Libertarianism seems to be a self-defeating policy

[Mach]

As a modern political movement I think it's intended by many to reduce the current government spending, regulations, and size (all inter-related). That is all.

Trying to take the core philosophy behind it and extrapolate it over time to its ultimate end is absurd, as it turns out. When a company wants to reduce on-job accidents from 5 to maybe 2, they set the goal of 0 accidents. Now, are they magically comitted to spending the near infinite resources it would take to hit ZERO accidents for infinity? No. It's a goal, and they work to get towards it, but reigned-in by the practicality of it. Is it a bad goal to have 0 accidents? No. Is it a bad goal to have government involvement in daily life be absolutely minimal IF the population was responsible enough and mature enough to handle it? No.

The precise line of "how much" and "who specifically draws the line", is a red herring on your part. The answer to that isn't offered by any political entity, it's part of the entire process, and changes over time.

In most issues like this you get a leader, a vision, a direction, and you go. No one, not you, the opposition, or the zealous supporters, know what you'll find when you get there. As long as people continue to work on it as it goes, you're never going to need, want, or get, a 100% completed plan of action. Never have, never will.

IMO you have all good ideological input from liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. It's some combination of the three that makes sense.
Liberals: Life is unfair, but a little effort by the lucky goes an enormous way to help the unlucky. There has to be a check on government power as well as corporate power.
Conservatives: As smart as you are, going too fast too quickly is usually dangerous...ease down junior, at least graduate and get a job before you suggest that we change the status quo. And nothing is relevant if some foreign power smashes us, national security has primacy, like it or not.
Libertarians: People cannot be responsible, rational, compassionate, individuals if you do not treat them as such.

Take any one in a vacuum and it's absurd.

 

[Hoplite]

As a modern political movement I think it's intended by many to reduce the current government spending, regulations, and size (all inter-related). That is all.

Trying to take the core philosophy behind it and extrapolate it over time to its ultimate end is absurd, as it turns out. When a company wants to reduce on-job accidents from 5 to maybe 2, they set the goal of 0 accidents. Now, are they magically comitted to spending the near infinite resources it would take to hit ZERO accidents for infinity? No. It's a goal, and they work to get towards it, but reigned-in by the practicality of it. Is it a bad goal to have 0 accidents? No. Is it a bad goal to have government involvement in daily life be absolutely minimal IF the population was responsible enough and mature enough to handle it? No.

The precise line of "how much" and "who specifically draws the line", is a red herring on your part. The answer to that isn't offered by any political entity, it's part of the entire process, and changes over time.

I think it's a fair question and it's not a hardship to at least have an IDEA of where you want a line to be drawn.

 

[Mach]

I think it's a fair question and it's not a hardship to at least have an IDEA of where you want a line to be drawn.

I understand what you mean, but it's not a fair question in politics.

Let's say a potential candidate declared that she wanted government to be size X, but 10% of the tea party feverishly was thinking it's best around size Y.

The candidate stands to alienate those potential voters/supporters for no practical reason. But both X and Y are a move in the "preferred direction" by most all libertarians. They are much better off, and the candidate is much better off, moving towards both X and Y, and seeing where it ends up.

It's a lose/lose to declare something like that.
Its' a win/win to tell them the direction, general philosophy, and then to seek support and votes.

 

[Hoplite]

I understand what you mean, but it's not a fair question in politics.

Let's say a potential candidate declared that she wanted government to be size X, but 10% of the tea party feverishly was thinking it's best around size Y.

The candidate stands to alienate those potential voters/supporters for no practical reason. But both X and Y are a move in the "preferred direction" by most all libertarians. They are much better off, and the candidate is much better off, moving towards both X and Y, and seeing where it ends up.

It's a lose/lose to declare something like that.
Its' a win/win to tell them the direction, general philosophy, and then to seek support and votes.

I agree, but it helps to have a rough idea where in the alphabet you'd be comfortable with, even if you dont have an exact letter.

For instance, as a Socialist, I'm comfortable with the idea of higher taxes for the top earners in our society, however I feel that an 80-90% tax is too high and our current tax is too low for that group. So I may not have a specific number, but I have a range where I'm comfortable.

Libertarianism doesnt seem to have that. It seems to be basically "We want smaller and more responsible government." Except most Libertarians that I've spoken with and seen on here cant do anything other than cherry-pick specific instances where they personally would make changes. There doesnt seem to be any real mass to the ideology, no codified set of beliefs other than the bumper sticker

 

[Goshin]

I am not a full-fledged libertarian, but I appreciate their ideology and at one time identified with them.


The central principle of (American) libertarianism is expressed thus:

No one should initiate force or fraud against an innocent person.

This is considered the fundamental principle of liberty. Just as you cannot have liberty if there are laws or tyrants controlling most aspects of your life, you cannot have liberty if you are suffering from the unjust initiation of force or fraud all the time. An example of the former would be the old USSR; an example of the latter would be Somalia.

(So no, Somalia is not an example of libertarianism.)

There are various flavors of libertarianism, but free-market Minarchism is probably the most common in America. Minarchism says the proper amount of government is that which is reasonably capable of safeguarding the liberty of the people from force or fraud, and not one iota more.

Libertarian moderates (which some consider a contradiction in terms, but they do exist) may acutally be more common than full-on libertarians. Really I think more people who self-ID as libertarian are LM's. Essentially LM's want to reach some kind of reasonable compromise position between the current overgrown behemoth of government, and the perhaps-ineffectively-too-weak-gov't concept of the Minarchists.

Both want to shrink government. The question, as you aptly noted, is "how far?"

Saying "where is the line drawn" is asking for someone to write you a BOOK in answer, though. "Where is the line drawn in what aspect?" is my response. In environmental regulation? In law enforcement/criminal justice? In regulating food and drugs? In military funding or war? There are a myriad of different aspects that can be addressed, and even addressing the dozen biggest would take pages.

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes.

 

[mpg]

I agree, but it helps to have a rough idea where in the alphabet you'd be comfortable with, even if you dont have an exact letter.

For instance, as a Socialist, I'm comfortable with the idea of higher taxes for the top earners in our society, however I feel that an 80-90% tax is too high and our current tax is too low for that group. So I may not have a specific number, but I have a range where I'm comfortable.

Libertarianism doesnt seem to have that. It seems to be basically "We want smaller and more responsible government." Except most Libertarians that I've spoken with and seen on here cant do anything other than cherry-pick specific instances where they personally would make changes. There doesnt seem to be any real mass to the ideology, no codified set of beliefs other than the bumper sticker

The specifics vary from person to person but the Libertarian Party has a website with a specific platform. Individual libertarians and Libertarians will also give you specific information. First you claimed that we contradict ourselves and then you claimed that we aren't specific enough, but even that isn't true. I'm a libertarian (small l), but I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. IMHO, liberalism and conservatism are philosophies only if you use the term loosely. Libertarianism is most definitely a coherent philosophy and it's easier to define.

 

[Mach]

For instance, as a Socialist, I'm comfortable with the idea of higher taxes for the top earners in our society, however I feel that an 80-90% tax is too high and our current tax is too low for that group. So I may not have a specific number, but I have a range where I'm comfortable.

You may feel the need to know that personally...for yourself.

However, whether you feel that need or not, all you need to know from your representative is:
1. Do they want to raise it or not
2. Do you trust them to represent you
And depending on the competition, you just need to know which side of the competition they stand on.

As to being a "socialist"...really? Are you a student or recent graduate or something?

Except most Libertarians that I've spoken with and seen on here cant do anything other than cherry-pick specific instances where they personally would make changes.r

They aren't legislators, or policy analysts, it's moms and dads and people working 40+ hours while going to school, etc. They are so busy it hurts. They in general know what they want, but getting into specifics is impractical. Let's put it this way.

Is nation in relatively significant debt? Yes

Does the government spend relatively a lot compared to what in theory it could spend? Yes.

Should maybe government you know...spend less to get out of debt? Um, OK, sure.

It's household finance 101. Should they *really* have to know more to vote on trying to get their government out of debt? Arguably, no.

The more specific people attempt to get on most expansive issues like this, the more open they are to being deceived. Keep it simple, get out of debt (the example in this case).

 

[Ikari]

Once you reach a certain size of government though, isnt a small government effectively the same thing as no government?

Take the US before we were the US, when we were still basically a loose confederation and power was spread out among state governments. It was a disaster because the federal government could not wield the power it needed to do it's job and the states had so much power they refused to cooperate.

Nope. Government and no government are two very distinctive and different states. Not all forms of government work, and we found that with the central government needed more power in order to make effective government. But it still wasn't anarchy.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

The problem with human beings is that we're assholes. Selfish, power-hungry assholes. While you need protection from the selfish, power-hungry assholes who mug you in dark alleyways, you also need protection from selfish, power-hungry assholes who enact laws. People say they're frightened of criminals or big business. But criminals aren't particularly numerous (nobody's ever committed a crime against me), and you can always voluntarily choose to not deal with big business. But government needs to be big enough to deal with internal or external threats, and small enough to not itself become an unstoppable threat to freedom. Otherwise, a selfish, power-hungry asshole is capable of using it as a tool to oppress everybody else.

 

[Psychoclown]

This is something I cant help but come back to time and time again.

I cant seem to shake the feeling that Libertarianism is a self-defeating policy. On it's surface, it seems a very self-deterministic, self-driven, self-reliant kind of ideology; Websters defines it as "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action." And that's an interesting belief that I think most of us can get behind, but when I see Libertarianism being used as a political identifier I get a little...antsy.

A repeating facet of Libertarianism is a shrinkage of government to disperse what Libertarians see as a government with too much power and control. Another repeated line is that the government's function is to preserve liberty and protect the rights of individuals. The problem is these are conflicting positions.

If you want someone to protect you, you need to give them the power and authority to do so otherwise they'll be able to do nothing for you. Wanting to have the government in the sort of policeman role is fine, but if you try to take it's ability to enforce the rules and consequences then you'll have an impotent government.

If I'm missing something, let me know. But it seems to me that Libertarianism is a self-defeating policy.

They are not conflicting positions at all. Wanting a small government does not mean wanting no government. Advocating no government is anarchism. Advocating for minimal or small government is libertarianism. At a minimum, libertarians recognize government has a legitimate role in protecting us from others initiating force or fraud against us. Which means even hard core minanarchists recognize the need for military (strictly for self defense), law enforcement, and courts of law. This is generally what is called the big L Libertarianism. Its what the Libertarian Party advocates.

Beyond that, things start to get a little more subjective and you start getting into various stripes of small l libertarianism or moderate libertarianism, which is often defined by the individual. These can include accepting laws that correct market failures (laws that deal with externality costs of pollution or providing infrastructure like roads that generally are not efficiently provided by the private sector), preserve the free market (anti-trust laws), and guarantee that consumers can make informed decisions (truth in advertising, requiring companies to list ingrediants). Some libertarians are also more accepting or tolerant of increased government power at the state and local level, since it provides a sort of free market of ideas where people can move away from communities they find too oppressive or too unregulated.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is something I cant help but come back to time and time again.

I cant seem to shake the feeling that Libertarianism is a self-defeating policy. On it's surface, it seems a very self-deterministic, self-driven, self-reliant kind of ideology; Websters defines it as "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action." And that's an interesting belief that I think most of us can get behind, but when I see Libertarianism being used as a political identifier I get a little...antsy.

A repeating facet of Libertarianism is a shrinkage of government to disperse what Libertarians see as a government with too much power and control. Another repeated line is that the government's function is to preserve liberty and protect the rights of individuals. The problem is these are conflicting positions.

If you want someone to protect you, you need to give them the power and authority to do so otherwise they'll be able to do nothing for you. Wanting to have the government in the sort of policeman role is fine, but if you try to take it's ability to enforce the rules and consequences then you'll have an impotent government.

If I'm missing something, let me know. But it seems to me that Libertarianism is a self-defeating policy.

I don't think libertarianism would be a viable philosophy off paper, but I don't think you are getting it at all. Like any other philosophy, they want to find a balance between what they feel is the necessary functions of government and the general population.

If you look up the concept of lockeian natural rights and positive vs negative rights, the general idea is the preserve those natural rights and keep all rights negative (government/you can't do ... as opposed to government/you must do ...)

 

[Geo Patric]

This is something

A repeating facet of Libertarianism is a shrinkage of government to disperse what Libertarians see as a government with too much power and control. Another repeated line is that the government's function is to preserve liberty and protect the rights of individuals. The problem is these are conflicting positions.

If I'm missing something, let me know. But it seems to me that Libertarianism is a self-defeating policy.

most of the aruments for libertarianism are self-refuting. they want find the cake still on the table when they have already eaten it.

i mean, it had become a joke... "wait a minute... if yer so all fired 'individualistic' why do you gotta a political party, which is anti-individualist by its very nature".

except the joke has lost all of its humor. if autocrat anarchists like Paul Rand ever get any real power, we might well descend into chaos and internecine warfare. we form groups to protect ourselves from the demands of "individuals" who cannot accept that no one's wants and needs are of any greater value that those of every****ingbody else.

it is gonna be a scary decade as the American people begin to realize the antihumanists they have given power to. well, except in California where a only a minority have their heads up their asses this time.

geo.

 

[German guy]

A problem I see with some people who call themselves "libertarian" is that they seem to have a rather selective idea of what "big government" is. A government that redistributes wealth is bad, but a government with a bloated military that engages in all kind of unprovoked preemtive wars isn't. A government that demands too high taxes is bad, but one that engages in extralegal detention, denial of fair trials and torture isn't. Or at least it isn't worth protesting against.

So the main problem I have with the broad variety of people who take this label these days, is not so much with genuine libertarians true to their values, but those who just take this label, without actually knowing what it means. It seems quite a few of them are not really libertarians, but rather fiscal conservatives and Republicans who just like the anti-establishment sound of that word. IMHO.

 

[mpg]

A problem I see with some people who call themselves "libertarian" is that they seem to have a rather selective idea of what "big government" is. A government that redistributes wealth is bad, but a government with a bloated military that engages in all kind of unprovoked preemtive wars isn't. A government that demands too high taxes is bad, but one that engages in extralegal detention, denial of fair trials and torture isn't. Or at least it isn't worth protesting against.

So the main problem I have with the broad variety of people who take this label these days, is not so much with genuine libertarians true to their values, but those who just take this label, without actually knowing what it means. It seems quite a few of them are not really libertarians, but rather fiscal conservatives and Republicans who just like the anti-establishment sound of that word. IMHO.

Are you aware of anyone who fits that description?

 

[German guy]

Are you aware of anyone who fits that description?

I don't remember the details, but I read a critical article on Rand Paul a while back on the libertarian CATO Institute website, and they made good points to explain on which points he is not really libertarian.

But I assume there are better examples. For example, a few people I met on online forums like this one (I don't want to give names), or on another: There is one guy on another forum I visited, who is a strong Tea Party sympathizer, ardent fan of Glenn Beck, who labels everything "socialism" which isn't laissez-faire-conservatism ... but in the end, he just hates Obama, but he has no problem whatsoever with George Bush's presidency, the Patriot Act and policies like extralegal rendition, torture and the wars that were started under this administration. He is the archetype I think of, when I think of a "faux libertarian". He doesn't really hate big government. He just hates a Democrat making big government policies.

In contrast, for example, to the guys at CATO Institute. They are not closet partisan Republicans, but they have been condemning any kind of big government all along, no matter if the President in the White House was named Obama, or Bush.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

EDIT: Irrelevant. Ignore this.

 

[FederalRepublic]

That's a nice slogan, but it doesnt actually answer anything.

Sure it does. Rules are necessary for freedom to exist, as is a mechanism to enforce the rules. Make too many rules and give too much authority to any person or group of people and there won't be any freedom at all. That's not complicated.

 

[Hoplite]

Sure it does. Rules are necessary for freedom to exist, as is a mechanism to enforce the rules. Make too many rules and give too much authority to any person or group of people and there won't be any freedom at all. That's not complicated.

Except you diminish freedom with rules

 

[Goobieman]

A repeating facet of Libertarianism is a shrinkage of government to disperse what Libertarians see as a government with too much power and control. Another repeated line is that the government's function is to preserve liberty and protect the rights of individuals. The problem is these are conflicting positions.

The problem is that the positions do not conflict - government can be made (considerably) smaller by pulling back and even eliminating the parts of it that go beyond the libertarian edict of preserving liberty and protecting the rights of individuals.
:shrug:

 

[haymarket]

They don't advocate a removal of centralised power, they just don't want it to exceed the minimum needed to ensure their rights remain inviolate.

The important word in that sentence being THEIR.

 

[Psychoclown]

Yes, in a world without rules or laws we are absolutely free to do as we wish, even to rape, steal, and murder. However, our neighbors are equally free to do those ghastly things to us. So are we truly free or are we living in a state that will quickly devolve into might makes right? The solution is we give up a portion of our freedom to a collective government in order to preserve our remaining freedoms. So I give up the right to harm others and in return I'm protected from being harmed by others.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The important word in that sentence being THEIR.

You comment seems to insinuate that all other political beliefs are without bias.
I can assure you, they aren't.

 

[majora$$hole]

The problem with human beings is that we're assholes. Selfish, power-hungry assholes. While you need protection from the selfish, power-hungry assholes who mug you in dark alleyways, you also need protection from selfish, power-hungry assholes who enact laws. People say they're frightened of criminals or big business. But criminals aren't particularly numerous (nobody's ever committed a crime against me), and you can always voluntarily choose to not deal with big business. But government needs to be big enough to deal with internal or external threats, and small enough to not itself become an unstoppable threat to freedom. Otherwise, a selfish, power-hungry asshole is capable of using it as a tool to oppress everybody else.

Dark Helmet- "How many a$$holes do we have on this ship, anyway?"

 

[Goobieman]

The important word in that sentence being THEIR.

Whose rights to you think libertarians do not want government to protect, and why do you think that?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Except you diminish freedom with rules

I can't have the freedom to take your life while at the same time you have the right to live.

There is a distinct line between making a rule that says I can't kill you and making a rule that says I have to share my food with you.