Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

I think there are people on that list who espouse libertarian principles, yet do not fit the stereotype of Andrew Ryan.

Well Libertarianism isn't quite Objectivism. Libertarianism tends to believe that it will actually make the world a better place for more people, primarily, whereas Objectivism is pretty much happy to say "eh, fuck em". I have never met an Objectivist who espoused the idea that "the current system is holding the successful and talented down" who did not believe that, if things changed, they would be the successful talented ones ascending the ranks.

Or to put it another way: Libertarianism believes that natural controls will evolve to prevent the harmful effects of laissez faire. Objectivism sees the harmful effects as just part of the natural order.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I think it's just an unevolved ideology for a young person. A starting point from which the build on as life throws experiences their way. It's also an escape method for older people to detach themselves from the current political landscape, yet still allows them to cast opinions.

I think it's a very understandable thing for a person who is passionate and intelligent to try to engage in the political discussion and see all it's inefficiencies and corruption and just say "fuck it" and retreat to the island of Rand for the rest of their life. I think harcore socialists also share some of this, too.

 

[Omegasquash]

Well Libertarianism isn't quite Objectivism. Libertarianism tends to believe that it will actually make the world a better place for more people, primarily, whereas Objectivism is pretty much happy to say "eh, fuck em". I have never met an Objectivist who espoused the idea that "the current system is holding the successful and talented down" who did not believe that, if things changed, they would be the successful talented ones ascending the ranks.

Or to put it another way: Libertarianism believes that natural controls will evolve to prevent the harmful effects of laissez faire. Objectivism sees the harmful effects as just part of the natural order.

Thank you...Objectivism isn't something I've been exposed to before.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Oh yes its lazy. The amount of people I hear screaming "end the fed" and then have no idea what the Federal Reserve does is astounding. Its very easy to scare someone.

 

[WARCOCK]

Libertarianism is as infantile an idea as Communism, neither acknowledges reality.



This was nice. I like you right now.

Damn, you sure debunked a century of political philosophical debate in a sentence.

 

[timetokill]

Ignoring the people who are just here for another Libertarian pinata party, here's the deal. Libertarianism is attractive because:

- It presumes that most people are Good
- It presumes that most people are Rational
- Meritocracies can work

Therefore, you don't need or want a government restricting you from doing things a Good or Rational person wants to do.

There are a lot of people who falsely accuse libertarians of hating poor people or saying "fuck you I got mine" and so on. In reality, libertarians believe that since people are Good and Rational that a market of these people will eventually lift everyone up. The Racist Businessman, therefore, would go out of business because the Good and Rational people would not patronize his stores, nor work for him; causing him to miss out on both customers and workers.

Libertarianism therefore distrusts power that is centralized under a force outside the market. If somebody claims power via the market, it follows that they have provided goods and services to the market in order to claim that power. So their power is justified and is enhanced by doing Good Things. They must also do things efficiently because if they do not, the competition will beat them and claim the power/wealth.

In contrast, a Government wields massive power and has no competition. This generates a situation where the market can reach outside the market to a non-market power and use it to stifle their own competition -- which is something we see happening constantly today and is how we've shifted to corporatism. Keep in mind that libertarians do not favor corporatism, though some would tell you otherwise.

The OP asked: "While this sounds very refreshing, one has to wonder how a libertarian would respond to the reality of third party forces that can pressure the people in a far greater way than the government can. For example, telecom companies or healthcare companies."

The way they would respond is to point out that those companies have gotten as powerful as they are because of the government, not in spite of it. Our government puts in place many policies that are meant to aid certain companies over others, create monopolies, etc.

The main flaw with libertarianism is that it's too idealistic. But then again, that flaw is what draws so many to it.


To many a libertarian, the goals of a modern government should be:
- national defense
- control/ownership of Natural Monopolies -- public utilities and such
- dissolution/obstruction of anti-competitive-market practices (other monopolies, etc.)
- potentially fire/police in certain areas

... and that's mostly it (though I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things).

The government will be less efficient at most things when compared to the market (except in cases of natural monopolies, see above)


Things the government should not be doing:
- creating/enforcing drug laws, prohibition, etc.
- banning sale of soda containers that are too large
- searching people at airports
- starting wars/policing the world
- interfering with people doing things that don't harm others, etc.

 

[Freshmaker]

Uh...what? The US currently spends about $75 billion a year on foodstamps alone. Do you honestly think if that disappeared private charity would increase by $75 billion?

That's silly. The lazy would finally get jobs.

 

[Bombadil]

Ignoring the people who are just here for another Libertarian pinata party, here's the deal. Libertarianism is attractive because:

- It presumes that most people are Good
- It presumes that most people are Rational
- Meritocracies can work

Therefore, you don't need or want a government restricting you from doing things a Good or Rational person wants to do.

There are a lot of people who falsely accuse libertarians of hating poor people or saying "fuck you I got mine" and so on. In reality, libertarians believe that since people are Good and Rational that a market of these people will eventually lift everyone up. The Racist Businessman, therefore, would go out of business because the Good and Rational people would not patronize his stores, nor work for him; causing him to miss out on both customers and workers.

Libertarianism therefore distrusts power that is centralized under a force outside the market. If somebody claims power via the market, it follows that they have provided goods and services to the market in order to claim that power. So their power is justified and is enhanced by doing Good Things. They must also do things efficiently because if they do not, the competition will beat them and claim the power/wealth.

In contrast, a Government wields massive power and has no competition. This generates a situation where the market can reach outside the market to a non-market power and use it to stifle their own competition -- which is something we see happening constantly today and is how we've shifted to corporatism. Keep in mind that libertarians do not favor corporatism, though some would tell you otherwise.

The OP asked: "While this sounds very refreshing, one has to wonder how a libertarian would respond to the reality of third party forces that can pressure the people in a far greater way than the government can. For example, telecom companies or healthcare companies."

The way they would respond is to point out that those companies have gotten as powerful as they are because of the government, not in spite of it. Our government puts in place many policies that are meant to aid certain companies over others, create monopolies, etc.

The main flaw with libertarianism is that it's too idealistic. But then again, that flaw is what draws so many to it.


To many a libertarian, the goals of a modern government should be:
- national defense
- control/ownership of Natural Monopolies -- public utilities and such
- dissolution/obstruction of anti-competitive-market practices (other monopolies, etc.)
- potentially fire/police in certain areas

... and that's mostly it (though I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things).

The government will be less efficient at most things when compared to the market (except in cases of natural monopolies, see above)


Things the government should not be doing:
- creating/enforcing drug laws, prohibition, etc.
- banning sale of soda containers that are too large
- searching people at airports
- starting wars/policing the world
- interfering with people doing things that don't harm others, etc.

So, libertarian ignores reality. It presumes most people are good and rational.

What is rational, and what is good?

And how long does it take for the market to correct itself? How many people suffer under the lagtime of that invisible, corrective force?

I believe that a libertarian sees all the negative things that governments have done, and thinks that those negative things can only be attributed to the existence of a strong government.

As you put it, the government can put in place monopolies. Yet, is the government the only entity capable to creating a monopoly? Can it not arise on its own?

And while most people may be rational, do they have the time to always be rational? Don't companies today take advantage of people who don't have time, don't have information available to them, and are easily taken in by advertisements?

Haven't companies come together in the past to form partnerships? Aren't there snack companies today that are partnered together to defend their profits against regulation and backlash for unhealthy products?

Don't companies spend hundreds of billions every year bombarding the public with ads?

If the very first assumption that a libertarian makes is that people are rational and good, then the rest of the philosophy that follows amounts to balancing a piano on two toothpicks.

It's easily dismissed.

 

[timetokill]

What is rational, and what is good?

Acting rationally would be acting in self-interest, in market terms. Good is that you're not out to harm other people.

And how long does it take for the market to correct itself? How many people suffer under the lagtime of that invisible, corrective force?

The market responds much more quickly than the government does. For the market, wealth is at stake. For the government, the next election could be years away.

Think about it this way -- in an absence of legislation on the issue, gay people would be getting married already. The wedding industry would be making a bunch of money off of gay couples. Right now that market is being suppressed by a slow-moving, inept government that has caused people to suffer for a long time.

That said, there are some things a company might do to get away with short-term profits that are not in the public interest. This goes against the premise that people are generally Good so obviously this is a flaw. Keep in mind I'm not personally invested in libertarianism so much as not interested in a discussion where people throw up straw-libertarians and dance around them as they burn.

As you put it, the government can put in place monopolies. Yet, is the government the only entity capable to creating a monopoly? Can it not arise on its own?

My post already acknowledged that they can and that to many libertarians one valid function of a government is to prevent non-natural monopolies because they're anti-competitive. Please read up on natural monopolies vs. other types. I linked it above.

And while most people may be rational, do they have the time to always be rational? Don't companies today take advantage of people who don't have time, don't have information available to them, and are easily taken in by advertisements?

You're mistaking market rationality vs. individual philosophical rationality.

The negativity in your assumption is that people are stupid and thus taken in by advertisements to want things they don't actually want. On the contrary, advertising is meant to make you aware of products, build a brand image, and address things you do want but possibly aren't consciously aware of. But that's a whole other discussion.

Haven't companies come together in the past to form partnerships? Aren't there snack companies today that are partnered together to defend their profits against regulation and backlash for unhealthy products?

Yes, companies have colluded, and this is anti-competitive, and addressed above. And these companies can effectively defend themselves from regulation because the government has gotten powerful enough to protect them as opposed to only having the power to dismantle such arrangements.

Don't companies spend hundreds of billions every year bombarding the public with ads?

Yes? I don't see many non-libertarians doing anything about that either, so what's your point?

 

[The Technomancer]

You're mistaking market rationality vs. individual philosophical rationality.

The negativity in your assumption is that people are stupid and thus taken in by advertisements to want things they don't actually want. On the contrary, advertising is meant to make you aware of products, build a brand image, and address things you do want but possibly aren't consciously aware of. But that's a whole other discussion.

This flies in the face of like, all advertising theory and practice. Advertising and marketing is most certainly intended to, and is effective at, manipulation.

it is not because people are stupid. Let me make that clear. It is because humanity has become self reflective enough to discover some of the flaws in our own psychological and cognitive processes. That can be a great thing. But it can also be exploited. And it is very real.

In fact, I'd call that one of the most fundamental flaws of libertarian philosophy: the idea that people can't be influenced outside of direct coercion or bribery.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

- It presumes that most people are Good
- It presumes that most people are Rational

There's a current in libertarianism that's starts from a very different place. It basically goes something like this: picture the most rapacious capitalist that you can. Now give him a gun. Now give him so much moral authority that he's the -only- one who can legitimately use a gun. That's what the government looks like to some libertarians.

Libertarianism can be based on the acknowledgement that the flaws in humanity that lead to capitalist excesses do not disappear, and in fact are magnified, by having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Libertarianism is astrology for men.

 

[GalacticSushiman]

It's a philosophy, an objective more than anything else.

Nobody just think that letting the invisible hand do everything in every markets is what we should implement RIGHT NOW, even Friedrich Von Hayek was talking about transitions... But they do beleive the invisible hand and the homo economicus are the best paradygm to work with in micro-economy... I understand why.

Classic economists are working on 'models', which means something that the reality should TEND to, that's it.

 

[kirblar]

There's a current in libertarianism that's starts from a very different place. It basically goes something like this: picture the most rapacious capitalist that you can. Now give him a gun. Now give him so much moral authority that he's the -only- one who can legitimately use a gun. That's what the government looks like to some libertarians.

Libertarianism can be based on the acknowledgement that the flaws in humanity that lead to capitalist excesses do not disappear, and in fact are magnified, by having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

The problem is that you have to give the gun to someone. Power does indeed abhor a vacuum.

 

[SlipperySlope]

How are they not problems?



That's the lazy part.

No one can be allowed to do anything they want. They can be allowed to do certain things. And if some entity must exist to enforce the rules of the society, then it must be funded by someone, namely the people who live in that society.

Paying taxes to the government is like paying rent to your landlord. You are provided essential services for your money.

The argument that fiscal conservatives make against government and taxes is they say that the government is very inefficient when it comes to providing services. They say private entities can do a much better job of providing services to the public while doing it cheaply.

This is an argument that I find is true in 99% of cases. This as I'm coding interoperability to a government system that was built in the 70's... and never updated.

 

[somuchwater]

Don't worry. If it's lazy, it will never succeed the way the more deserving, hard-working political ideologies have.

I don't recall seeing a better response on GAF. Bravo!

 

[Deified Data]

Most political ideologies are lazy, insofar as they're formed overnight and change very little over time. It takes little effort to be a liberal or a conservative - it takes an involved perspective to understand why you believe what you believe.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is an argument that I find is true in 99% of cases. This as I'm coding interoperability to a government system that was built in the 70's... and never updated.

Yeah, you do run into stuff like that. But the government can (and often, although of course not always) be more efficient for a couple reasons:

1.)it doesn't have to make a profit on the services it provides, which opens up a lot of operation space

2.)it can "buy" in bulk on a scale that dwarfs any private group, which can have an effect on pricing.

The main problem is, of course, the budget situation, where an entity that doesn't expend its budget gets a smaller budget because everyone is always trying to cut operation costs. But I think there are a few solutions to that...

 

[Freshmaker]

The market responds much more quickly than the government does. For the market, wealth is at stake. For the government, the next election could be years away.

What is the typical market response?

Cover up the problem. Don't fix it. Then eventually die without outside assistance because lazy lack of accountability created a horrible problem that they refused to ever fix or address until it became so huge that it swallowed the business whole and dragged down society a peg with it.

This just gets worse with less oversight. This as been demonstrated time and time again in history.

For a philosophy that hinges upon consumers having access to perfect information so they can make financial punishments to wrongdoers in a responsive and effective fashion the lack of historical education in its proponents is rather breathtaking.

 

[Azih]

This is an argument that I find is true in 99% of cases. This as I'm coding interoperability to a government system that was built in the 70's... and never updated.

You could on the other hand take a look at Scandinavian or German governments for counter examples.

Also to echo Freshmaker, a market is only efficient if all participants are knowledgeable with a perfect market requiring all participants to have perfect information. This has never been remotely realistic. Can you test your own food for botulism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

 

[timetokill]

This flies in the face of like, all advertising theory and practice. Advertising and marketing is most certainly intended to, and is effective at, manipulation.

it is not because people are stupid. Let me make that clear. It is because humanity has become self reflective enough to discover some of the flaws in our own psychological and cognitive processes. That can be a great thing. But it can also be exploited. And it is very real.

No, it doesn't. I never said that it wasn't often intended to have a manipulative effect. What I did say (perhaps not clearly enough) was that it doesn't make people want what they didn't already want. It taps into preexisting desires and says that it will fill those desires. There's a disconnect where people say, "well I didn't want an iPod before now, but now I do." But what you're buying is not really the iPod itself. You're buying the less tangible things that go along with the iPod. That's really what the advertisement is about.

There's a current in libertarianism that's starts from a very different place. It basically goes something like this: picture the most rapacious capitalist that you can. Now give him a gun. Now give him so much moral authority that he's the -only- one who can legitimately use a gun. That's what the government looks like to some libertarians.

Libertarianism can be based on the acknowledgement that the flaws in humanity that lead to capitalist excesses do not disappear, and in fact are magnified, by having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I hear you, and that's a pretty good way of describing what the government can look like. And there are certainly different aspects to libertarianism. But I don't think it necessarily comes from that different a place -- I think ultimately it says that yes, power can corrupt, but when it's from the market it's less stable and the power is ultimately dispersed among the people in the market. The government's power comes from within and thus cannot easily be dismantled.

 

[FoneBone]

The negativity in your assumption is that people are stupid and thus taken in by advertisements to want things they don't actually want. On the contrary, advertising is meant to make you aware of products, build a brand image, and address things you do want but possibly aren't consciously aware of. But that's a whole other discussion.

Advertising is not meant to mislead or make people "want things they don't want"?

In fact, I'd call that one of the most fundamental flaws of libertarian philosophy: the idea that people can't be influenced outside of direct coercion or bribery.

Exactly: the idea that the market is more responsive to customer "votes" than the government altogether ignores the effectiveness of PR campaigns and advertising.

 

[timetokill]

Advertising is not meant to mislead or make people "want things they don't want"?

It's meant to tap into things that people want, and suggest that the product being advertised will fill that desire.

For instance, cosmetics companies are actually selling hope, not just dyes for your face.

 

[SamVimes]

Terry Pratchett is not a libertarian.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's meant to tap into things that people want, and suggest that the product being advertised will fill that desire.

For instance, cosmetics companies are actually selling hope, not just dyes for your face.

So it is about selling people things they don't necessarily want by telling them that it is something they want. No concern for if it actually fills the desire, just convincing people that it will.

Or, to put it another way, if you gloss over the step where people become convinced by the person doing the selling that they want something then yes, advertising is just about filling wants. But I think that step is pretty important in the dialogue about manipulation and rational action in the market.

 

[Azih]

The government's power comes from within and thus cannot easily be dismantled.

Doesn't a democracy rest on approval from people? I'd say I have way more of a say in a government with a one person one vote scenario rather than a giant corporation.

 

[pigeon]

It's meant to tap into things that people want, and suggest that the product being advertised will fill that desire.

For instance, cosmetics companies are actually selling hope, not just dyes for your face.

But they don't provide hope, they provide dye. You're making the exact argument you claimed to be arguing against -- advertisement exists to trick people into believing they can address their intangible problems by buying products, when those products can't actually solve those problems.

 

[Deified Data]

Terry Pratchett is not a libertarian.

OP thinking of Terry Goodkind?

 

[FoneBone]

It's meant to tap into things that people want, and suggest that the product being advertised will fill that desire.

For instance, cosmetics companies are actually selling hope, not just dyes for your face.

"Selling hope" translates to me more as "preying on insecurities."

 

[dinazimmerman]

Most political ideologies are lazy. They rely on utopian, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Fix everything with more government. Fix everything with less government. Both mentalities are incredibly lazy. If you want to move beyond vacuous slogans, you'll have to abandon ideology altogether.

 

[gutter_trash]

Right Wing Libertarianism is extremely lazy:

''I've got mine, fuck you '' Ayn Rand Paul Ryan

 

[maharg]

Ignoring the people who are just here for another Libertarian pinata party, here's the deal. Libertarianism is attractive because:

- It presumes that most people are Good
- It presumes that most people are Rational
- Meritocracies can work

Therefore, you don't need or want a government restricting you from doing things a Good or Rational person wants to do.

There are a lot of people who falsely accuse libertarians of hating poor people or saying "fuck you I got mine" and so on. In reality, libertarians believe that since people are Good and Rational that a market of these people will eventually lift everyone up. The Racist Businessman, therefore, would go out of business because the Good and Rational people would not patronize his stores, nor work for him; causing him to miss out on both customers and workers.

Libertarianism therefore distrusts power that is centralized under a force outside the market. If somebody claims power via the market, it follows that they have provided goods and services to the market in order to claim that power. So their power is justified and is enhanced by doing Good Things. They must also do things efficiently because if they do not, the competition will beat them and claim the power/wealth.

In contrast, a Government wields massive power and has no competition. This generates a situation where the market can reach outside the market to a non-market power and use it to stifle their own competition -- which is something we see happening constantly today and is how we've shifted to corporatism. Keep in mind that libertarians do not favor corporatism, though some would tell you otherwise.

The OP asked: "While this sounds very refreshing, one has to wonder how a libertarian would respond to the reality of third party forces that can pressure the people in a far greater way than the government can. For example, telecom companies or healthcare companies."

The way they would respond is to point out that those companies have gotten as powerful as they are because of the government, not in spite of it. Our government puts in place many policies that are meant to aid certain companies over others, create monopolies, etc.

The main flaw with libertarianism is that it's too idealistic. But then again, that flaw is what draws so many to it.


To many a libertarian, the goals of a modern government should be:
- national defense
- control/ownership of Natural Monopolies -- public utilities and such
- dissolution/obstruction of anti-competitive-market practices (other monopolies, etc.)
- potentially fire/police in certain areas

... and that's mostly it (though I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things).

The government will be less efficient at most things when compared to the market (except in cases of natural monopolies, see above)


Things the government should not be doing:
- creating/enforcing drug laws, prohibition, etc.
- banning sale of soda containers that are too large
- searching people at airports
- starting wars/policing the world
- interfering with people doing things that don't harm others, etc.

What? There's a couple of things in here that are really off-kilter for what libertarians seem to actually believe. For one thing, the minimization of centralized power can't possibly come from a belief in inherent benevolence, or authoritarianism would actually be appealing (since it would mean good people would hold power). That's absurdly contradictory and doesn't mesh with the massive amount of distrust of human nature libertarians tend to present. For one thing, the very thing you claim underlies their trust in libertarianism is their first criticism of communism/socialism/etc.

Next, libertarians are generally opposed to any government management of the economy, including of 'natural monopolies'. They're also generally opposed to anti-trust laws intended to break up monopolies (http://www.dailypaul.com/59036/ron-paul-is-for-the-abolition-of-antitrust-laws). Quite the opposite of any of this, most libertarians actually seem to believe that monopolies are absolutely impossible without government intervention (believing as they do that government is the only means of concentration of power).

I'd really like to see any writing on libertarianism (of the pro-side) that argues in favour of government ownership of publlc utilities.

 

[timetokill]

But they don't provide hope, they provide dye. You're making the exact argument you claimed to be arguing against -- advertisement exists to trick people into believing they can address their intangible problems by buying products, when those products can't actually solve those problems.

No, they do provide hope, and they CAN address those issues. Whether they're problems to be solved is another issue entirely.

Or are you suggesting that makeup doesn't work and that girls are buying it because they're stupid?

No, they're buying it because it works on that intangible level. When you buy your iPhone you're buying the intangible benefits that come along with it, and it works, as evidenced by the people who keep lining up to buy them, repeatedly, even when the newer models don't offer any practical upgrade to their everyday lives.

"Selling hope" translates to me more as "preying on insecurities."

Okay, be as cynical as you want.

 

[Stinkles]

I think it's just an unevolved ideology for a young person. A starting point from which the build on as life throws experiences their way. It's also an escape method for older people to detach themselves from the current political landscape, yet still allows them to cast opinions.

I think it's a very understandable thing for a person who is passionate and intelligent to try to engage in the political discussion and see all it's inefficiencies and corruption and just say "fuck it" and retreat to the island of Rand for the rest of their life. I think harcore socialists also share some of this, too.

Yup. It appeals to the twin evils of simplicity and apparent, veneer-thin common sense. It's easy to latch on to and has strong positive examples you can use to show its "good." It obviously doesn't stand up to either scrutiny or the realities of economics (especially) and current western morality and ethics (for the most part).

 

[The Technomancer]

No, they do provide hope, and they CAN address those issues. Whether they're problems to be solved is another issue entirely.

Or are you suggesting that makeup doesn't work and that girls are buying it because they're stupid?

No, they're buying it because it works on that intangible level. When you buy your iPhone you're buying the intangible benefits that come along with it, and it works, as evidenced by the people who keep lining up to buy them, repeatedly, even when the newer models don't offer any practical upgrade to their everyday lives.

But where do those intangible benefits come from? You still seem to be agreeing with us, as much as you claim that you aren't.

It makes you happy because you've been told it will make you happy. There are also enormous amounts of social theory (and a fair amount of science that I've seen) about this.

 

[FoneBone]

But where do those intangible benefits come from? You still seem to be agreeing with us, as much as you claim that you aren't.

It's not just the benefits; what makes people perceive these "intangible problems" in the first place?

 

[timetokill]

What? There's a couple of things in here that are really off-kilter for what libertarians seem to actually believe. For one thing, the minimization of centralized power can't possibly come from a belief in inherent benevolence, or authoritarianism would actually be appealing (since it would mean good people would hold power). That's absurdly contradictory and doesn't mesh with the massive amount of distrust of human nature libertarians tend to present. For one thing, the very thing you claim underlies their trust in libertarianism is their first criticism of communism/socialism/etc.

Next, libertarians are generally opposed to any government management of the economy, including of 'natural monopolies'. They're also generally opposed to anti-trust laws intended to break up monopolies (http://www.dailypaul.com/59036/ron-paul-is-for-the-abolition-of-antitrust-laws). Quite the opposite of any of this, most libertarians actually seem to believe that monopolies are absolutely impossible without government intervention (believing as they do that government is the only means of concentration of power).

I'd really like to see any writing on libertarianism (of the pro-side) that argues in favour of government ownership of publlc utilities.

I'd say think of it this way: power tends to be exerted over other people, and power is a corrupting force. People on their own are Good and Rational, and will do things to promote their self-interest, which in theory has a side-benefit of promoting the interests of others. It follows from basic trade theory in general. Therefore people when left to their own devices will generally do good for the overall community in an invisible way (the invisible hand). However, when you have centralized authority, you can affect a great many people and there's no economic limitation to your actions.

It's been a while since I traveled in libertarian circles (and I don't consider myself one, just to clarify) -- but those that I met really didn't have "massive distrust of human nature." On the contrary, they believed that people were good and that capitalism isn't really an ism at all -- it's just what people do when left to their own devices.

The first criticism of communism/socialism that I saw was more that one size does not fit all, that people should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and that a centralized power cannot accurately read the market. The centralized power prescribes how its society should act and requires it by threat of force, whereas a market society does what it will.

And yes, many libertarians do not believe in any government control over economic interests, but you will find various levels of government support among libertarians. It's a pretty wide ideology from what I've seen. Some think the government should handle police, some think we should have private arbitration, etc. Some believe the roads should all be toll roads, etc. But yes, the general idea is to decentralize power as much as possible.

 

[Azih]

No, they do provide hope, and they CAN address those issues. Whether they're problems to be solved is another issue entirely.

Or are you suggesting that makeup doesn't work and that girls are buying it because they're stupid?

No, they're buying it because it works on that intangible level. When you buy your iPhone you're buying the intangible benefits that come along with it, and it works, as evidenced by the people who keep lining up to buy them, repeatedly, even when the newer models don't offer any practical upgrade to their everyday lives.




Okay, be as cynical as you want.

timetokill you're working on a very weird defense of advertising manipulation. Just because they exploit pre existing human nature doesn't mean they're not manipulating.

Let me give you an example of advertising that's pure fucking evil.

Baby formula in the third world. Gigantor corps like Nestle advertise their formula as being better for babies than breastmilk. Sure you *could* argue that the advertisers are just appealing to a mother's desire to do the best for her children but that's neither her nor there. This sort of shit leads to children growing up weaker and in poorer families just to push their fucking product.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

 

[WARCOCK]

Most political ideologies are lazy. They rely on utopian, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Fix everything with more government. Fix everything with less government. Both mentalities are incredibly lazy. If you want to move beyond vacuous slogans, you'll have to abandon ideology altogether.

I've come to terms with pragmatism as the best solution to finding policy that works and i fully agree with the dangers and unforeseen consequences that blindly applying ideology can cause. But i don't think i would go as far as calling the whole realm of political philosophy as lazy and devoid of any practical usage. It may certainly feel like modern governments are spinning alot of stuff and that ideology with no basis is blatantly used to get as many votes as possible but i feel there was alot of theoretical effort and work put into 20th century political philosophy despite the fact that either ideologies didn't provide efficient governing outcomes. Reading criticisms like in your post i get the idea that all the political movements that occured in the 20th century and before were generated by a bunch of drunkards that didn't really know wtf they were doing and just tried to implement some vague theoretical frameworks with absolutely no regards to real world consequences. There were alot of shortcomings and mistakes committed and sometimes politicians did disregard the consequences of their ideologies and simply tried to muscle their visions through. But to say that everything attempted so far was fueled by zeal and blindness is, if anything, lazy.

 

[Gawge]

I think that Libertarianism can be criticised fairly well by Rawl's 'Veil of Ignorance'.

You wouldn't actually want a libertarian society if you didn't know who/what you would be in that hypothetical society. Sure, the idea is somewhat appealing to me (on the face of it) because I am relatively privileged, so just let me do whatever I want (without harming others). But - there is no way i'd want such a system if I was in a poorer socio-economic group.

It is somewhat telling for me that the main advocates tend to be 'well-off' white males. Although that in itself if far from a good argument, I do think it is a naive view to think that anybody can do anything if they work hard, and people from middle-class families tend to think that everybody has the same opportunities of development as them.

 

[grumble]

Okay, so I see some issues with this idea:

1. It ignores second order effects people have on others (ie a person can't kill another, but a person can instill habits in their child that kills them)

2. It assumes an open world (ie unlimited resources), as otherwise a centralized management of finite resources to ensure they are not wasted would need to be put in place. This includes non-renewable resources, the environment, water, soil, etc.

3. It assumes that concentrations of power occur in government alone.

4. It assumes that people free of regulation will form rational groups.

5. It assumes that market failures do not exist to an extent that would be crippling if unregulated.

6. It assumes perfect social mobility.

7. It assumes that individuals are capable of educating themselves sufficiently about all aspects of their existence to make informed decisions in a completely open marketplace (finance, healthcare, education, real estate, etc), or creating organizations that are privately funded that do so effectively.

Any of these seven effects invalidate the philosophy. All seven put together make it total garbage and toxic to even consider.

 

[Flatline]

That's a strawman. I never made a post referencing the corporate power in society being somehow much better or qualitatively different than unions.

Besides, if you saw this post of mine in response to someone who believed monopolization wasn't a problem, you wouldn't be arguing with me:

You said:

Because it's nothing but utopian dreaming to believe the power vacuum will be filled and remain filled in the manner predicted (workers unions) with the benevolence and selflessness predicted (workers unions working in harmony), and that a mere majority of people is required. What in human history would guide a socialist into believing that workers seizing control and ascending to power would result in broad-based governance, as opposed to the eventual devolution of power into the hands of the few and thus the reliance on (best case) an enlightened despot (or group of despots)?

That sort of ideology's fatal flaw is relying too much on human nature without reason to do so.

which I took as criticism on workers' unions compared to corporations, sorry if that wasn't what you meant. Anyway all of that isn't that difficult to achieve through laws forbidding the accumulation of too much wealth and power. Unlike capitalism that allows infinite accumulation of power through wealth which results in plutocracies socialism has actual checks and balances to assure that won't happen.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Yeah, you do run into stuff like that. But the government can (and often, although of course not always) be more efficient for a couple reasons:

1.)it doesn't have to make a profit on the services it provides, which opens up a lot of operation space

2.)it can "buy" in bulk on a scale that dwarfs any private group, which can have an effect on pricing.

The main problem is, of course, the budget situation, where an entity that doesn't expend its budget gets a smaller budget because everyone is always trying to cut operation costs. But I think there are a few solutions to that...

Lack of competition creates laziness. And lack of profit motive gives you no reason to find and improve efficiencies. Your source of more money isn't "let's create a better product at a cheaper price so we can make more money". It's "let's tax people more." A government agency has little reason to find efficiencies.

 

[timetokill]

timetokill you're working on a very weird defense of advertising manipulation. Just because they exploit pre existing human nature doesn't mean they're not manipulating.

Let me give you an example of advertising that's pure fucking evil.

Baby formula in the third world. Gigantor corps like Nestle advertise their formula as being better for babies than breastmilk. Sure you *could* argue that the advertisers are just appealing to a mother's desire to do the best for her children but that's neither her nor there. This sort of shit leads to children growing up weaker and in poorer families just to push their fucking product.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

And yes, that's totally vile. I'm not saying that's acceptable, in my opinion. There should absolutely be regulations on false advertising. It's good that we have them

(Before you guys through the "aha!" statement at me, let me say again that I don't ascribe to libertarianism, I simply wanted to have a discussion about it that wasn't purely about libertarian strawmen that want to kill the poor or whatever.)

But yes, the advertising is appealing to the desire to give the best to your children, and that's what they're selling.

Here's an example. An exec from Big Red's advertising company once told me that their internal slogan for Big Red was, "Chew Big Red, Get Laid." Obviously Big Red doesn't get you laid on its own, and it's really just chewing gum -- it isn't necessary for human society. But if somebody buys the gum and it makes them feel more confident that night at the club for whatever reason, then didn't the person get what they paid for? Why is it a bad thing that it came attached to a stick of gum? Yeah, it sucks that the person wasn't more confident to begin with, but there's clearly a value in providing that confidence.



Anyway, this has all been good, guys. I've typed way too much for a guy at work and I know I haven't been as clear as I wanted, but... I've gotta get back to it. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[ProudClod]

What? There's a couple of things in here that are really off-kilter for what libertarians seem to actually believe. For one thing, the minimization of centralized power can't possibly come from a belief in inherent benevolence, or authoritarianism would actually be appealing (since it would mean good people would hold power). That's absurdly contradictory and doesn't mesh with the massive amount of distrust of human nature libertarians tend to present. For one thing, the very thing you claim underlies their trust in libertarianism is their first criticism of communism/socialism/etc.

Next, libertarians are generally opposed to any government management of the economy, including of 'natural monopolies'. They're also generally opposed to anti-trust laws intended to break up monopolies (http://www.dailypaul.com/59036/ron-paul-is-for-the-abolition-of-antitrust-laws). Quite the opposite of any of this, most libertarians actually seem to believe that monopolies are absolutely impossible without government intervention (believing as they do that government is the only means of concentration of power).

I'd really like to see any writing on libertarianism (of the pro-side) that argues in favour of government ownership of publlc utilities.

An argument for the benevolence of (most) people does not make authoritarianism appealing. Good people can make, and have made great leaders of a powerful centralized government. That is not the point. The belief that people are good on the whole does not mean that every single human being is 100% motivated by altruistic intentions. The problem with authoritarian systems is that oftentimes, the path to a dictatorship can often involve making lots of moral compromises. This allows people who are inherently not "good" to seize control, because the "good" people would be unwilling to play dirty enough to seize control.

The article you linked is an example of people misunderstanding the power of government in the formation of monopolies. Monopolies/oligopolies last only when the local governments support their economic regimes. In the case of credit rating agencies, for example, Standard and Poor's, Fitch, and Moody's have been locked in a three-way oligopoly because the government has made it impossible to enter into the market. This government-enforced oligopoly is one of the major reasons behind the 2008 financial crisis. These sorts of monopolies/oligopolies are not rare. Phone/cable/internet companies overcharge in North America because of their governmental lobbying power. Movie studios and record labels maintain their oligopolies because of local copyright laws that benefit big players with lawyers on retainer. Western capitalism is not free market capitalism. Perhaps going after anti-trust laws is kind of silly when there are so many other problems with our current model of capitalism. Nevertheless, in a truly free market, anti-trust laws would be unnecessary.

In a truly free market, monopolies/oligopolies can only be formed temporarily, and only when the producers of a good/service create the most wealth (not just profits). Without restriction on competition, even a potential competitor will encourage the monopolistic entity to innovate and improve. Even if the biggest companies got together and agreed on a price, assuming there is no legal barrier to entry into the market, a smart investor could easily steal all the business by providing the good/service for considerably cheaper.

 

[Flatline]

Acting rationally would be acting in self-interest, in market terms. Good is that you're not out to harm other people.

More often than not these two are opposed to each other. We've seen countless of times corporations and banks screwing the majority to promote their interests. And btw good is doing good, not just not harming other people. There's a difference there, because not helping your fellow humans when they desperately need it could be considered "good" according to your definition.

 

[LosDaddie]

I don't even consider most "Libertarians" in America to be real ones.

They should just be called state rightists or something.

In my experience, Libertarians & Repubs are one and the same. I have yet to meet a Libertarian who didn't support 99% of the GOP's platform....usually the type of conservative who goes on & on about how "both parties are the same" & such.

 

[timetokill]

More often than not these two are opposed to each other. We've seen countless of times corporations and banks screwing the majority to promote their interests. And btw good is doing good, not just not harming other people. There's a difference there, because not helping your fellow humans when they desperately need it could be considered "good" according to your definition.

Last comment -- yes, we've seen that, and it's a shame -- but the corporations and banks are protected by the government. Libertarians distrust centralized power in general. When the bank bailouts happened, libertarians hated it probably more than anybody.

As far as the goodness of people, the charitability of the people of the United States speaks towards the idea that people are generally Good. The United States gives a lot of money in charity every year.

 

[ProudClod]

In my experience, Libertarians & Repubs are one and the same. I have yet to meet a Libertarian who didn't support 99% of the GOP's platform....usually the type of conservative who goes on & on about how "both parties are the same" & such.

I think you misunderstand Libertarianism. Republicans claim to be Libertarian because sound-bytes about "capitalism," and "free markets" still resonate very heavily with their demographic: middle-aged to elderly constituents who lived through the Cold War. Of course, Republicans who claim to be Libertarian are either lying, or have no fucking clue what Libertarianism means, but that doesn't matter. When you can convince 50% of the country that democrats are socialists (remember guys and gals, the Cold War was a pretty frightening time for the older generations), you don't really need to explain why you claim to be for free-markets but have no opinion on the size of banks.

 

[Azih]

I believe people are good timetokill. That doesn't extend to when they start thinking purely in terms of ROI though. Have you seen the doc The Corporation? It makes a very credible case that shareholders in corps act like psychopaths. Well it makes the abstract case that if a Corporation was considered to be a person (which they legally are) they would be considered psychopaths. I extend that to the shareholders of the corp who control it and as a group only care about how much profit per quarter a company makes and has no care about how that profit was generated.