Of Liberty and Justice in America.

[Evilroddy]

The cornerstone of libertarianism is the concept that greater liberty produces greater justice. Is this a a sound cornerstone? Does greater liberty produce greater justice?

My take is that greater liberty produces both greater satisfaction and greater risk, the first being a positive impetus towards greater justice and the latter being a dangerous side effect which can produce misery, privation, suffering and thus greater injustice.

A person or business may provide a good or service which offers customers greater material or emotional satisfaction but that person or business can also exploit resources and human beings and harm others or common resources in the production or delivery of that good or service. That good or service may harm consumers despite the satisfaction which it provides them and thus those G&S harm the community. If the personal and institutional morality of the person/business does not align with the ethics (public morality) of the community in which the business exists and operates, then greater liberty can be harmful to the community and each human being in that community, producing greater injustice. Thus there are two competing consequences stemming from greater liberty, one kind being positive and just while the other is negative and unjust.

Therefore any kind of human activity which is operating within a community needs internal controls from the operators and external controls from the community/state which limit certain facets of liberty that produce harmful consequences to the wider community in the name of justice and social harmony. So while some liberties can produce more justice, other liberties can be abused by irresponsible persons to produce greater harm and injustice. Liberty is a double-edged sword and thus must be tempered from within by personal responsibility and morality and must be governed externally by the community ethics and the state.

In the last fifty years in America, corporate capitalism has disabled the internal morality of many individuals through public relations, advertising, consumerism and the commodification of human beings. In parallel to this internal demolition of morality in individuals corporate capitalism has worked to weaken and limit the state's capacity to govern it. This second demolition has disabled the community's ability to govern and constrain the economic liberty of business, commerce and financial speculation to the great detriment of American society. This dual-lane disabling of internal and external constraints has produced much more injustice than justice in the American economy and society in the last half century.

Therefore I argue that libertarianism's conerstone is broken and that libertarianism while potentially a lofty ideological ideal is a failed political reality which has unbridled the most greed-driven, exploitation all and irresponsible persons in America and has crippled the American people and society by giving moral and ethical cover to those irresponsible persons who would exploit and harm their neighbours for their own selfish and disproportionate benefit. This unrestrained exploitation is decreasing justice and increasing injustice in American society. In short libertarianism enables unjust societal predation by irresponsible persons and thus disproportionately increases societal and social injustice to the many over increased justice to the few.

What do others think about the role of libertarianism in the Modern American Political-Economy and Society?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[swing_voter]

America has eighteen million, millionaires. That's like half the population of Canada.




.

 

[Mr Person]

I feel like I'm retyping things I've said too many times before, but.....

1.

It's hard to be specific because of just how varied the views are of people who claim to be libertarian. On the soft end, maybe they mostly just want government to stop telling them what they can put in or do with their bodies. On the extreme end, it's virtually indistinguishable from anarchism.

When you look a the party platform, some ideas would be national suicide. Like the national tax policy:

​

Taxes | Libertarian Party

When you pay taxes, do you do so voluntarily? Or do you do so because you are forced to do so? If you don’t pay your taxes, what will happen? Will you be fined further? Harassed by the IRS or other government entities? Jailed? The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force […]

www.lp.org

​

No taxes, only voluntary donations to the federal government. Seriously. They wrote that. Just read it. So to the extent that kind of thinking is libertarianism, I would say we need as little of it as possible. Put that in law and you would see the immediate collapse of the federal government and everything related to it (like the dollar). Global catastrophe, but necessarily worse for those on the land...​

Best thing you can say about that is that it probably wouldn't ever pass congress. You'll have to forgive me if I do not find that to be the most compelling argument in favor of an ideology. There other platform statements are similarly unwise.




On a local scale, here's what happens when you put various 'big L Libertarianism' ideas into practice:

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

Roads falling apart, and basically a bear invasion because that's what you get when you have a town of people who get rid of their trash however they damn please without mean old government telling them what to do with it.

So as for specific policies and proposals, I haven't seen much of anything that makes me think libertarianism is a good idea. In practice, it seems to lead to societal failure. And the proposals that have never been put into practice seem to be dangerously naive.

 

[Evilroddy]

America has eighteen million, millionaires. That's like half the population of Canada.

swing_voter:

So what? America has far more people in poverty than Canada too. So what's your point in making the millionaire observation? Does more millionaires in a state mean more justice or is income polarisation more relevant to justice? Perhaps you're just dog whistling, "Foreigner! Beware!", in an effort to derail this thread.

Does greater liberty produce greater justice in America? Make a case please.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Mr Person]

2.

Beyond general sentiments about the goodness of liberty, actual serious libertarianism is fundamentally incompatible with a modern first-world life. Society is too complex and full of bad actors who really could not care less about you to have a full or nearly-full retreat of government, which is what it sounds like Big-L Libertarians want. We have the government we have specifically because we saw what happens in more libertarian times (ie, industrial revolution). The "free market" didn't fix any of those abuses. All the "free market" is about is trying to maximize one's own wealth. That's it.

Moreover, government is inescapable. If you think it can be escaped, you are either thinking of being a lone hermit in the woods, or you are not defining it property. Where current government recedes, others will move into the power vacuum. In a first world country, that's likely to mean monied interests taking on the role government gave up; and in every instance in which they do it, those monied interests will be out to maximize their profit. They won't be looking out for the common good. (Whereas in Ethiopia, you get warlords. Also government).

By and large, Libertarianism sounds like a pipe dream to me. It sounds just as naive as communism (the idea that the need for government will vanish and ownership of the means of production will just sort of swap from government to worker) or anarchy.



So I'd need to go proposal by proposal to be more specific. The fundamental principle here - leave people alone and what they do with their liberty will produce a better society than what we have now - simply does not translate to scales larger than a commune (and those have plenty of their own issues as it is).

 

[brianpatrick]

OP:

This seems right. I’d say that most political philosophies outside of classic liberalism, are flawed in this way, or worse.

 

[brianpatrick]

2.

Beyond general sentiments about the goodness of liberty, actual serious libertarianism is fundamentally incompatible with a modern first-world life. Society is too complex and full of bad actors who really could not care less about you to have a full or nearly-full retreat of government, which is what it sounds like Big-L Libertarians want. We have the government we have specifically because we saw what happens in more libertarian times (ie, industrial revolution). The "free market" didn't fix any of those abuses. All the "free market" is about is trying to maximize one's own wealth. That's it.

Moreover, government is inescapable. If you think it can be escaped, you are either thinking of being a lone hermit in the woods, or you are not defining it property. Where current government recedes, others will move into the power vacuum. In a first world country, that's likely to mean monied interests taking on the role government gave up; and in every instance in which they do it, those monied interests will be out to maximize their profit. They won't be looking out for the common good. (Whereas in Ethiopia, you get warlords. Also government).

By and large, Libertarianism sounds like a pipe dream to me. It sounds just as naive as communism (the idea that the need for government will vanish and ownership of the means of production will just sort of swap from government to worker) or anarchy.



So I'd need to go proposal by proposal to be more specific. The fundamental principle here - leave people alone and what they do with their liberty will produce a better society than what we have now - simply does not translate to scales larger than a commune (and those have plenty of their own issues as it is).

In a commune someone always ends up banging everyone else’s wife.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The Problems With Libertarianism

 

[Antiwar]

What matters the most in the 21st century? The scientific community has been saying that humanity has a (conservatively estimated) small number of years to make major changes to how humanity interacts with Earth (everything on and near it). What is life on Earth going to be like for the rest of the century if we don't try?

 

[Evilroddy]

The Problems With Libertarianism

Rogue Valley:

A very well written and thoughtful article. Thanks for linking to it here.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

What matters the most in the 21st century? The scientific community has been saying that humanity has a (conservatively estimated) small number of years to make major changes to how humanity interacts with Earth (everything on and near it). What is life on Earth going to be like for the rest of the century if we don't try?

Antiwar:

How does your comment relate to liberty and justice? Can you make a case for why libertarianism would be good or bad for the environment and the changes/harms caused by human activity. If so, please do. If not, then, please, no more boiler-plate environmental non sequiturs.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Excast]

Libertarianism seems to rely on powerful people doing the right thing, which history has shown very rarely happens.

 

[j brown's body]

Libertarianism seems to rely on powerful people doing the right thing, which history has shown very rarely happens.

Its property rights over human rights. The right to hate your neighbor, to do whatever the hell you want. Ayn Rand ethical egoism.

 

[Excast]

Its property rights over human rights. The right to hate your neighbor, to do whatever the hell you want. Ayn Rand ethical egoism.

Pretty much. Also the equating of most forms of taxation as theft, which prevents properly governing a society or maintaining a social safety net.

It doesn't really work practically.

 

[Evilroddy]

2.

Beyond general sentiments about the goodness of liberty, actual serious libertarianism is fundamentally incompatible with a modern first-world life. Society is too complex and full of bad actors who really could not care less about you to have a full or nearly-full retreat of government, which is what it sounds like Big-L Libertarians want. We have the government we have specifically because we saw what happens in more libertarian times (ie, industrial revolution). The "free market" didn't fix any of those abuses. All the "free market" is about is trying to maximize one's own wealth. That's it.

Moreover, government is inescapable. If you think it can be escaped, you are either thinking of being a lone hermit in the woods, or you are not defining it property. Where current government recedes, others will move into the power vacuum. In a first world country, that's likely to mean monied interests taking on the role government gave up; and in every instance in which they do it, those monied interests will be out to maximize their profit. They won't be looking out for the common good. (Whereas in Ethiopia, you get warlords. Also government).

By and large, Libertarianism sounds like a pipe dream to me. It sounds just as naive as communism (the idea that the need for government will vanish and ownership of the means of production will just sort of swap from government to worker) or anarchy.

So I'd need to go proposal by proposal to be more specific. The fundamental principle here - leave people alone and what they do with their liberty will produce a better society than what we have now - simply does not translate to scales larger than a commune (and those have plenty of their own issues as it is).

Mr. Person:

You make very good points in both of your posts here, ones that I agree with. This limits the scope of debate however. So please don't take my lack of responses as indifference to your posts. You've just taken the words out of my mouth. Thank you.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[nvflash]

Libertarianism seems to rely on powerful people doing the right thing, which history has shown very rarely happens.

That's never been the argument in Libertarianism, that powerful people would do the right thing, the argument was each person pursuing their own happiness would provide a better society, that government( federal ) should only act to keep fraud out of the marketplace, defend people's rights equally
, and provide for the common defense.

 

[Evilroddy]

We need some Libertarians to come and defend their ideology in this debate thread. Please come and debate in order to present the other side(s) of the Libertarian debate. Does more liberty produce more justice?

Thank you in advance, Libertarians of any type.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Excast]

That's never been the argument in Libertarianism, that powerful people would do the right thing, the argument was each person pursuing their own happiness would provide a better society, that government( federal ) should only act to keep fraud out of the marketplace, defend people's rights equally
, and provide for the common defense.

What do we do about the impoverished? The elderly who don't have a basic income?

It's a concept that sounds good until you try to shape it into actual reality, at which point it looks like a free for all hellscape instead of a functioning society.

 

[Evilroddy]

That's never been the argument in Libertarianism, that powerful people would do the right thing, the argument was each person pursuing their own happiness would provide a better society, that government( federal ) should only act to keep fraud out of the marketplace, defend people's rights equally
, and provide for the common defense.

nvflash:

Common defence from whom? The foreign foes or the powerful domestic predators who never were the argument in Libertarianism? Who constrains them from reducing justice and increasing injustice in a Libertarian society? Or is Social Darwinism the justice Libertarians seek?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[nvflash]

Common defence from whom?

Invasions, insurrections, and rebellions.

powerful domestic predators

You'll have to be more precise, I don't know who you mean?

 

[Evilroddy]

Invasions, insurrections, and rebellions.


You'll have to be more precise, I don't know who you mean?

nvflash:

Powerful domestic predators include Authoritarian Leaders who would seize and/or maintain power by force, Corporate Totalitarianism backed by privately owned surveillance and security industries imposing market solutions on citizens who reject them, Christian Fascism trying to topple the barriers between church and state in order to establish a kind of Christian theocracy in modern America. They also include Militarists and arms/munitions producers hijacking American foreign policy to establish hegemony/empire, enforced by young American men and women who die or are maimed in wars and conflicts of adventure. Should I list more?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[nvflash]

nvflash:

Powerful domestic predators include Authoritarian Leaders who would seize and/or maintain power by force, Corporate Totalitarianism backed by privately owned surveillance and security industries imposing market solutions on citizens who reject them, Christian Fascism trying to topple the barriers between church and state in order to establish a kind of Christian theocracy in modern America. They also include Militarists and arms/munitions producers hijacking American foreign policy to establish hegemony/empire, enforced by young American men and women who die or are maimed in wars and conflicts of adventure. Should I list more?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

All things Libertarians oppose, and you'd know that if you spent half as much time checking into it as you do worrying about Powerful domestic predators.

BTW, I'm not a Libertarian, or the member of any other political party because that requires strict adherence to party doctrine over common sense. I can see goods in each parties platforms, but I don't ascribe evil to that which can be explained by stupidity.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intent.

 

[Evilroddy]

All things Libertarians oppose, and you'd know that if you spent half as much time checking into it as you do worrying about Powerful domestic predators.

BTW, I'm not a Libertarian, or the member of any other political party because that requires strict adherence to party doctrine over common sense. I can see goods in each parties platforms, but I don't ascribe evil to that which can be explained by stupidity.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intent.

nvflash:

Okay, then why are American right-wing organisations funding think-tanks in Latin America which are promoting the predatory practices which I listed above?

Sphere of Influence: How American Libertarians Are Remaking Latin American Politics

The Atlas Network has spent decades building up libertarian institutions across Latin America. Now the work is paying off.

theintercept.com

To say something doesn't make it true. If it's happening in Latin America, then it's a good bet it's happening in the United States of America too. Just ask Edward Snowden, the mercenaries of TigerSwan. Or ask Erik Prince and Betsy DeVos. Ask the Standing Rock Protestors or the managers of private prisons with CMUs (Communications Management Units). Ask John Bolton as he threatens the ICC and anyone who cooperates with it with violence for daring to interfere with corporate totalitarianism and US global hegemony.

No the domestic predators are both real and very, very powerful.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy (or given your post perhaps Stupidroddy).

 

[Antiwar]

Antiwar:

How does your comment relate to liberty and justice? Can you make a case for why libertarianism would be good or bad for the environment and the changes/harms caused by human activity. If so, please do. If not, then, please, no more boiler-plate environmental non sequiturs.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I was considering adding my boilerplate "discussing past -isms is backward." I considered replying with quoted text from an article about libertarianism, classic liberalism, progressivism, etc because I (and I suspect most people) needed some clarification of terms. I was thinking that classic liberalism was the same thing as right-libertarianism. I wrote what I posted and decided to leave it, knowing that there'd likely be complaints.



My comment relates to liberty and justice in many ways. There are many types of libertarianism. Noam Chomsky likes libertarian socialism, for an example that's not right-libertarian.

Libertarian ideas are everywhere. How so? One entity's liberty is very often results in another entity's injustice. Why entity instead of person? Because people need to consider justice for more than just people; we need to consider justice for everything we affect: Earth and the planets we're visiting. Why's that? Because ultrawealthy libertarians are wanting to mine other planets.



Negative libertarian ideas have been pervasive in humans throughout humanity's existence and they still are. Most people go along with the status quo of humans more or less being able to do what we want within human restrictions. What am I talking about? Let's equate libertarianism and industrialism. What?? Right-libertarianism and industrialism go hand-in-hand. What do right-libertarians focus on? Money; their personal economy. Republicans.

Pretty much everyone that functions in industrial economies is participating in libertarianism.

Even current indigenous people are participating in a form of libertarianism: They take liberties of animals, the environment, and other humans. Yet surely they affect much less than modern people.

 

[nvflash]

nvflash:

Okay, then why are American right-wing organisations funding think-tanks in Latin America which are promoting the predatory practices which I listed above?

Sphere of Influence: How American Libertarians Are Remaking Latin American Politics

The Atlas Network has spent decades building up libertarian institutions across Latin America. Now the work is paying off.

theintercept.com

To say something doesn't make it true. If it's happening in Latin America, then it's a good bet it's happening in the United States of America too. Just ask Edward Snowden, the mercenaries of TigerSwan. Or ask Erik Prince and Betsy DeVos. Ask the Standing Rock Protestors or the managers of private prisons with CMUs (Communications Management Units). Ask John Bolton as he threatens the ICC and anyone who cooperates with it with violence for daring to interfere with corporate totalitarianism and US global hegemony.

No the domestic predators are both real and very, very powerful.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy (or given your post perhaps Stupidroddy).

Heart warming, thanks for the link.

Given the choice between socialist hell holes and libertarian hell holes, I know I'd chose the latter.

At least in a libertarian hell hole one would expect to be able to get good drugs to pass the time.