Libertarianism

[Psychoclown]

I just wanted to talk about my thoughts on libertarianism and I figured here would be a good place to do it.

Let me start out by talking a bit about my own transition from conservtism to libertarianism. I started out as a pretty typical American conservative, both fiscally and socially. But I began to think about my social views and how they weren't compatible with my support of small government on the fiscal side of things. It felt hypocritical and arbitrary to say I want government to enforce my moral views in the social arena, but to criticize liberals for wanting government to enforce their moral values in the fiscal arena. I began to think, maybe it would be better to keep government out of the social arena as well. Afterall, a government with the power and authority to enforce my moral vision has the power and authority to enforce a different moral vision. It just was a matter of which moral vision had the most votes at the time. That sort of mob morality frightened me a bit.

So I began to think minimal government in all arenas was a good thing. I also began to look for a more consistent philosophy to view things with. Libertarianism was a good fit. I agreed with Hobbes that in a state of nature we are totally free, but also completely at risk. We are free to murder, rape, steal, and basically do anything our hearts desire, but our neighbors are also free to do so to us. So we invest a portion of our soveriegnty in government in exchange for the preservation of our remaining soveriegnty. In short, we give up the right to harm others in exchange for the guarantee that others are not free to harm us. Government's core purpose is to maintain that guarantee and to preserve and protect our remaining soveriegnty. This is where I disagreed with Hobbes who maintained that once created, government was free to act in anyway it saw fit. I agree with Locke's view that a government that no longer fullfills that core duty is no longer valid and thus may be disposed of through revolution.

From there, I began to be exposed to Objectivist thought and extreme anarcho-capitalism which boiled down libertarianism to one principle. The initation of force is immoral. And this was the first place I found myself disagreeing with libertarianism. I think pre-emptive attacks are completely moral. In fact, I view the global geo-political arena as a Hobbesian state of nature. There is no higher authority that can effectively enforce order or morality, so each state is an individual soveriegn entity free to act in any way that pursues it's own self interest.

Secondly, there was the question of taxation. Even the most extreme libertarians grudgingly admit that government is a neccessary evil. But many extreme libertarians reject the idea of coercive taxation. I've always argued that if you accept government as neccessary, then you implicitly accept that the core functions of government must be adaquetely funded. But many extremists say taxation is backed by force, and therefor is immoral. I've always said the alternatives are far worse. If you have government funded solely by contributions, as some have suggested you'll end up with two problems. First, government is likely going to be chronicly underfunded, meaning we revert back to Hobbes' state of nature where all sorts of immoralities are allowed to happen. Secondly, even if government is adaquetely funded, it is funded by a few generous souls. The rest of the population that doesn't contribute is unfairly reaping the benefits of government without supporting the costs fo it. Others have argued for a sort of pay for the services you use sort of system. But this doesn't work. Ignoring even how impractical that would be for things like law enforcement or national defense, if you can refuse to pay and therefor opt out of the protections of government, you are also no longer bound to respect the rules of that government. So again, we revert back to Hobbes and the dreaded state of nature.

I could go on, but I've had numerous arguments about the morality of taxation. By believing that by accepting government as a neccessity, you also implicitly accept taxation as a neccessity, I've been called a statist. Which I think is pretty laughable when you look at where I stand on the broad spectrum of things. There are other areas where I break with hardcore libertarianism and thus have been called an authoritarian statist by some radicals. I support universal access to education. I support it on purely pragmatic grounds. Look at the explosion in knowledge and innovation over the last two hundred years, which coincide with education becoming more and more accessible. We have more and more minds able to contribute new ideas, new innovations, new inventions, and new theories than every before and we've reaped benefits a thousand times over the costs of accessible education. I could also argued that education provides people with a sense of upward mobility, an ability to control their destiny even if they are starting out from the bottom rungs of society. This helps preserve order and without order there can be no liberty. The same is true for a basic safety net, which I do support on moral grounds but I could make a utilitarian argument that it is helps preserve order and liberty as well. I support anti-trust laws becasue history has shown us how destructive monopolies are to the capitalist system. Without meaningful competition, companies no longer have incentive to provide the best price or the best service.

One that area that I've recently began to rethink is the general idea of government regulations. I believe we are over regulated right now. But in today's world, I think we do need some sort of protections for the consumer. Two hundred years ago, buyer beware might have been sufficient. Most of the products people were buying were simple and the average buyer would have the knowledge to judge their quality on his own. But now it's impossible to be an informed consumer on everything we buy. How can we look at a can of food and know if it was produced under sanitary conditions? How can we look at a car and know if it does or does not have some fatal defect that makes it unsafe to drive? It's impossible. Some folks might have the technical knowledge to make those judgements about a few things, but no one could possibly have the knowledge to make those judgments about all things. So we need some help, some basic guarantees. Government seems to be the best agent to do that.

Though the problem is that once government gets invovled, it can't seem to help itself from getting more involved. If a little government regulation is good, wouldn't more be better? Over regulation has a chilling affect that discourages new entrepenuers from entering the market, which denies society the innovations they might have provided if they were not discouraged. After almost every negative event it is asked, how can we prevent this from happening again? The answer is almost alway more government in one shape or another. But is the cure worse than the disease? Freedom means accepting risk. Minimizing risk means infringing on freedom in some way. I'm OK with not allowing food producers to process their product in unsanitary conditions. I'm not OK with the FDA contemplating a crack down on traditional raw milk cheeses that have been around for centuries. The first is an obvious health risk to the public and one that can not be easily identified by the average consumer. The other is a minimal risk which already requires the product to clearly list raw milk as an ingredient, therefor letting the consumer make an informed decision about whether or not to buy raw milk cheeses. And that's just one example of over regulation in name of safety or reducing risk infringing on choice and freedom.

I apologize for the length and somewhat rambling nature of this post and I'm not really sure what kind of response I'm expecting. I'd be curious to hear from any other moderate or pragmatic libertarians out there. And for non-libertarians where do you disagree with libertarian philosophy? And where do you agree? Is libertarianism wrong or immoral in your mind? Or perhaps just incomplete and focuses only one aspect of the social contract? Is it too rigid or dogmatic? And how would you describe your philosophy of government?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I began to think, maybe it would be better to keep government out of the social arena as well. Afterall, a government with the power and authority to enforce my moral vision has the power and authority to enforce a different moral vision. It just was a matter of which moral vision had the most votes at the time. That sort of mob morality frightened me a bit.

As well it should. "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master." At the same time, the lives we lead are impossible without the power of fire, and I would argue that the same applies to government. I hold no more love for the mob than you do, but I recognize the potential inherent in the power of government and would seek for it to serve my ends.

I agreed with Hobbes that in a state of nature we are totally free, but also completely at risk. We are free to murder, rape, steal, and basically do anything our hearts desire, but our neighbors are also free to do so to us.

I disagree with Hobbes' assessment. We are not naturally solitary; government itself is a part of our state of nature. Government and (for lack of a better word) tyranny are expressions of personal power, and whether man is civilized or savage he relies upon his personal power to either murder, rape, and steal at his whims or to prevent others from doing so. We do not form governments for a purpose, but rather because it is a matter of human instinct to organize ourselves into hierarchies and to establish cultural laws; the fashion of believing that government must serve a purpose is a modern invention, to justify the governments of the era and discourage people from rebelling against them.

This is where I disagreed with Hobbes who maintained that once created, government was free to act in anyway it saw fit. I agree with Locke's view that a government that no longer fullfills that core duty is no longer valid and thus may be disposed of through revolution.

The government is free to act in anyway that it sees fit, just as every person is free to support the government or defy it as suits their purposes. I accept neither of Locke's premises, that the government is only valid when it enforces the social contract, or that the people are obligated to obey any government that does so. Any government that can maintain power is a legitimate government, and any revolution that can overthrow a sitting government is equally legitimate. That governments can uphold order even in the face of horrific abuses of power and humanitarian crises is a testament to the fundamental rightfulness of order and the power of the human instinct toward deference.

I support universal access to education. I support it on purely pragmatic grounds.

This is the issue that marked my first break with Libertarian philosophy.

And for non-libertarians where do you disagree with libertarian philosophy? And where do you agree? Is libertarianism wrong or immoral in your mind? Or perhaps just incomplete and focuses only one aspect of the social contract? Is it too rigid or dogmatic? And how would you describe your philosophy of government?

I disagree primarily with the most fundamental premise of libertarian philosophy, that the initiation of force is immoral. As my signature indicates, I believe that the basis of all morality is duty, and thus the measure of any action is the consequences for those to whom I am duty bound; that which improves the lives of my family and my nation is automatically moral, no matter how many people I've had to hurt in the process. (Of course, those I've harmed may wish to take revenge, which is a consequence I must take into account when plotting.) I consider libertarian philosophy to be immoral only to the extent that it is individualistic and neglects the concept of duty and obligation to one's family and nation; I cannot consider libertarian politics to be immoral, because most libertarians believe whole-heartedly that their policies are the best path to national well-being.

My philosophy of government is deeply rooted in nationalism. A child is born an individual, but cannot survive unless it becomes a part of a family. A group of families forms a clan, a group of clans forms a tribe, and a group of tribes forms a nation; the obligation between members of a nation is fundamentally of the same kind as the obligation between members of a family, if not of the same strength. Government itself is merely the expression of national will, the unifying principle of the people that maintains order and seeks progress; the people owe obedience to their government for the same reason that children owe obligation to their father, and likewise governments and fathers owe protection, support, and moral guidance in return. This is the fundamental order of society and to seek to overturn it is madness.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I absolutely agree with Kori on a few point. The concept of government is inherent in the nature of man and keeping it at arms length is not inherent. One of my problems with the libertarian philosophy is the odd way in which it tries to point out human nature, which is situationally (if we are alone, then we can do all these things), rather than through simple scientific observation of behavior and science such as psychology and anthropology, which ultimately gives us much more insight into what and who we are. It essentially excludes any real knowledge we have gained over the last two or three hundred years in favor of a philosophy (which is a fancy word for speculation).

The application of the idea of the libertarian idea of natural rights is actually quite alien to the human experience and has only come about now that we are wealthy enough of a society to waste time on such pursuits over things that really matter to our survival.

 

[Psychoclown]

As well it should. "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master." At the same time, the lives we lead are impossible without the power of fire, and I would argue that the same applies to government. I hold no more love for the mob than you do, but I recognize the potential inherent in the power of government and would seek for it to serve my ends.

First off, thanks for responding. While we have completely different outlooks, I always enjoy your posts. They are refreshingly honest and alway throught provoking, even if I disagree with every word of them.

Your view strikes me as completely utilitarian. You dislike the mob just as much as I do, but instead of seeking to limit them by limiting what they can achieve through government, you say I'll use government to not only to circumvent the mob, but shape and mold the mob into something acceptable. I'm just not sure that is an achievable goal.

I disagree with Hobbes' assessment. We are not naturally solitary; government itself is a part of our state of nature. Government and (for lack of a better word) tyranny are expressions of personal power, and whether man is civilized or savage he relies upon his personal power to either murder, rape, and steal at his whims or to prevent others from doing so. We do not form governments for a purpose, but rather because it is a matter of human instinct to organize ourselves into hierarchies and to establish cultural laws; the fashion of believing that government must serve a purpose is a modern invention, to justify the governments of the era and discourage people from rebelling against them.

I agree we are not solitary creatures. There is a very basic human instinct and drive to create hiearchies. But question then becomes why? What purpose does this instinct serve? Hobbes' state of nature probably never really existed, but it serves to answer the philospical question of why we create governments. Order is preferrable to chaos. There can be no freedom, no productivity, no safety without order.

Government does serve a purpose. Just because we have an instinctive drive towards something doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. We have an instinctive sex drive, but it serves a purpose of reproducing the species. Our drive to create societies and governments is no different. It serves the purpose of providing order and protects us from chaos and anarchy. Why do we desire this protection? Obviously order provides safety and security. But it also allows freedom to flourish. There can be no lasting freedom without order, as demonstrated by Hobbes' theoretical state of nature.

Libertarians recognize that government is necessary. That makes us distinct from anarchists. We also recognize that governments can be cruel, arbitrary, and corrupt. They can be as savage and brutal as the chaos they serve to protect us from. It may be that initially as humans spent most of their time on a day to day struggle to surivive, we were willing to accept these excesses in return for the security government provided through order. But that is no longer the case. The concept of government has been and will continue to be refined.

I disagree primarily with the most fundamental premise of libertarian philosophy, that the initiation of force is immoral. As my signature indicates, I believe that the basis of all morality is duty, and thus the measure of any action is the consequences for those to whom I am duty bound; that which improves the lives of my family and my nation is automatically moral, no matter how many people I've had to hurt in the process. (Of course, those I've harmed may wish to take revenge, which is a consequence I must take into account when plotting.) I consider libertarian philosophy to be immoral only to the extent that it is individualistic and neglects the concept of duty and obligation to one's family and nation; I cannot consider libertarian politics to be immoral, because most libertarians believe whole-heartedly that their policies are the best path to national well-being.

My philosophy of government is deeply rooted in nationalism. A child is born an individual, but cannot survive unless it becomes a part of a family. A group of families forms a clan, a group of clans forms a tribe, and a group of tribes forms a nation; the obligation between members of a nation is fundamentally of the same kind as the obligation between members of a family, if not of the same strength. Government itself is merely the expression of national will, the unifying principle of the people that maintains order and seeks progress; the people owe obedience to their government for the same reason that children owe obligation to their father, and likewise governments and fathers owe protection, support, and moral guidance in return. This is the fundamental order of society and to seek to overturn it is madness.

You say libertarianism rejects the natural human drive for order. I disagree. But your philosophy rejects the natural human drive towards justice. Jesus Christ stated the Golden Rule over two thousand years ago, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And the concept is even older than that. Now justice has been imperfectly implemented throughout the ages. Sometimes reserved only for certain groups, but a some sense of justice has almost always been seen in the laws of government.

Under your philosophy, might is the only thing that makes right. The desire for gain and the power to act upon those desires are the only justifcations necessary. This sounds very much like Hobbes' state of nature, except for you it is a state that exists between groups of people and not individuals. Which is why I think we can occassionally find common ground on issues relating to international politics.

I probably have more to say. But I do have to get going for now. I'll be looking forward to response and we can go from there.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

First off, thanks for responding. While we have completely different outlooks, I always enjoy your posts. They are refreshingly honest and alway throught provoking, even if I disagree with every word of them.

You're too kind. :kitty:

Your view strikes me as completely utilitarian. You dislike the mob just as much as I do, but instead of seeking to limit them by limiting what they can achieve through government, you say I'll use government to not only to circumvent the mob, but shape and mold the mob into something acceptable. I'm just not sure that is an achievable goal.

It is a difficult goal, to be certain, and one that requires many generations' worth of planning. It cannot be accomplished overnight. But the human animal is adaptable, and placed within an environment that demands certain virtues to prosper, it will learn to display those virtues and over time assume them. Most utopias fail because they are based on rejecting the human need for dominance and hierarchy; you cannot quiet this drive, but you can channel it into desirable ends. Government is the most powerful tool for social control, but it derives its power from the mob and must take care not to incur their wrath. Slowly, and cautiously, it can shape the character of the people as long as it is itself never too far removed from their values.

I agree we are not solitary creatures. There is a very basic human instinct and drive to create hiearchies. But question then becomes why? What purpose does this instinct serve? Hobbes' state of nature probably never really existed, but it serves to answer the philospical question of why we create governments. Order is preferrable to chaos. There can be no freedom, no productivity, no safety without order.

Government does serve a purpose. Just because we have an instinctive drive towards something doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. We have an instinctive sex drive, but it serves a purpose of reproducing the species. Our drive to create societies and governments is no different. It serves the purpose of providing order and protects us from chaos and anarchy. Why do we desire this protection? Obviously order provides safety and security. But it also allows freedom to flourish. There can be no lasting freedom without order, as demonstrated by Hobbes' theoretical state of nature.

Can order and hierarchy not be ends of themselves? The human animal seeks dominance to enjoy comfort and to spread its genes; the human animal defers to more dominant members of the species to ensure its survival and to enjoy the benefits of being favored by those in power. Freedom doesn't really enter into it, except as an expression of power. The power to protect one's own freedom is no different than the power to oppress others, and if you will pardon me for saying so, the urge for freedom is essentially the reaction of a frustrated will to power. It is what happens when a person despairs of being able to influence others, and loses faith in their own vision of how the world should operate, so they leave the fate of others to the world itself and seek only the power to free themselves.

The purpose of hierarchy is to protect those at the top and enforce their will upon those below. Every human being instinctively tries to rise to the top, just as they instinctively understand their place in the hierarchy and do not challenge those they know they cannot defeat.

You say libertarianism rejects the natural human drive for order. I disagree. But your philosophy rejects the natural human drive towards justice. Jesus Christ stated the Golden Rule over two thousand years ago, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And the concept is even older than that. Now justice has been imperfectly implemented throughout the ages. Sometimes reserved only for certain groups, but a some sense of justice has almost always been seen in the laws of government.

Under your philosophy, might is the only thing that makes right. The desire for gain and the power to act upon those desires are the only justifcations necessary. This sounds very much like Hobbes' state of nature, except for you it is a state that exists between groups of people and not individuals. Which is why I think we can occassionally find common ground on issues relating to international politics.

Yes, you could say that I neglect justice in my worldview. It's a fair observation. But justice descends upon the people from above, in the form of the sovereign's will, and only applies to people with whom one feels a kinship. Justice exists between members of the same group, and can be disregarded without consequence when dealing with outsiders. This is the basis of nationalism. This is, as you say, the state of nature. The reason that things are different within the group is that the members of the group are the source of one's power; a person cannot have meaningful power without the support and devotion of other people. As long as your justifications are good enough for the people that support you, as long as they are good enough to maintain your power in the world, your power and your will to wield it is all that matters.

 

[Psychoclown]

First off, sorry I haven't replied. I was enjoying our conversation, but life got a little hectic for a while. My dad was hospitalized and had major surgery, but he's OK now and just got home a few days ago. So I thought we could pick back up.

Can order and hierarchy not be ends of themselves? The human animal seeks dominance to enjoy comfort and to spread its genes; the human animal defers to more dominant members of the species to ensure its survival and to enjoy the benefits of being favored by those in power. Freedom doesn't really enter into it, except as an expression of power. The power to protect one's own freedom is no different than the power to oppress others, and if you will pardon me for saying so, the urge for freedom is essentially the reaction of a frustrated will to power. It is what happens when a person despairs of being able to influence others, and loses faith in their own vision of how the world should operate, so they leave the fate of others to the world itself and seek only the power to free themselves.

Interesting theory on the urge for freedom. I obviously disagree. Personally, I have complete faith my vision of morality and personal ethics, I just don't seek to impose it on others. Partly because, yes I want the same courtesy extended to me, but also because I don't believe imposed morality is really morality. It only forces immorality underground, making it harder to deal with and confront.

Yes, you could say that I neglect justice in my worldview. It's a fair observation. But justice descends upon the people from above, in the form of the sovereign's will, and only applies to people with whom one feels a kinship. Justice exists between members of the same group, and can be disregarded without consequence when dealing with outsiders. This is the basis of nationalism. This is, as you say, the state of nature. The reason that things are different within the group is that the members of the group are the source of one's power; a person cannot have meaningful power without the support and devotion of other people. As long as your justifications are good enough for the people that support you, as long as they are good enough to maintain your power in the world, your power and your will to wield it is all that matters.

Interesting. Justice for you is only a tool to maintain one's power, not a virtue to be persued for it's own sake. Very utilitarian.

I'm about to veer off topic and start asking you about your beliefs, but its been something I've been wanting to discuss with you for some time. In your ideal vision, how would government handle the transition of power from one individual (or group of individuals) to another? And how would a fascist government deal with removing a corrupt or incompetent leader? It seems to me, with virtually unlimited power at their finger tips, it would be very difficult to remove such a leader once they claimed power. Bloody revolution seems to be the only realistic solution, and revolutions tend to weaken and destablize nations, thus undermining the entire purpose of government in your mind.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Interesting theory on the urge for freedom. I obviously disagree. Personally, I have complete faith my vision of morality and personal ethics, I just don't seek to impose it on others. Partly because, yes I want the same courtesy extended to me, but also because I don't believe imposed morality is really morality. It only forces immorality underground, making it harder to deal with and confront.

That's a key point. Forcing immorality underground means forcing it out of the public sphere, where its impact is limited. Immorality destroys families, but it can only harm those whom have been touched by it; public immorality, commercialized immorality, touches everyone. It takes far less virtue to resist a temptation one has never been exposed to.

I'm about to veer off topic and start asking you about your beliefs, but its been something I've been wanting to discuss with you for some time. In your ideal vision, how would government handle the transition of power from one individual (or group of individuals) to another? And how would a fascist government deal with removing a corrupt or incompetent leader? It seems to me, with virtually unlimited power at their finger tips, it would be very difficult to remove such a leader once they claimed power. Bloody revolution seems to be the only realistic solution, and revolutions tend to weaken and destablize nations, thus undermining the entire purpose of government in your mind.

Ideally, the transition of power would be an orderly process because it is not a transition between enemies or rivals, but between a popular and effective leader and his chosen successor. The leader knows that his time must come to an end eventually, and has prepared for this through the years, and he leaves his legacy in the hands of someone he knows will continue to uphold it. The officials who showed loyalty to the leader will continue to show loyalty because they know the successor was hand-picked for merit and reflects the same qualities that earned their loyalty in the first place. Because the line of authority is never interrupted, the people continue to follow the new leader as they did the old leader.

In a less than ideal world, autocratic leaders seem to suffer from the delusion that they will never die or reach their dotage, or simply do not care whether what they have built will continue after they have passed. In a less than ideal world, a reviled leader hands the reins over to an incompetent underling. In a less than ideal world, the leader is so corrupt that allowing him to continue is more dangerous than replacing him. In these cases, it is essential that there are viable alternatives to the leader, other accomplished politicians who command enough personal loyalty to seize control. There is a difference between a well-executed coup d'etat and a revolution, and that is backing. As long as the government itself enjoys the loyalty and trust of the people, the people will accept a change in leadership.

My framework necessitates the occasional revolution, and I acknowledge that revolutions undermine the stability of nations. Some instability is necessary to maintain the process of evolution. And, I would argue, the instability of periodic revolutions when the government has failed to serve the people is a smaller price to pay than the instability of a democratic republic that replaces its leadership every few years whether it is necessary or not.

 

[Andalublue]

This is an interesting thread and apparently one balancing the diametric opposites in ideological terms; libertarianism against authoritarianism. On the surface it would appear that the two of you have little in common. The minarchist concerned with limiting government and the State to the role of security guard. I know that you are not a typical Lib. Psychoclown, as you see a role for taxation and some social security function for government too, but most Right Libertarians/Anarcho-capitalists think that is, as you reported, statism. The fascist who, as pointed out, sees the State as a semi-mythical entity - the expression of the collective will of the Nation. Morality is purely a question of tribal imperative, self-interest writ large and an exaggerated emphasis on otherness, on us vs. them, on the fundamental inevitability of conflict and the rightness of the application of coercion in the pursuance of that self-interest.

So far, so different. I'd like to suggest however that the two positions are not so far apart in the economic arena. Whilst I suspect you might disagree on the issue of syndicalism, I suspect you both would reject in resounding terms the idea of economic equality. You both use some terminology that echoes the arena of natural sciences. You both refer to the Hobbesian 'State of Nature', Kori goes further, "it is a matter of human instinct to organize ourselves into hierarchies and to establish cultural laws". I would be interested to see some of the anthropological studies that support the 'natural-ness' of heirarchies or indeed the nature of those natural heirarchies. I believe there are plenty of studies of primitive societies, providing a window on the behaviours of our ancestors in pre-historic 'natural' states of organisation which show truly remarkable levels of social equality that make the industrial and post-industrial societies that operate the greater level of egalitarian politics seem like autocracies.

Clearly, all human societies have exhibited and do exhibit elements of social inequality but the nature of those inequalities are not 'natural' nor are they consistent across all models of social evolution. There are two key sources of social inequality: achieved and ascribed status. An egalitarian society exhibits the former and specifically rejects the latter. I think that despite your differences, both libertarians and fascists would accept the validity of ascribed status (inherited wealth, dynastic power, preferential treatment for certain groups such as 'natives') in stratifying society. Given that not all societies have exhibited the acceptance of ascribed status, I'd argue that there's nothing natural about it at all, and hence a utopian idea of a future society may reject any objection to egalitarianism based on its 'unnatural' nature.

I also reject the idea that the nation state is in any way a 'natural' level of social organisation. It is just one more level that happens to have attained a particular status in the industrial era. It is also one that is rapidly becoming irrelevant due to globalised capitalism and communications technology. I would argue that the varying building blocks of political organisation that happen to be pre-eminent in a given epoch are incidental, not natural. Individuals, families, and communities should therefore be free to decide at which level of organisation they wish to associate. As an anti-capitalist libertarian, or an anarcho-communist if you prefer, I would argue in favour of devolving decision-making functions to smaller units of social organisation. Higher levels of organisation may have a role to play in the provision of higher specialised functions (military, higher education, research and development) but day-to-day decision-making and authority retains its greatest degree of acceptance and higher levels of participation and legitimacy the closer they are exerted to the grass-roots.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Clearly, all human societies have exhibited and do exhibit elements of social inequality but the nature of those inequalities are not 'natural' nor are they consistent across all models of social evolution.

Just so. I would argue that the heightened social inequality of the modern era is a product of two factors: the size of society, necessitating more levels of organizational authority, and an economic model that is fundamentally incompatible with a post-scarcity industrial base. One cannot be helped, and the other must be approached extremely cautiously.

There are two key sources of social inequality: achieved and ascribed status. An egalitarian society exhibits the former and specifically rejects the latter. I think that despite your differences, both libertarians and fascists would accept the validity of ascribed status (inherited wealth, dynastic power, preferential treatment for certain groups such as 'natives') in stratifying society. Given that not all societies have exhibited the acceptance of ascribed status, I'd argue that there's nothing natural about it at all, and hence a utopian idea of a future society may reject any objection to egalitarianism based on its 'unnatural' nature.

I take a dim view of ascribed status, to be honest. I support immigration controls bordering on outright xenophobia, but I think anyone worthy enough to join our nation is worthy enough to take everything that belongs to him. The subtlest and most insidious form of aristocratic privilege is access to educational and occupational opportunities that cannot be earned by merit, and I absolutely believe that this system must be torn down in favor of a system in which every child earns their opportunities. The culture surrounding our institutions of learning-- from grade school through university-- is a cancer that must be excised for the health of the nation.

I also reject the idea that the nation state is in any way a 'natural' level of social organisation. It is just one more level that happens to have attained a particular status in the industrial era. It is also one that is rapidly becoming irrelevant due to globalised capitalism and communications technology.

I can hardly call this a good thing. I doubt you'd be hard pressed to, yourself, given the corporate encroachment on the traditional privileges of family and government. We might argue about the value of the nation-state, but I think we can agree that its imminent replacement is far worse.

 

[Andalublue]

Just so. I would argue that the heightened social inequality of the modern era is a product of two factors: the size of society, necessitating more levels of organizational authority, and an economic model that is fundamentally incompatible with a post-scarcity industrial base. One cannot be helped, and the other must be approached extremely cautiously.

Yes, I agree with that analysis. I would add that the current hegemonic economic system is not the only element of society that is incompatible with the modern situation. (I'd stop short of describing the modern world as being post-scarcity. I look at levels of society where there is much, much scarcity. At a global level and at a community level even in the richest of nations, scarcity is a reality. This is a perfect example of the way in which an over-emphasis on the nation state obfuscates reality in the modern world.) Conservative, Abrahamic social attitudes, which pre-date the hegemony of liberal capitalism, pre-suppose heirarchical forms of social organisation.

I take a dim view of ascribed status, to be honest. I support immigration controls bordering on outright xenophobia, but I think anyone worthy enough to join our nation is worthy enough to take everything that belongs to him. The subtlest and most insidious form of aristocratic privilege is access to educational and occupational opportunities that cannot be earned by merit, and I absolutely believe that this system must be torn down in favor of a system in which every child earns their opportunities. The culture surrounding our institutions of learning-- from grade school through university-- is a cancer that must be excised for the health of the nation.

One of the greatest tricks the current hegemonic system has pulled on society at large is to convince everyone that modern, Western civilisation is a collection of meritocracies. I'm afraid that the myth of the American dream is a classic example of this. The fact that some people from modest backgrounds can achieve high status are the exceptions to the rule that social mobility is in terrible and rapid decline. And the US is one of, if not THE best examples of nations with high rates of social mobility. If the best is in terrible decline, how do you think the lesser states are doing? Even that bastion of liberal capitalism, The Economist is alarmed. Talking about the inexorable rise of a new, global elite:

At heart, this is a meritocratic process; but not always. Rules and institutions are often rigged in ways that limit competition and favour insiders at the expense both of growth and equality. The rules can be blatantly unfair: witness China’s limits to migration, which keep the poor in the countryside. Or they can involve more subtle distortions: look at the way that powerful teachers’ unions have stopped poorer Americans getting a good education, or the implicit “too big to fail” system that encouraged bankers to be reckless and left the rest with the tab.

I can hardly call this a good thing. I doubt you'd be hard pressed to, yourself, given the corporate encroachment on the traditional privileges of family and government. We might argue about the value of the nation-state, but I think we can agree that its imminent replacement is far worse.

Yes, I would certainly see the expansion of the power of essentially undemocratic, irresponsible multinational corporations as something devoutly NOT to be wished. I see the rapid expansion of instant, global communications as a potential check to that. We can organise, debate and exchange information in a way that potenially allows resistance to be as multinational as the forces of repression. Personally, however, I would shed no tears for the decline of the nation state if that decline was shadowed by the rise in importance and influence of low-level, grass roots, political units.

 

[VanceMack]

What exactly are you referring to when you talk about social inequities? I think far more often than commonly believed, social inequality comes from a libertarian perspective where people are free to choose to succeed or fail based on their (or their parents) choices. I do think that in some cultures status is prescribed, but success is not. Unless there are intentional barriers, society owes nothing more than opportunity.

 

[VanceMack]

Every time there is a thread on 'Libertarianism' I have this overwhelming urge to join a support group. Hi...Im Vance...and I'm a Libertarian.

The thing is...Im not. Im conservative. I believe that some government rule and intervention is needed and in fact desireable. I believe in letting the states decide on legalization of drugs and am for legalizing marijuana but opposed to legalizing 'hard' drugs. I believe the best candidates for office have more going for them than dreadlocks and hemp shirts. I believe a political party that has existed for more than a few decades should have at least SOME representation to show for it or they have proven that they havent learned very much. My most greivous sin...I cannot recite the words of Locke and other famed 'Libertarians.' I am not a 'real' Libertarian.

Anymore...Im reaching the point where Im disgusted by politics in general. I left the republican party because I dont think they are any better than democrats. They arent interested in doing good by the American public...more interested in party and power than people. The concept of fiscal conservatism is lost on them as it is on any other.

I laugh at those that spend so much time worrying about 'Libertarians.' To me it says far more about their own insecurities and party than it does about my lose political affiliation.

Im not sure what any of this 'makes' me with regard to political affiliation. I am for a streamlined and smaller federal government. I am for defense. I am a fiscal conservative. I am for responsible government. I am for clean air and water and understand that we should work towards green power development but that until we find that magical fuel source we must for the most part rely on fossil fuels. I think we should harvest those fuels as carefully as possible and burn them as clean as possible. I am against abortion but think the right should exist. I am for welfare, unemployment, and healthcare reform, but at the state level. I believe individuals should be the primary provider of social services. I believe in personal responsibility.

Anyone interested in starting a new party? Because apparently Im not a Republican, Democrat, or a Libertarian.

 

[Andalublue]

What exactly are you referring to when you talk about social inequities? I think far more often than commonly believed, social inequality comes from a libertarian perspective where people are free to choose to succeed or fail based on their (or their parents) choices. I do think that in some cultures status is prescribed, but success is not. Unless there are intentional barriers, society owes nothing more than opportunity.

I think you began to answer your own question. I was referring to inequality, btw, not inequity. I do think there are problems of injustice inherent in capitalism, but that's a different debate.

You say, "unless there are intentional barriers" having alluded to those barriers in mentioning parental choices. I would say that inherited wealth and privilege, or lack of such, are precisely those barriers. I agree that society owes opportunities, but on a level playing field that is not affected by whether daddy contributes to the school, whether mommy's family runs the corporation, whether grammy's millions provided the seed corn. Although I generally go further than simply calling for equality of opportunity, it seems a truism that "no equality of opportunity, no liberty". If you are not free to compete and excel because of the unfair competitive advantages of others, then you are not free.

 

[Andalublue]

Every time there is a thread on 'Libertarianism' I have this overwhelming urge to join a support group. Hi...Im Vance...and I'm a Libertarian.

The thing is...Im not. Im conservative. I believe that some government rule and intervention is needed and in fact desireable. I believe in letting the states decide on legalization of drugs and am for legalizing marijuana but opposed to legalizing 'hard' drugs. I believe the best candidates for office have more going for them than dreadlocks and hemp shirts. I believe a political party that has existed for more than a few decades should have at least SOME representation to show for it or they have proven that they havent learned very much. My most greivous sin...I cannot recite the words of Locke and other famed 'Libertarians.' I am not a 'real' Libertarian.

Anymore...Im reaching the point where Im disgusted by politics in general. I left the republican party because I dont think they are any better than democrats. They arent interested in doing good by the American public...more interested in party and power than people. The concept of fiscal conservatism is lost on them as it is on any other.

I laugh at those that spend so much time worrying about 'Libertarians.' To me it says far more about their own insecurities and party than it does about my lose political affiliation.

Im not sure what any of this 'makes' me with regard to political affiliation. I am for a streamlined and smaller federal government. I am for defense. I am a fiscal conservative. I am for responsible government. I am for clean air and water and understand that we should work towards green power development but that until we find that magical fuel source we must for the most part rely on fossil fuels. I think we should harvest those fuels as carefully as possible and burn them as clean as possible. I am against abortion but think the right should exist. I am for welfare, unemployment, and healthcare reform, but at the state level. I believe individuals should be the primary provider of social services. I believe in personal responsibility.

Anyone interested in starting a new party? Because apparently Im not a Republican, Democrat, or a Libertarian.

Yes, you do seem to have a few contradictory positions. I guess that just means you have to work harder at election time to find out the specific positions of all the candidates. I share your disgust at modern party politics. I always used to vote Labour. They lost every election from when I turned 18 until I was 35. Then they won and they screwed over every person they were supposed to finally have won for. I left them. Then I voted Liberal Democrat. This year they got in and began to screw over their core supporters in the same way in order to maintain a coalition with a party I never have and never would vote for. So, basically, I feel disconnected too. Here, in local and European elections, I have voted for parties I believe in, but the chance of them winning is zero. What are you to do?

I tend to think that in such circumstances you simply find something you can do and can effect without putting your soul in hock with the devils you both know and don't know, and do what you can away from party politics. When voting time comes, take a view on which one will screw you over the least and go with that whilst applying firm digital pressure to seal your nostrils.

 

[VanceMack]

I think you began to answer your own question. I was referring to inequality, btw, not inequity. I do think there are problems of injustice inherent in capitalism, but that's a different debate.

You say, "unless there are intentional barriers" having alluded to those barriers in mentioning parental choices. I would say that inherited wealth and privilege, or lack of such, are precisely those barriers. I agree that society owes opportunities, but on a level playing field that is not affected by whether daddy contributes to the school, whether mommy's family runs the corporation, whether grammy's millions provided the seed corn. Although I generally go further than simply calling for equality of opportunity, it seems a truism that "no equality of opportunity, no liberty". If you are not free to compete and excel because of the unfair competitive advantages of others, then you are not free.

My own father had the "you make it on your own from the ground up and i do nothing for you" mindset. i suppose that would equate to an equal playing field, but the reality is that there is no such thing. Even if we all started on equal footing, within three generations there would be a radical difference in levels of success, with each generationreaping the rewards or consequences of their predecessors. How do we press the magical and mythical 'reset' button? (Thats not meant as a sarcastic comment...its meant seriously)

 

[VanceMack]

Yes, you do seem to have a few contradictory positions. I guess that just means you have to work harder at election time to find out the specific positions of all the candidates. I share your disgust at modern party politics. I always used to vote Labour. They lost every election from when I turned 18 until I was 35. Then they won and they screwed over every person they were supposed to finally have won for. I left them. Then I voted Liberal Democrat. This year they got in and began to screw over their core supporters in the same way in order to maintain a coalition with a party I never have and never would vote for. So, basically, I feel disconnected too. Here, in local and European elections, I have voted for parties I believe in, but the chance of them winning is zero. What are you to do?

I tend to think that in such circumstances you simply find something you can do and can effect without putting your soul in hock with the devils you both know and don't know, and do what you can away from party politics. When voting time comes, take a view on which one will screw you over the least and go with that whilst applying firm digital pressure to seal your nostrils.

I often use the quote "voting Libertarian is like peeing your pants in a dark suit. No one really notices. At first you get a warm feeling, then cold and clammy with a slight tinge of shame." But then...to me thats a better option than voting for the other parties. And at least by bothering to take the time to vote you have earned the right to bitch and complain a little bit.

Talk about an arena that needs a massive 'reset' button...

 

[Andalublue]

My own father had the "you make it on your own from the ground up and i do nothing for you" mindset. i suppose that would equate to an equal playing field, but the reality is that there is no such thing. Even if we all started on equal footing, within three generations there would be a radical difference in levels of success, with each generationreaping the rewards or consequences of their predecessors. How do we press the magical and mythical 'reset' button? (Thats not meant as a sarcastic comment...its meant seriously)

Well, the whole hereditary instinct that many people believe to be innate, was once far, far more dominant a factor in social stratification. Clearly it is not a constant nor a uniform instinct. It changes over time and can change further in the future. Those who would argue that it is a natural human instinct to seek to pass on the wealth, status, opportunities and privileges accumulated from one family generation to another are ascribing to nature what I would argue is totally socially constructed.

Most nation states at one time or another were ruled by dynasties of hereditary monarchs. Some still are. Some pass on political power or commercial power strictly within the confines of family. Many places have abolished such practices. I'd argue that such abolition has to reach down and throughout society such that accumulated private wealth, the benefits of merit and achievement, at death reverts to the commonwealth rather than the immediate kin.

In order to achieve acceptance for such a system we have to create a vastly stronger communitarian feeling such that everyone recognises the direct benefit of such a policy to their close-knit community, not just to their blood-kin.

The seemingly inexorable trend towards individualism has to be arrested. That's my real problem with right libertarianism. It appears to me to be arguing for the sovereignty of the individual to the exclusion of all personal responsability towards the community and wider society. To my mind, if you argue for radically smaller government you accept that the responsabilities for the care of your fellow citizens who need that care falls more heavily on the citizen and the community, not less.

 

[VanceMack]

Well, the whole hereditary instinct that many people believe to be innate, was once far, far more dominant a factor in social stratification. Clearly it is not a constant nor a uniform instinct. It changes over time and can change further in the future. Those who would argue that it is a natural human instinct to seek to pass on the wealth, status, opportunities and privileges accumulated from one family generation to another are ascribing to nature what I would argue is totally socially constructed.

Most nation states at one time or another were ruled by dynasties of hereditary monarchs. Some still are. Some pass on political power or commercial power strictly within the confines of family. Many places have abolished such practices. I'd argue that such abolition has to reach down and throughout society such that accumulated private wealth, the benefits of merit and achievement, at death reverts to the commonwealth rather than the immediate kin.

In order to achieve acceptance for such a system we have to create a vastly stronger communitarian feeling such that everyone recognises the direct benefit of such a policy to their close-knit community, not just to their blood-kin.

The seemingly inexorable trend towards individualism has to be arrested. That's my real problem with right libertarianism. It appears to me to be arguing for the sovereignty of the individual to the exclusion of all personal responsability towards the community and wider society. To my mind, if you argue for radically smaller government you accept that the responsabilities for the care of your fellow citizens who need that care falls more heavily on the citizen and the community, not less.

So, in not so many words, you believe that when you die everything should revert to the state? I think that philosophy would lead to whole world of problems...extreme hedonism to start with. If you cant take it with you and cant pass it on to your offspring...well...look out world.

As to the last comment...I actually AGREE wholeheartedly and believe that were government less involved that individuals would be MORE involved. I think as a people show a tremendous capacity to care. I think were government is out of the way, that would be more the norm. I also think many individuals should and would be more driven to personal success.

 

[Andalublue]

So, in not so many words, you believe that when you die everything should revert to the state? I think that philosophy would lead to whole world of problems...extreme hedonism to start with. If you cant take it with you and cant pass it on to your offspring...well...look out world.

Not to the state, as we are talking about a society with only a minimal 'state' as such. No, wealth would revert to common ownership. That may be administered at a community or supra-community level at which the individual's offspring would benefit as much as anyone else.

 

[VanceMack]

Not to the state, as we are talking about a society with only a minimal 'state' as such. No, wealth would revert to common ownership. That may be administered at a community or supra-community level at which the individual's offspring would benefit as much as anyone else.

Hmmm...I think we have tried that before...they were called communes...they didnt work out so good...

I think in that perfect world we would all exist for a greater good. Thats a true communist vision.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm libertarian, through and through.
Although I would prefer the term liberal, that isn't how it's understood in the U.S.

I've gone through several political stages to get here, from state socialist -> religious conservatism.
None seemed to fit, none were consistent with what I felt to be true.

I want humanity to evolve, to become more logical, I believe libertarianism is the vehicle to bring about this change.
I think that the individual should be considered sovereign but that the family is the most important unit and where the focus of success emerges from.

In my mind, I think the successful end result of free markets is near stateless communism.
A preferable communism but it has to come about naturally, through the successful development of trade.

Though I don't believe that will happen anytime soon, maybe a couple thousand years.

 

[Andalublue]

Hmmm...I think we have tried that before...they were called communes...they didnt work out so good...

Actually there are plenty of places where this is still being tried. There's a commune four villages away from here. It's existed since the Seventies and although it's not the sort of place I'd like to live (a bit primitive tbh) it does function as a non-heirarchical community of 1,500. There are places like that all over Europe. I'm sure there are plenty in the US.

I think that the individual should be considered sovereign but that the family is the most important unit and where the focus of success emerges from.

I'd argue that that basic unit is the village or community. That was the basic unit in the past and in pre-historical times and whilst that's not a reason for focusing on it, it does demonstrate that people have found it a manageable and natural unit size.

In my mind, I think the successful end result of free markets is near stateless communism.
A preferable communism but it has to come about naturally, through the successful development of trade.

Though I don't believe that will happen anytime soon, maybe a couple thousand years.

I don't believe that Free Trade will happen anytime soon, either. It has never happened and I think that discussion of communism-freet trade is something of a chicken and egg situation. Will we achieve free trade under capitalism? I doubt it.

I think it would take a massive economic crisis - worse even than now - and for the masses to decide that the profiteering, arrogance, and greed of the insatiable capitalist classes has to be ended. It would certainly be violent, the establishment would inevitably mobilise the armed forces to maintain their privilege. I can't really see this happening incrementally and consensually. Rich people do not agree to give up their ill-gotten gains without a fight.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'd argue that that basic unit is the village or community. That was the basic unit in the past and in pre-historical times and whilst that's not a reason for focusing on it, it does demonstrate that people have found it a manageable and natural unit size.

It's just in my experience the success and values of an individual seem to stem from their parents more so than any other group.
When we think about what is the main factor in a child's success at school, it typically comes from the parents involvement and prerogative of how important education is.

I don't believe that Free Trade will happen anytime soon, either. It has never happened and I think that discussion of communism-freet trade is something of a chicken and egg situation. Will we achieve free trade under capitalism? I doubt it.

I think it would take a massive economic crisis - worse even than now - and for the masses to decide that the profiteering, arrogance, and greed of the insatiable capitalist classes has to be ended. It would certainly be violent, the establishment would inevitably mobilise the armed forces to maintain their privilege. I can't really see this happening incrementally and consensually. Rich people do not agree to give up their ill-gotten gains without a fight.

I think you misunderstand me, I think successful capitalistic free trade will finalize as near stateless communism.
The biggest reason, in my opinion, that communism won't work is because of scarcity.

Over time, with continued technological development, we will even see that scarcity can be reduced and/or out right eliminated with capitalistic free trade.
No one has to give up any of their gains for it to happen.

 

[VanceMack]

Actually there are plenty of places where this is still being tried. There's a commune four villages away from here. It's existed since the Seventies and although it's not the sort of place I'd like to live (a bit primitive tbh) it does function as a non-heirarchical community of 1,500. There are places like that all over Europe. I'm sure there are plenty in the US.

Communes always come and go. We havent seen very many pure co-ops that have succeeded long term and prospered. Some find happiness (complacency) but few modernize. And thats fine if thats what they are looking for. Lord knows aint nothing wrong with seeking a simpler way of life...I do it a few dozen times a year myself.

 

[VanceMack]

It's just in my experience the success and values of an individual seem to stem from their parents more so than any other group.
When we think about what is the main factor in a child's success at school, it typically comes from the parents involvement and prerogative of how important education is.

I think you misunderstand me, I think successful capitalistic free trade will finalize as near stateless communism.
The biggest reason, in my opinion, that communism won't work is because of scarcity.

Over time, with continued technological development, we will even see that scarcity can be reduced and/or out right eliminated with capitalistic free trade.
No one has to give up any of their gains for it to happen.

I completely agree about the biggest motivating factor is the drive instilled at the family level. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to work their ass off...succeed...provide for their families...only to have the community absorb the end results when they die.
Sort of leads to the second part...the greatest failing with communist ideals is people and their most base human nature. In a perfect world all citizens would be driven to succeed and elevate themselves to their highest level of competence. unfortunately we see many people take the low road when it comes to work ethic and self reliance. Some do anything to win...some do nothing to win.