Why Libertarians Should Be Socialists

[Wraith]

--"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[korn469]

David,

speaking of personal freedom, how far does it extend? Does it cover property rights? If so who enforces those rights and how does society pay for the enforcement of property rights? Does individuals with little or no property to protect have to pay similar percentages of their wages as those who own significant amounts of property?

I personally dislike tresspassing laws. As long as you don't harm somebody's land it, or the people on it then tresspassing seems like trumphed up charges to me.

[yavoon]

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]

If I'm dodging, then your two word posts are nothing but more dodging.

But fine:

Much of the arguments about the morality of Libertarianism in my opinion comes from its pixie dust power.

This should be interesting...

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

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.

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]

Boshko -

Utility makes a lot more sense.

In that it may be more acceptible to the majority, not to morality.

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]

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.

Sure, in an anarchy they might. Libertarianism doesn't equate with anarchy - just ask Ramo if he and I believe the same way

speaking of personal freedom, how far does it extend? Does it cover property rights?

Certainly.

If so who enforces those rights

The courts and the police.

and how does society pay for the enforcement of property rights?

Society doesn't pay anything. Individuals pay user fees. I'll even allow an individual to opt out of paying those user fees, but they shouldn't expect the police or courts to do anything about it if someone robs them.

Does individuals with little or no property to protect have to pay similar percentages of their wages as those who own significant amounts of property?

Certainly. If you implement graduated user fees, then they aren't really user fees anymore, but rather, punitive taxes and government-mandated altruism.

[David Floyd]

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.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sure, in an anarchy they might. Libertarianism doesn't equate with anarchy - just ask Ramo if he and I believe the same way



Certainly.



The courts and the police.



Society doesn't pay anything. Individuals pay user fees. I'll even allow an individual to opt out of paying those user fees, but they shouldn't expect the police or courts to do anything about it if someone robs them.



Certainly. If you implement graduated user fees, then they aren't really user fees anymore, but rather, punitive taxes and government-mandated altruism.

can we pay for different courts and police? or does it have to be the same courts and police w/ the same rules? I mean what if I want to pay for an upgraded court and a ubered police in order to protect me extra good.