bank...Specifically the very large, systemically risky banks that almost caused the collapse of our economy. Nowhere was I referring to the actual bailouts. My reference to these banks as they apply to libertarianism was specifically talking about how these banks failed to police themselves. Greenspan dedicated his entire public service career to the notion that the financial sector would regulate itself more effectively than the government would regulate it. The financial crisis actually made Greenspan admit that he was wrong....The financial services industry FAILED to regulate themselves and the end result was economic calamity. And the thing is...The financial services industry didn't experience this as an anomaly...Lack of regulation nearly ten years earlier nearly caused another economic meltdown when the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management started hemorraging dollars from bad OTC derivative bets. At that time, the Fed pressed the mega banks to bail out LTCM to prevent a meltdown. You'd think the banks would have learned the danger of OTC derivatives from this incident...But no, these same banks went on to load up their balance sheets with trillions of dollars in opaque derivatives. Ten years later, these same opaque derivatives caused another meltdown. All of this was prior to the bailouts and was the result of laissez-faire free market ideology. It is proof that such a system will not regulate itself for the benefit of the greater good (a less systemically risky economy).

[Obsidian]

And we disagree on this:

"Libertarians would find themselves contending with a populace that doesn't want social security or medicare privatized or scrapped all together…"

I'd love for Social Security and Medicare to be scrapped.

You would. Not everyone would, though. And that's the issue.

In a Libertarian society, there would be no choice. Those who did need it couldn't have it.

It would be a small group dictating their wants and desires on the others. Libertarianism would ultimately lead to authoritarianism, as an elite group of people would actively prevent others from getting what they want,

That is where the issue lies, and where the entire point of libertarianism falls apart, and the flaws revealed.

"just as communists would be dealing with people who don't see the need for the government to take over the mom-and-pop store down the street."

That's sort of an apples and oranges statement . Libertarians putting an end to large scale theft and wealth redistribution is not the same as communists putting an end to freedom. I partially agree with you that there would be a labor movement that opposes the libertarian establishment. But I don't think it would be fair to say that they would be treated the same as capitalists in the USSR.

No, it isn't. It's an apples to apples situation.

The libertarian extremists would be dictating what others can and cannot have. 'Sorry, you cannot have the help you need. We won't allow it.'

Furthermore, the labor movement would be suppressed and suppressed hard. Again, I am forced to wonder if your education in history was deficient, as there are many examples throughout history of labor movements being met with force and violence when there is no regulation to prevent it.

Look up the Ludlow Massacre sometimes, in which numerous men, women and children were murdered when a striking camp was set on fire by men employed by the very company they were striking against. That became the defining moment in the labor movement, the event that turned public support towards the unions

Or how about the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist company, in which over 120 women died because they were LOCKED INSIDE by the management. The owners of the company escaped justice, and one was caught doing it again. He got fined $20. Even in 1911 dollars, that is pathetic.

A simple, objective look at history will show that, absent any form of oversight or serious consequences, disaster will occur when businesses are allowed to police themselves.

Labor movements would be inevitably suppressed with force, and the people forbidden to unionize. It would be opposing the will of the majority of people to benefit the wants of a small, elite group. The same as what happened in communist countries.

In order to maintain ANY political system, force has to be used at some point, against the wishes of some segment of society. It would be no different in a libertarian society, and would therefor ultimately evolve into the same authoritarianism it once opposed. It would inevitably involve denying freedoms to some group in order to benefit others.

If you honestly believe otherwise, you are laughably and childishly naive.

I'm not aware of any libertarians who think we should not have justice system.

Then you are awfully naive. There are many, many libertarians who want to privatize EVERYTHING, including the police and the military. Care to explain to me how, exactly, there is going to be a justice system when it has no power to enforce it, because the police who are necessary to ensure the system works are now privatized? Without the power, the ability to use FORCE to ensure that punishments handed down could be enforced, a justice system in such a society would be a joke. A tiger without a teeth. Simple logic dictates that a justice system is effective only when it has both the desire and the capability to actually punish those who do wrong.

If I threaten to punch your face in, yet am wheelchair bound and paralyzed, you would laugh. The threat only has weight if you have the means to carry it out, which any such justice system would not in a libertarian society.