Libertarians
September 25, 2008Libertarians?
No offense, but, uhm, total idiots.
Show me one example of a libertarian governmental model working out better for citizens than a welfare model as seen in most European countries. Just one.
Politics | 
20 Messages »
RSS feed for messages on this post.
Leave a message
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> .
Please use the blockquote tag to quote. Comments containing quotes in other ways will be deleted.
I’ve had plenty discussion with libertarians, and I disagree with the feasibility of the idea, partly because in the end many libertarians end up being right wing extremists.
Libertarians tend to claim that whenever some system that looks like libertarianism goes wrong, it is because libertarian principles weren’t applied well enough. Imagine socialists say that. :-)
In any case, libertarians very have useful ideas when it comes to monetary reform, so don’t write them off just yet. If they could just admit that there are some things that are best left to a collective enterprise (running water, for instance), i.e., should never be in private hands, and if they could find a way to protect people from violence by non-collectivist means (which they miraculously seem to think can be done), they’d come a long way.
Libertarians are right, for instance, when they claim that the most horrific crimes are usually committed by the state. They don’t think the state can do much good, and when you pick the right examples (and it’s quite easy to do so), it’s not hard to accept that idea. Trying to abolish the state, at least if all of us try to do so worldwide, is a good idea. The problem is to prevent the bad guys from erecting another state yet again instead. That’s more or less the blank page in the libertarian book.
Comment by yelamdenu — September 25, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Here’s four:
Hong Kong, pre 1997
American West, 1830-1900 (approx)
Pennsylvania, 1682-1690 (approx)
Iceland, 930-962
None of these were “perfect” libertarian societies, but quite close. None of them ended because of popular support.
So much for the “idiot” appellation.
Comment by James Parker — September 25, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Pre-1997 Hong Kong is by far NOT a Libertarian state, not AT ALL. Its economy has indeed always be relatively free of government influence (note: relatively), but many other parts of society are all governed by the state, such as the educational system which is more or less similar to what the UK has, with government funded schools and universities. Not exactly libertarian.
The American West during the 19th century was not exactly a happy place, so no, that doesn’t count either. In addition, the federal US government was the driving force behind the Manifest Destiny, which isn’t exactly libertarian.
Pennsylvania during the 1682-1690 period seems like too short a time period for me to prove the worthiness of a system. The success of Pennsylvania seems more rooted in its concept of religious freedom and tolerance towards the natives (hence, less internal struggles and more time for other things) than of it being libertarian, if it in fact was Libertarian at all- I’m not entirely familiar with the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.
Iceland is an interesting example, mostly because I think you only list it because the governmental system of Iceland during the specified period lacked a king or central government - however, just because there’s no central government doesn’t mean its libertarian. The Netherlands, during the days of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces lacked a central government too, but that didn’t make us libertarian.
Despite lacking a central government, Iceland was still very much a state in the middle ages, not that different from others. Again, I believe it wasn’t a libertarian government that enabled its success, but the relative freedom and clear structure, which allows people to focus on other things than fuedes and war - just like the Dutch Republic and the Province of Pennsylvania.
You’re going to need to come up with better, clearer, and more recent examples than this to make me retract my idiot designation.
Comment by Administrator — September 25, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Well, your idiot designation isn’t clever from a “let’s have a civil debate” perspective. Obviously, some libertarians are likely to be idiots. But that’s unavoidable. :-)
Libertarians tend to claim that libertarianism doesn’t have the objective of egalitarian society or reducing poverty. The idea is that if you give people enough freedom, they’ll find ways to escape poverty and making ends meet.
Sincere libertarians will also tend to admit that in libertarian societies, some of the corporatist technologies will not be, or would not have been, available. For instance, nuclear energy, exploring space, aviation, or perhaps even the railroads and computing would not be there or not to the extent that they’re there now, as they were/are funded largely by governments, rather than individual corporations.
Libertarians don’t really have an answer, imho, to issues like environmental pollution, food and drug safety, monopoly and cartel formation, and other bad effects of plutocracies that tend to be the result of stateless societies.
Note that libertarians tend to be against democracy altogether which they equals suppression (the majority ruling the minority, and stealing their money by taxation).
Comment by yelamdenu — September 25, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
sorry, “which they think equals suppression”
Comment by yelamdenu — September 25, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Hong Kong, pre 1997 was very much under the rule of the British government even though their economy model was and is relatively free and succesful, by becoming an economic centre of its area. Not every place can be as lucky economically, however, so that doesn’t necessarily tell about the quality of the political system in such rich countries.
Some rich Arab oil countries are another such example, often having rather free economy. With enough oil money you can buy lots of political welfare even to ordinary people, how ever corrupt the system may really be inside.
There are too many third world countries to list here that have tried extremely libertarian systems with tragic consequences to its poor people and environment. Often the economy model was supported by big global corporations - that also reaped most of the benefits while the ordinary people stayed poor. Ever heard of banana republics before?
Iceland 930-962. Back to the Middle Ages..? I’ve heard that example before, and it only shows that even libertarians themselves feel rather desperate trying to pick up at least some good examples of their idealism from history.
Pennsylvania, 1682-1690. Wow, eight whole years? Pennsylvania was under colonial rule those times. It was a time of turmoil and gradual moving from the first phases of colonial conquest to first primitive forms of government. Naturally the government was very weak still.
American West, 1830-1900. The last glorious times of the aggressive American colonialism and imperialism inside America’s own borders. Mass murders of Indians, crimes and lots of other such wild west mentality often motivated by selfish and violent greed. Ok, some pioneers of the American west had higher ideals too, however, and lived quite admirable lives.
Comment by Elvis Presley — September 25, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
1) Pre-1997 Hong Kong was indeed largely de facto libertarian; tax rates were extremely low and it was quite easy to avoid them due to the small size of the government; in addition property rights were highly valued and the government (which was primarily local; GB leaving them mostly alone) was kept from interfering. There was, starting in 1960, a governmental effort toward uniform education; however this largely consisted of private schooling (primary education wasn’t even funded until 1971).
2) The statement that the “American West” was “not a happy place” is unfounded. I suspect this comes from the view expressed in Westerns (i.e., movies). There was unfortunate treatment of the prior residents, but this was somewhat orthogonal to the otherwise libertarian nature of the society.
3) Pennsylvania was free of economic regulation and taxation during this period — there was “government” during this period but it was universally ignored. It failed to sustain itself primarily because of British force and the lack of a native industrial base to supply the Pennsylvanian opposition. This was, of course, one of the historical threads leading to the American Revolutionary War.
4) Iceland was very much a libertarian state inasmuch as it existed prior to the European Enlightenment, specifically the work of Bastiat, Locke, et. al.; there were, in fact, competing, private legal systems in place (see http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html/, for details), and a version of common law rather than “royal” law or “state” law as the primary vehicle for dispute resolution.
I also must point out that yelamdenu is generally correct about libertarian opposition to democracy — but specifically MARTIAL democracy, where “losers” are required to accede to “winners”. Instead, libertarians are strong supporters of MARKET democracy, where “losers” may still use their minority resources as they wish (so long as they are sufficient to maintain their desired goals). It’s why I can get soft drinks other than Coca-Cola (or Pepsi), as opposed to being stuck with someone such as John McCain or Barack Obama.
Comment by James Parker — September 25, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Many perceptions of what Libertarian is, are mistaken. It isn’t extreme right-wing, and even that statement is highly subjective. One person’s extreme right-wing isn’t another’s.
For example, Libertarians here in the United States are one of the most vocal against the war in Iraq and indeed our entire military empire building around the globe. This is NOT extreme right wing. It is a philosophy of respecting people’s inalienable rights. It is to admit that we and government can’t play god with reality and successfully control (through coercion) all we want to.
Maybe no libertarian government model really worked because we have never had one. Or rather, we here in the U.S. had one until the 1860s when Lincoln, in a very unlibertarian fashion, killed 600,000 people and hurt many more in our uncivil war. The rest of the world ended slavery without mass killings, but not the U.S. The 20th century was a steady progression away from a libertarian society, just one example of which was that we held the world hostage with a massive quantity of nuclear weapons, all of which were invented and built by a very non-libertarian government.
If you believe that with freedom comes responsibility, then you already believe the premise of Libertarianism. Most people are Libertarian, but they immediately justify it away when everyone else (the collective) does it and says its okay. What one person would never do, a group of people (a mob) will do without second thought.
What makes people non-libertarian, is delusion, aggression, intolerance, in a greed for money and a fear for security. If you believe in those ideals, libertarianism will seem insane to you. Just because you want to fix things that are insane, doesn’t make you sane. Just because you think you want whats best for everyone, doesn’t mean you really know whats best for everyone. To be libertarian is to admit that you don’t know, that you admit the limitations of your intellect, that you humble yourself and drop at least some of your ego.
Comment by jj — September 26, 2008 @ 1:29 am
jj, you’re right that (sincere) libertarians are against illegal wars and against state crimes in general.
I would be interested in hearing from a libertarian how a libertarian society handles environmental pollution, monopoly and cartel formation, and such issues; and how it prevents thugs from taking over the state, or creating a state, and then destroy the libertarian-ness of the place. In other words, how does libertarianism prevent any place from becoming a plutocratic corporocracy without a form of democratic state rule.
Comment by yelamdenu — September 26, 2008 @ 8:52 am
J.P: “tax rates were extremely low and it was quite easy to avoid them due to the small size of the government”
Like I already tried to explain above: that was possible in Hong Kong because it was lucky to become one of the financial centres of East Asia, if not the one. There are many much bigger centres in East Asia, but not every one of them could become such a centre even if they tried and followed all the libertarian handbooks in the world. Free market economy of course helped Hong Kong to become what it still is.
Hong Kong people also had many good public services provided for them free or cheap, because the place was just so darn rich that they could be paid without high taxation. So a bit same like in Brinei, Kuwait or other oil countries. Again, not every city or country in the world can do the same.
Free market economy is NOT the same thing as libertarianism.
For example, Sweden is also a free market economy but quite far from libertarianism. Maybe that’s why it is often considered to be one of the happiest countries in the world, and its people healthier, happier and wealthier than people in most other countries. The same is true with other Nordic countries.
I’m also absolutely sure that if you asked the people of Iceland whether they would prefer the government and system of some early medieval time Iceland to that of today’s Iceland 99% of them would prefer the current NON-libertarian system to some rather primitive Viking period government.
To put it bluntly: libertarianism to me seems like a selfish everyone for himself kind of an ideology. Nobody cares for others but just wants to gather as much riches to himself as possible and save his own ass. It has often been a way for the extremely rich people to find excuses for not giving anything away from their riches to help less fortunate people. If you are into such greedy thinking (many certainly are, as sad as that is for the future of mankind) maybe you find libertarianism attractive. But if you feel any solidarity and care for others, you likely find other alternatives better.
Wake up people: libertarianism is often more like a secular religion, with its believers and dogma that cannot be questioned, instead of being a rational way to organize societies, legal system, economy etc.
Societies simply need rules in order to prosper, and that means some form of government and regulations, also in economy. That is what makes human societies what they are, organization based on rules and regulations. Anarchy has never worked, not in business nor in any other part of society, and won’t - as long as we won’t be living in heaven under the strict government of God.
Comment by Elvis Presley — September 26, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Freedom is ok, but in order for freedom to work, we need regulations that restrict bad people from killing and robbing each other without limits and so on.
If you have bo regulations for the economy, it means that the biggest ecomic powers will grasp and hold the power, without no regulations guarding their actions.
Do we really want to live in a dystopia controlled by greedy corporations? Rather than let democratically elected governments guard their actions?
Comment by Elvis Presley — September 26, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Thom, you should really read “Het Fundamenteel Rechtsbeginsel” (”The Fundamental Principle of Law”, http://www.rothbard.be/boeken/FRB.pdf) from dr. Frank Van Dun. It explains what libertarianism is really about. It’s about the rights of individuals (as opposed to positive rights) and the inalienability of those rights. In other words, natural law.
You should note that such an approach forms the foundation for a strictly deontological kind of libertarianism, with the only consistent conclusion being anarchism, the abolition of the State. There are also the minarchist type of libertarians, most of the time they Randians or consequentialists.
You should also know that most of “us” libertarians are principled adherents of the Austrian School of economics, hence austrolibertarianism, which states that all government intervention in the economy has repercussions and eventually makes us being worse off than before.
If you would like to read more about the Austrian School, you could start with “Economics for Real People” (Gene Callahan, http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf) which is actually a very pleasant book to read.
Comment by michiel — September 26, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
An inane opinion, expressed in just about the most ignorant way possible. Good show.
Comment by Irony Is Thy Name — September 26, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
I dunno, maybe libertarianism is like Marxism/communism and anarchism in that it works best in two scenarios: on paper and on the Internet.
I notice that the libertarians on blog.mises.org blame the current subprime crisis on creeping “statism”, or the US government’s propping-up of the corporations through taxpayer money, and they’re criticizing the bailout as being a gradual statist plot to entrench the government in private economic affairs. Meanwhile, the trotskyists at wsws.org are blaming the crisis on “corporatism”, or the US government’s alignment of interest with the corporations, and they’re criticizing the bailout plan as being a corporatist plot to continue the entrenchment of the corporate supremacy in US life.
I can’t say that I blame either side of the debate, but I think that those who blame the government are at about as much of a loss of the plot as are those who blame the corporations.
Both institutional forms have a “screw-’em-unless-we-need-’em” attitude toward each other, kinda like how you have many big-money libertarians (Richard Branson in the UK, for example) who own multinational corporations and could care less for government restriction or intervention (”we can take regulate ourselves, thank you very much!”) unless, say, it came down to a BitTorrent tracker like The Pirate Bay or OINK (hence, the MPAA and the Wikileaks shutdown controversy), or how you have the governments who could care less for the operation of business corporations unless they need someone who can fund their arms and prison habit (hence, the well-known “military-industrial complex”). If one of them is lacking in money or property, then they’ll make an overture to inject themselves in each others’ affairs to benefit themselves (which can range from privatization to nationalization).
So neither libertarianism, which sounds fluffy with its talk of personal liberties, nor socialism, which sounds fluffy with its talk of equal rights, work in their entirety, or at least bring their ideological promises to fruition without some serious repercussions for the citizen public and the citizen individual.
I find it interesting, though, that while the socialists and mutualists can view free software (FSF) and free data (Wikipedia) in a favorable but government-oriented light, the libertarians can be seriously divided in their own perceptions towards free software, with the “let the market decide” libertarians being pitted against the “information should be free” libertarians.
In fact, I don’t view the latter type of libertarians as typical libertarians, but as left-libertarians, pirates, anarchists and hacktivists who have an unfavorable view against both corporations and governments overall, and who could care less if the software or data that they’ve made is to be used freely by such corporations or governments.
I think I favor the anarchists more than the libertarians, but I think that the libertarians in the US, as corporately-beneficiary as they may be, are the only ones in high places who could be persuaded by those who’re further along the anti-authoritarian ideological spectrum towards the decriminalization of drug possession, prostitution, same-sex marriage, and other things which are already taken for granted in your own country, the Netherlands.
Comment by Rayne Van-Dunem — September 27, 2008 @ 2:20 am
“I dunno, maybe libertarianism is like Marxism/communism and anarchism in that it works best in two scenarios: on paper and on the Internet.”
No, if a theory doesn’t work in practice, there is obviously something wrong with that theory. Marxism doesn’t work, all of the socialist states have imploded, perform poorly or have partly adopted market mechanisms. Ludwig von Mises showed us why: because of a lack of private property there is not enough information, there are no market prices. This way it is impossible for central planners to allocate resources rationally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_debate)
There are other problems with Marxist dogma: labor theory of value and exploitation, class theory, …
Comment by michiel — September 27, 2008 @ 6:52 am
A few additional points:
First libertarianism is indeed selfish in the sense that no one must help anyone else. This is the proper position, since neither helping nor harming is ethically neutral; choosing to help (assuming the ones being helped agree) is “good”; coercing some form of help saps it of any “goodness”. It also reduces the types of help available, since it directs resources in only a few avenues and saps those resources which might otherwise be used to help others in different manners. It is far more selfish, in the negative sense, to force others to help in ways that the one apply force unilaterally thinks best.
Second, Hong Kong was successful, not because it was “rich”; rather it became “rich” because it wasfree. Compare Hong Kong to other port cities that did not have such freedom.
Third, Sweden, although its markets are freer than that in many other countries, does not truly have a “free market”. One needs a license (permission from government) to start a business, the government takes for itself unilateral control of some markets (such as health care), and taxes sap the means of providing products and services at competitive rates (vs. other marketplaces in the world).
Fourth, rules do not need a central authority to either be created or to be followed. Those with utility are followed by convention, not by external enforcement by a central authority. Disputes can be resolved privately, as they were with the genesis of “common law” and juries, without the imprimatur of some “government” (although such governments, typically in the form of a monarch, have always been happy to grant and extend the use of common law — much as Microsoft uses “embrace and extend”).
Fifth, libertarians do not claim that a libertarian society would be perfect; just freer, more open, and diverse, better scaling, more agile, and with less overhead than any known society under government control. As an aside, marxism/communism do work — but only for very small groups, such as families. Their fundamental failure is that they do not scale.
Finally, I must laugh at the notion that libertarianism is “cult like”. Listen to group of libertarians talking, and one will find vast differences in views as to the nature of underpinnings, degree, and methods in which a libertarian society should have. It is far more like a group of scientists discussing the best theory or model to use to describe reality. In contrast, nearly every non-libertarian I have encountered has always and steadfastly assumed the need for an omnipotent state, much as creationists assume the need for an omnipotent deity. Trying to question that fundamental assumption in both cases is almost inevitable futile.
Comment by James Parker — September 28, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Until a gang of thugs comes up and establishes its monopoly on violence and capital, just like in any corporatist state.
Then why have most Russians, for two decades now, thought that life was better under communism? This shows in every poll.
Marxism btw is an economic analysis, still seems to be quite valid these days, in the US for instance.
Also, Cuba did a lot better in Katrina than the US “free market” paradise. Cuba even survived its “Special Period”, a major oil crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now you’ll tell me that the US isn’t libertarian enough yet, which explains its “shortcomings”, like so many libertarians do? Then tell Cato to stop listing the US as anything of a good example, as they’re doing now.
There are obviously benevolent, sincere libertarians. But beware of that libertarianism which is nothing more than pure greed disguised as a vital “ideology”.
Comment by yelamdenu — September 28, 2008 @ 7:49 am
Such a gang is better known as a “government”. Most countries have such things as we speak. So how do we avoid the (re)creation of these? By watching out for the early stages of their formation and responding vigorously (and violently, if needed) when they begin coercing others. The hard part is recognizing this and convincing enough others that the coercion is beginning; once that has been accomplished, there will be plenty of folks willing to apply resources to stopping them — even if they are not immediately affected — as a matter of clear self interest.
I am aware of such polls in the last 5-7 years, but not for two decades; I will provisionally accept this however.
This stems from two groups, I would say, the first being older Russians who are afraid of their future well-being given they were deprived of the ability to create self-suffciency earlier in life, thanks to the authortarian government and its welfare state (hardly “communism”, of course). Their flaw however, is that they fail to realize that the “welfare” provided could not be sustained.
The second group are those affected by the US government “advisers” that moved in quickly after the Soviet Union’s collapse under the guise of helping them set up a free capitalist state, and instead worked to create a strong central government (the US government prefers strong central governments so it doesn’t have to deal with individuals) that had degenerated into a de facto oligarchical authoritarian government.
I do not support Cato, and I have expressed disagreements to a couple of their analysts in the past. That being said, it is important to realize that Cato’s primary audience is US federal government and associated policymakers. One of their tactics is to praise cases of relatively pro-freedom behavior in the hope of fostering further progress — much as someone might praise a 4 year old “blob with four legs” as a nice picture of a “doggie”. Personally, I think that Cato concentrates too much on the short term to the detriment of long term pursuit of a truly libertarian society.
In an earlier message I noted that almost any “group of libertarians talking, and one will find vast differences in views as to the nature of underpinnings, degree, and methods in which a libertarian society should have.” This is an example of those differences.
Comment by James Parker — September 29, 2008 @ 1:41 am
@James
Not if state funds were plundered by the oligarchs. Which they were. The transition to more “free market” didn’t have to be as disastrous as it was. The fact that the “welfare” could not be “sustained” was not so much because of communism per se, it was because of huge foreign debt.
As you may know, when the Soviet empire decided to expand economically and militarily, it was a feudal society far behind industrially to Western Europe and the US. London bankers, a.o. the Rothschild dynasty funded the Bolsheviks as they saw their industrial ambition and the potential to build up a debtor nation of hard working serfs.
As such there isn’t much of a difference between the US or the USSR when it comes to a collapse due to (foreign) debt. I agree that the market is to be much preferred in many economic sectors. Gorbachev was already working on that in the 1980s because the plan economy is largely a big mistake. But there’s a lot between that and “pure” capitalism.
Exactly. What I don’t like about some libertarians is the way they present “the state” as an instrument of the masses to “extort” the “5% of the population that’s doing all the work” (I’m not kidding you, one libertarian told me so).
A bit of history tells us that the state was erected to protect the wealthy from the have-nots. Not the other way around. “The people” (whatever that may be) have stood up to their rights and made democratic victories. Apparently it was harder to abolish the state altogether than to reform it democratically. Libertarians have to face that fact. Instead, they largely prefer to ignore it.
And do that without a kind of organisation called “government”? I’d hope it could be done, but I have my doubt.
Self-interest as a motivation doesn’t work that well if you’re only affected in the long term. That’s the problem with us humans, we can hardly see beyond a decade ahead of us. But I’d say, buy an island somewhere, build your own libertarian society and I really hope it succeeds. Then set that as an example to the rest of us.
Comment by yelamdenu — September 29, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Hong Kong, although having a relatively free economy, has always had many sorts state intervention in its economy too: central banks, school regulations, environmental regulations and government ownership of housing and land are some examples. The government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in public works projects and social welfare spending too.
Comment by Genghis Khan — September 29, 2008 @ 11:47 am