• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Libertarianism unrealistic? (1 Viewer)

Are Libertarians unrealistic?


  • Total voters
    86

nothanks700

Member
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
68
Reaction score
21
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.
 
There is many advantages that an organization of force has over an organization that relies on voluntary exchange and cooperation. However, the fact that everything the organization does relies on violence makes it undesirable and something that should be considered by any decent non-violent human being as uncivilized and counter to everything we want in human society.

Regardless, it is true that when the organization of force commands over a people they will likely create a better fighting force, more resources that are able to pooled, and more over reaching protections than a society that has no such organization in place or at the very least has a restrained organization of force in place.

What it really comes down to is how many freedom you want and what risks you are willing to take.
 
Conceptually, no. But translating concept to reality, libertarianism is a complete disaster. It's like communism. It just doesn't work in reality, but no matter how many times you explain that to adherents, no matter how many times you demonstrate it in the real world, they just won't listen because they have a quasi-religious faith that their beliefs just have to be true.
 
If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.
Probably the best government would be the one where everyone in the world did what I told them to do. That would be awesome. It would be the biggest government in history (by far) and therefore the best government in history (by far). By pooling everyone's resources together, I could decide how best to allocate them, rather than continue with the current anarchy where people believe they have some sort of right to eat what they want, live where they want, profit from their own labors, etc.
 
Libertarianism as a political entity is not the ideologically driven Libertarianism you see discussed. If you watch the Libertarian candidate debates you will see a fairly good representation of political Libertarianism. It is based more on reality (though not as much as needed). Yes...there is a need for a government. Just an efficient and streamlined government. Yes...there is a need for public taxes, roads, utilities, etc...just managed at a state and local level.
 
If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Show me a large, uncorrupted, powerful government.

Theoretically, there is much you could use a large government for that would benefit the People. Keeping government on target, however, not so simple. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are limits to what you can do with government not just because there are.many things outside the.abilities/strengths of government but also because a large, unchecked, unregulated government will turn against its people.

This doesn't mean military action or large scale police action against the People, but still ways in which government will act to limit the rights and liberties of the individual. Large government is untrustworthy. Well all government is untrustworthy, but the bigger it is, the greater the potential for harm.

To be sure, government is a necessity. There is no way around that, to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual requires government. But unwatched government, uncontrolled government, unlimited government will act against those very rights and liberties. So we must walk the razor's edge and find how much government we can have, how many and how severe of regulations, oversight, and control we must enact against it.

Libertarianism isn't a default anarchy philosophy. The Democratic Republic better exemplifies the goals of libertarianism in general.
 
Show me a large, uncorrupted, powerful government.

Theoretically, there is much you could use a large government for that would benefit the People. Keeping government on target, however, not so simple. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are limits to what you can do with government not just because there are.many things outside the.abilities/strengths of government but also because a large, unchecked, unregulated government will turn against its people.

This doesn't mean military action or large scale police action against the People, but still ways in which government will act to limit the rights and liberties of the individual. Large government is untrustworthy. Well all government is untrustworthy, but the bigger it is, the greater the potential for harm.

To be sure, government is a necessity. There is no way around that, to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual requires government. But unwatched government, uncontrolled government, unlimited government will act against those very rights and liberties. So we must walk the razor's edge and find how much government we can have, how many and how severe of regulations, oversight, and control we must enact against it.

Libertarianism isn't a default anarchy philosophy. The Democratic Republic better exemplifies the goals of libertarianism in general.
The problem with Libertarian politics is it always devolves into the whackjob drug legalization anarchist rhetoric. We need better candidates and they need to be working on campaigns year round...not just in the last few months of a presidential election year.
 
The problem with Libertarian politics is it always devolves into the whackjob drug legalization anarchist rhetoric. We need better candidates and they need to be working on campaigns year round...not just in the last few months of a presidential election year.

No it doesn't. I think many candidates would talk about the ending of the War on Drugs, but there are many legitimate reasons for that. And it's not to say that all drugs would be legal, it's just that the way it has been handled has been attrocious.

But there's only a few spouting anarchy and certainly none amongst the LP candidates. I think your assertion is a product of selective memory.
 
Conceptually, no. But translating concept to reality, libertarianism is a complete disaster. It's like communism. It just doesn't work in reality, but no matter how many times you explain that to adherents, no matter how many times you demonstrate it in the real world, they just won't listen because they have a quasi-religious faith that their beliefs just have to be true.
This is pretty close to what I was about to say. Conceptually, it's great. Bring it into the the real world, and it falls apart. Why it falls apart is because it completely and willfully ignores human nature. It depends on everybody having the same mindset, and that's simply not realistic. As such, it's only a good "paper theory".
 
No it doesn't. I think many candidates would talk about the ending of the War on Drugs, but there are many legitimate reasons for that. And it's not to say that all drugs would be legal, it's just that the way it has been handled has been attrocious.

But there's only a few spouting anarchy and certainly none amongst the LP candidates. I think your assertion is a product of selective memory.
My assertion is a bi-product of attending Libertarian caucus and coffee gatherings. there were 16 or so announced Libertarian presidential candidates this year. it has come down again to Gary Johnson (a GOP retread who went from an actual legit presidential candidate in 2012 to a tie dyed hipster college presence all in one presidential election). McAfee is kinda out there. Austin Peterson is probably the most authentic Libertarian candidate of the three. But lets not pretend the party doesnt have a long history of Smokey McPotts and Vermin Supremes out there.
 
My assertion is a bi-product of attending Libertarian caucus and coffee gatherings. there were 16 or so announced Libertarian presidential candidates this year. it has come down again to Gary Johnson (a GOP retread who went from an actual legit presidential candidate in 2012 to a tie dyed hipster college presence all in one presidential election). McAfee is kinda out there. Austin Peterson is probably the most authentic Libertarian candidate of the three. But lets not pretend the party doesnt have a long history of Smokey McPotts and Vermin Supremes out there.

There is a significant drug legalization crowd, but that's not the main push of libertarianism. It's a byproduct of it.
 
There is a significant drug legalization crowd, but that's not the main push of libertarianism. It's a byproduct of it.
Just out of curiosity...have you ever been to any party meetings?

I learned early...they arent all that different from the two major parties...except if you listen to the actual rhetoric you would think the party actually has people in...you know...elected governing positions.
2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidates: Where Are They Now? | Independent Political Report

Its just not a very fun ride. Its a shame considering how much impact the message COULD have.
 
Just out of curiosity...have you ever been to any party meetings?

I learned early...they arent all that different from the two major parties...except if you listen to the actual rhetoric you would think the party actually has people in...you know...elected governing positions.
2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidates: Where Are They Now? | Independent Political Report

Its just not a very fun ride. Its a shame considering how much impact the message COULD have.

Yes, I've attended some meetings, done some local volunteering back when I had spare time. I never expected the party structure to be all that dissimilar to the other parties, just a difference in political philosophy. Even when run similarly, third.parties.gain no traction due, in part, with our laws and reporting. So I'm not sure if anything significantly different would do much better.

And even if the LP somehow gained traction and became a major party, there would come a time when it would have to be done away with since over time the powerful parties become corrupted.
 
Yes, I've attended some meetings, done some local volunteering back when I had spare time. I never expected the party structure to be all that dissimilar to the other parties, just a difference in political philosophy. Even when run similarly, third.parties.gain no traction due, in part, with our laws and reporting. So I'm not sure if anything significantly different would do much better.

And even if the LP somehow gained traction and became a major party, there would come a time when it would have to be done away with since over time the powerful parties become corrupted.
I have to say...RJ Harris's experience is what I have seen as a norm on the local and state level. That and their constant tendency to present themselves as a major party protest option. "If you dont like your guys vote for us" isnt quite the same as "vote for effective and efficient government".
 
Yes, I've attended some meetings, done some local volunteering back when I had spare time. I never expected the party structure to be all that dissimilar to the other parties, just a difference in political philosophy. Even when run similarly, third.parties.gain no traction due, in part, with our laws and reporting. So I'm not sure if anything significantly different would do much better.

And even if the LP somehow gained traction and became a major party, there would come a time when it would have to be done away with since over time the powerful parties become corrupted.

No, the real reason they lose, and this has been pointed out many times before, is that the LP has adopted a top-down, not a bottom-up approach. Instead of starting out getting libertarians elected to local and state offices and demonstrating the strength of their ideologies, they have always gone straight for the Presidency with people who have demonstrated no ability to get elected to other high office or implement libertarian policies. They have lost for more than 40 years because of it. If they had started out trying to get libertarian candidates elected as mayor to major American cities, proving that libertarianism works in practice, then getting those successful mayors elected to state governors and proving that libertarianism works at the state level, then taking those successful governors and running them for President, they ignore all of that because, I think deep down, they know that libertarianism just doesn't work in the first place and don't want to have this proven in practice.
 
If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Benevolent Dictatorship was long held to be the best form of government. Of course, those days are gone and one can show that Constitutional Democracy is best under almost all circumstances given the complexity and technological level at present.
 
I have to say...RJ Harris's experience is what I have seen as a norm on the local and state level. That and their constant tendency to present themselves as a major party protest option. "If you dont like your guys vote for us" isnt quite the same as "vote for effective and efficient government".

Perhaps. Particularly because the philosophy is so diverse, I can see some of that being the case. And certainly the propaganda could be better as well. Third parties, however, tend to be composed of the more ideologically driven and contain a higher percentage of the disenfranchised. Just due to the nature of it, most people will try to make due within the Republocrats and only those so sickened or disillusioned bybthe main party are going to look elsewhere.

Should the LP gain traction and members, it's platform with " mellow out" somewhat. And then the barrier to entry is so hardcore (we don't have a "free market" in terms of political competition) that peoepeoe can become rather staunch and engrained in the ideas of how to make inroads that it could possibly turn other potential contributors off.

I think some.of these pressures which inhibit growth can be reduced through a more open political process, but much needs to be addressed bybthe party itself if it holds to succeed. This election cycle has a lot of opportunity for exposure for the LP. I hope they can capitalise on it.
 
Right, left, what kind we talking?

Right-libertarianism is a pretty bad idea, it's also rather cruel.
 
Too many libertarians make the fundamental error of assuming that since one extreme is bad, the other extreme must be good.

Individual and collective responsibilities are not mutually exclusive in a healthy, prosperous society.
 
Its a faux ideology of personal selfishness wrapped in the Halloween costume of axioms and supposedly self evident beliefs. Its all pie-in-the-sky nonsense and since the American people rightly regard the name LIBERTARIAN as a skull and cross bones on the election ballot, that pie is never baked and never tasted and never eaten.

And thats a good thing.
 
Too many libertarians make the fundamental error of assuming that since one extreme is bad, the other extreme must be good.

Individual and collective responsibilities are not mutually exclusive in a healthy, prosperous society.

the biggest impediment to a libertarian government is the amount of Americans that have become addicted to government handouts and are terrified of that public teat drying up
 
the biggest impediment to a libertarian government is the amount of Americans that have become addicted to government handouts and are terrified of that public teat drying up

Thank you for making my point for me.
 
If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

AnarchyforRichPeeps.jpg
 
No, the real reason they lose, and this has been pointed out many times before, is that the LP has adopted a top-down, not a bottom-up approach. Instead of starting out getting libertarians elected to local and state offices and demonstrating the strength of their ideologies, they have always gone straight for the Presidency with people who have demonstrated no ability to get elected to other high office or implement libertarian policies. They have lost for more than 40 years because of it. If they had started out trying to get libertarian candidates elected as mayor to major American cities, proving that libertarianism works in practice, then getting those successful mayors elected to state governors and proving that libertarianism works at the state level, then taking those successful governors and running them for President, they ignore all of that because, I think deep down, they know that libertarianism just doesn't work in the first place and don't want to have this proven in practice.

--Exactly the SAME PROBLEM with the Jill Stein people! WOW!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom