Thread: Tell me about Libertarianism(discussion)

I have to agree with ninja: libertarianism is the flip side of Marxist communism, pleasing for idealists to contemplate, but impossible to implement without disastrous consequences.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I have to agree with ninja: libertarianism is the flip side of Marxist communism, pleasing for idealists to contemplate, but impossible to implement without disastrous consequences.

These kind of posts should be left to Extended Discussion, should they not?

Socalism and Communism doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Most libertarians do take a practical approch and do believe some government is needed. They just stress that the government should be taking a smaller part.

Originally Posted by Alric

Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Can you give an example of a libertarian nation in history?

By the way I live in socialism, I also voted a couple years ago...

The US was very libertarian starting out. Libertarains want us to be a lot more like we were, when our country was formed. With a few adjustments however. We had some really bad banking practices early in our histroy that no libertarian would support.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

By the way I live in socialism, I also voted a couple years ago...

they were talking about pure communism though (which I agree people interchange socialism and communism when they are different)

Here is the original thread, which has some very detailed explanations of what libertarianism is plus some discussion about the extent of its validity.

http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=94520

If you want to debate any of that, please do it here.

Blueline is correct, my post was not suitable for the Ask/Tell thread here, so I split this discussion to ED.

Originally Posted by Alric

Socalism and Communism doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarianism. Libertarianism doesn't alway lead to anachy, so you can't really just claim its the opposite extreme.

Most libertarians do take a practical approch and do believe some government is needed. They just stress that the government should be taking a smaller part.

On your first point, Europe's "practical approach" to Democratic Socialism doesn't seem in danger of devolving into tyranny anytime soon, alarmist cries to the contrary notwithstanding.

A great many libertarians take cues from Ron Paul, and at least pay lip-service to total deregulation and the elimination of all progressive taxes (i.e. bracketed income tax, estate taxes) and "safety net" social programs. While the world has not yet seen a "Libertarian USSR," the purist approach to libertarianism would likely lead not to anarchy, but also totalitarianism, placing unbalanced power in the hands of corporations rather than the state.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

On your first point, Europe's "practical approach" to Democratic Socialism doesn't seem in danger of devolving into tyranny anytime soon, alarmist cries to the contrary notwithstanding.

How do you know? It always happened in a hurry when it happened in Europe.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

A great many libertarians take cues from Ron Paul, and at least pay lip-service to total deregulation and the elimination of all progressive taxes (i.e. bracketed income tax, estate taxes) and "safety net" social programs. While the world has not yet seen a "Libertarian USSR," the purist approach to libertarianism would likely lead not to anarchy, but also totalitarianism, placing unbalanced power in the hands of corporations rather than the state.

A totalitarian government that does absolutely nothing?

I think he might have been referring more to a corporatocracy sort of situation where the actual government has little control, while corporations effectively control the society.

I'd like everyone to peruse my very basic overview of libertarianism before we start talking about it in general terms:

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...09&postcount=7

Maybe if a free territory style experiment were conducted on a large scale we might have the answers we're looking for. Otherwise, we have a history practically void of libertarian 'states' (I know, an oxymoron, I just couldn't think of any other words) for reference.

Now THAT would be interesting.

Originally Posted by Shades

Maybe if a free territory style experiment were conducted on a large scale we might have the answers we're looking for. Otherwise, we have a history practically void of libertarian 'states' (I know, an oxymoron, I just couldn't think of any other words) for reference.

Now THAT would be interesting.

There is a movement called the "Free State Project" going on where people move to and live in New Hampshire and try to influence elections in order to elect freedom-minded officials. I think their main objective is to successfully secede from the rest of the country. Will it work? Not sure.

If my memory serves me right we had another thread on this a while back?

I just thought id pop in, I would consider myself mostly libertarian leaning with a few slight things that aren't considered very libertarian-like.

But for the most part I dream of a Libertarian government some day in the world soon, but with mixed elements to ensure corporations do not become greedy quantity vs quality companies who care little about their product or their consumers, that should be prevented in a appropriate manner, such as:

A Public Rating system for companies and corporations, a system run independently in every city or town which privately investigates what companies do and if they do harm they are publicly exposed locally and eventually nobody will buy their product and they go under, giving a spot open for a honest good company to take its place.

Also, the constitution must have written in plain english, measures which can help prevent increase in government size and power, which leads to totalitarianism if not curbed over the decades and centuries.


In the end though, no government will be a 'great' one and they always end up abusing power and expanding it, so it is US, the human race which must change and not the government.

One day when we all change and stop fighting, over petty idiotic reasons, and change as a race, then we will have peace and harmony with nature, until then we need a government to literally hold the glue in place a little longer before things fall apart.

Originally Posted by guerilla

If my memory serves me right we had another thread on this a while back?

We've had many.

But for the most part I dream of a Libertarian government some day in the world soon, but with mixed elements to ensure corporations do not become greedy quantity vs quality companies who care little about their product or their consumers, that should be prevented in a appropriate manner, such as:

Unfortunately you've contradicted yourself right off the bat. One cannot have a libertarian government that intervenes in the economy. True, I stated in my overview of libertarianism (linked a few posts up) that there are some people that support some basic regulation in the economy to ensure worker safety and consumer safety, but I also pointed out how that is inconsistent with libertarianism's core principles and typically leads to worse conditions and economic instability.

A Public Rating system for companies and corporations, a system run independently in every city or town which privately investigates what companies do and if they do harm they are publicly exposed locally and eventually nobody will buy their product and they go under, giving a spot open for a honest good company to take its place.

There is no reason why this could not be done under private supervision.

You also assume that once the government is gone, most companies will simply sell numerous quantities of shitty products or provide poor services.

Also, the constitution must have written in plain english, measures which can help prevent increase in government size and power, which leads to totalitarianism if not curbed over the decades and centuries.

How do you ensure people follow this new constitution? Would you have yearly consent-agreements or something? What if they don't consent to the constitution?

In the end though, no government will be a 'great' one and they always end up abusing power and expanding it, so it is US, the human race which must change and not the government.

So there is no point in having any sort of minarchist government if it will just simply expand.

One day when we all change and stop fighting, over petty idiotic reasons, and change as a race, then we will have peace and harmony with nature, until then we need a government to literally hold the glue in place a little longer before things fall apart.

Well that's not a very good plan, in my opinion. It's like saying, "one day my lung cancer will be cured, but until then I'm going to keep smoking until the cure arrives."

Unfortunately it is government control over things that largely contributes to violence.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a debate over present government or future government. If you want to reply to my above points (that goes for guerilla or anyone else) send me a PM .

thats cool, I understand what you mean though but in my gut I just don't feel like 100% libertarianism would work because if companies are left with no rules, who is to say they are following any sort of moral code or standard, maybe companies would choose to not say all the ingredients or even show calories and whatnot...etc

Just explain this to me, how does stuff like that work in a libertarian system? cause I cannot picture how it would prevent corporations from turning into scumbags pretty much.

For me 90% libertarianism is what I lean towards with a few tiny regulations

I suppose this relates to libertarianism so I'll reply

Originally Posted by guerilla

thats cool, I understand what you mean though but in my gut I just don't feel like 100% libertarianism would work because if companies are left with no rules, who is to say they are following any sort of moral code or standard, maybe companies would choose to not say all the ingredients or even show calories and whatnot...etc

Just explain this to me, how does stuff like that work in a libertarian system? cause I cannot picture how it would prevent corporations from turning into scumbags pretty much.

Well the first part of understanding free-market/libertarian economics is actually studying economics. No, I don't mean take classes or anything. You'll probably end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher that way and end up learning very little. I mean simply reading books, articles, and essays, and listening to podcasts on free-market economics. That's what I'm doing now and it's working out great.

You also sort of answered your own question. In a libertarian economy, accountability would be major. There is no reason why a sort of review board could be established. Any business wanting to be taken seriously would release information about their product/service, and due to the fact that there will be no monopolies (as we know them know [government established, coercive, shitty, etc]), companies would need to strive to please their consumers. If Company A just threw out a shitty product no one would buy it. However, companies throw out shitty products now because they're either monopolies or they can just be bailed out by the government.

What I'm saying here is awfully simple-sounding, I know.

For me 90% libertarianism is what I lean towards with a few tiny regulations

Well that's fine but it's terribly inconsistent with libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Alric

Socalism and Communism

Please, do yourself and the world a favor and do not make that generalization. The two are very different things.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well the first part of understanding free-market/libertarian economics is actually studying economics. No, I don't mean take classes or anything. You'll probably end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher that way and end up learning very little. I mean simply reading books, articles, and essays, and listening to podcasts on free-market economics. That's what I'm doing now and it's working out great.

Yes, discard all knowledge obtained through research and disciplined study of the field, because it is biased toward ideas that make sense and/or are applicable to real systems.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You also sort of answered your own question. In a libertarian economy, accountability would be major. There is no reason why a sort of review board could be established. Any business wanting to be taken seriously would release information about their product/service, and due to the fact that there will be no monopolies (as we know them know [government established, coercive, shitty, etc]), companies would need to strive to please their consumers. If Company A just threw out a shitty product no one would buy it. However, companies throw out shitty products now because they're either monopolies or they can just be bailed out by the government.

We can totally discount the fact that corporations would also be in control of the flow of information and free to control that flow in the short and medium term through alliances with other corporations that would serve their interest in guaranteeing revenue that would otherwise depend upon the quality of their product and/or service.

We can also discount the influence corporations would have on what positions would be available at what rates of pay and what influences would be impressed upon individuals at each pay grade regarding what products and services they should buy.

In the transition to a Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a media that is in their pocket via advertising and a government that is in their pocket via campaign contributions.

In a full-blown Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a public that they tell what to think in a government that they tell what to allow, by the most efficient means possible.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yes, discard all knowledge obtained through research and disciplined study of the field, because it is biased toward ideas that make sense and/or are applicable to real systems.

I'm not really up for a debate on whether socialist or Keynesian economics are "disciplined fields of study."

He seems to be interested in libertarianism, so I told him to study economics, specifically free-market economics. I also said not to take classes because he'd end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher, thus he would learn very little about free-market economics. Do you understand?

We can totally discount the fact that corporations would also be in control of the flow of information and free to control that flow in the short and medium term through alliances with other corporations that would serve their interest in guaranteeing revenue that would otherwise depend upon the quality of their product and/or service.

We can also discount the influence corporations would have on what positions would be available at what rates of pay and what influences would be impressed upon individuals at each pay grade regarding what products and services they should buy.

In the transition to a Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a media that is in their pocket via advertising and a government that is in their pocket via campaign contributions.

In a full-blown Libertarian economy, corporations would be accountable to a public that they tell what to think in a government that they tell what to allow, by the most efficient means possible.

Could you rephrase...everything? I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Please, do yourself and the world a favor and do not make that generalization. The two are very different things.

On paper, they are different. When put into practice, communism is the same as pure socialism. Everybody owning everything and nobody owning anything amount to the same thing. In both cases, the government actually owns everything and lets the people partake in some of their stuff.

Let's pretend an entire nation owns everything in that nation. What does that really mean? Can I walk into the house where you sleep and walk off with the television because it belongs to both of us? No, the government wouldn't allow it. Property is not really collective in communism. You use the television because the government let you use it. The government has control of the economic system, and they distibute stuff out as they please. That is pure socialism. Communism and pure socialism work the same way. The differences are only in the way their names and plans are labelled.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm not really up for a debate on whether socialist or Keynesian economics are "disciplined fields of study."He seems to be interested in libertarianism, so I told him to study economics, specifically free-market economics. I also said not to take classes because he'd end up with a socialistic or Keynesian teacher, thus he would learn very little about free-market economics. Do you understand?

I understand you're moving to discredit the university system in which knowledge is tested against a body of well-informed peers in favor of a system of cherry-picking texts which reinforce a pre-established dictum.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Could you rephrase...everything? I'm not sure what you mean.

1) businesses do not begin, in any real-world economy, on an even playing field

2) businesses are not limited to competition as the sole means of interaction, but are free to cooperate, conspire, or collude as it serves their interests

3) Improving product or service are neither the sole nor primary means of increasing profit for large businesses

4) The only significant discrepancy between businesses and governments at a sufficiently large scale is the unit of influence: dollars versus votes. For governments, dollars count somewhat more than votes. For businesses, only dollars count.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I understand you're moving to discredit the university system in which knowledge is tested against a body of well-informed peers in favor of a system of cherry-picking texts which reinforce a pre-established dictum.

Excellent strawman!

1) businesses do not begin, in any real-world economy, on an even playing field

And?

2) businesses are not limited to competition as the sole means of interaction, but are free to cooperate, conspire, or collude as it serves their interests

And?

3) Improving product or service are neither the sole nor primary means of increasing profit for large businesses

In which type of economy?

4) The only significant discrepancy between businesses and governments at a sufficiently large scale is the unit of influence: dollars versus votes. For governments, dollars count somewhat more than votes. For businesses, only dollars count.

To get the dollars companies must satisfy costumer demand.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Excellent strawman!

Does "Libertarianism" exist in any more developed form? Particularly in an academic context?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

To get the dollars companies must satisfy costumer demand.

Which, if they control the avenues of information for even a significant chunk of the populace, they are also free to define.