The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[CosmicCowboy]

Local political information is not higher than it is at the state and federal levels. The higher you go the more people are involved and the more they pay attention. Take a look at turnout for local elections not pinned with those of higher offices and you'll see turnout at about 10% on most of them.

And strangely enough, you will find typically that the 10% that voted are also typically informed voters.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not saying that everyone gets excited about the local dog catcher election, but if the dogcatcher is ing up it's a damn sight easier to get rid of him on a local level than it is a federal level.

And strangely enough, you will find typically that the 10% that voted are also typically informed voters.

Your second point is a good point. But anytime you make the oversight smaller it also allows things to be more easily corrupted.

More than size, I think proper oversight by the voters is what is necessary. I personally think most local politics affects day to day lives way more than the vast majority of federal issues but don't get enough attentionl

[RandomGuy]

101A asked about pollution and so forth. I think this was the thread I was looking for.

[vy65]

Maybe a little off-topic, but how would a libertarian deal with a situation where the government is the only ins ution that can protect minorities from a (racist, xenophobic, phobic, etc...) mob?

Would a libertarian think that Ike shouldn't have sent the 101st into Little Rock?

[RandomGuy]

That speaks to one of my largest criticisms of libertarianism and the kind of government that Ron Paul seems to favor.


The irrational worship of the founding fathers as infallible, and that the Cons ution's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions.

The relatively genous, sparsely populated country of 5,000,0000 yeoman farmers that mostly live in the countryside, and has little integration with the rest of the world's trade networks requires a vastly different government from a post-industrial country of 300,000,000 city-dwellers and immigrants that is the world's largest economy.

There were no international criminal cartels in 1791 that entered into the thinking of the framers of the cons ution, and that is just one example of the things that we have to deal with now, that were not a consideration in when the current cons ution was drafted.

[boutons_deux]

"that the Cons ution's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions."

hmm, that the Bible's meaning and form must be fixed in immutable stone leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions.

What's with these primitive people who worship writing as if it were magically empowered?

[RandomGuy]

Bump. I have a feeling someone wants to revisit this.

PT, that's you.

[spursncowboys]

From A Non-Libertarians FAQ

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a dessert topping!" "No, it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."

This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.

Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.

...

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT

Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?

There are some common counterarguments for which libertarians have excellent rebuttals. Arguments that government is the best or only way to do something may fail: there are many examples of many government functions being performed privately. Some of them are quite surprising. Arguments based on getting any services free from government will fail: all government services cost money that comes from somewhere. Arguments that we have a free market are patently untrue: there are many ways the market is modified.

There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point. These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc. Please feel free to suggest other concepts for this list.

One way to bring about a large volume of argument is to cross-post to another political group with opposing ideas, such as alt.politics.radical-left. The results are quite amusing, though there is a lot more heat than light. Let's not do this more often than is necessary to keep us aware that libertarianism is not universally accepted.

...

LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs) generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the cons ution.
3. The Declaration Of Independence says...
4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
5. Taxation is theft.
6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
8. The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.
9. her misc. claims denying the social contract.
10. Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract?
11. Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?

(list goes on, full list and rebuttals here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html )


---------------------------------------

The more I read up on whatever "Libertarianism" is, the more it looks to me like a quasi-religion, ala 9-11 Truth movement and so forth.

Here is another link:
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid


I have several Libertarian or semi-libertarian friends, and they think I am just as silly, I suppose. They aren't too hard core into it, so I don't get the overbearing attempts to convert me, but they do make for some interesting discussions.

I offer this as a critique and counterbalance to the constant stream of Libertarian evangelicism.

Given the quasi-religious nature of Libertarianism, I also don't expect a civil conversation about it. Most Libertarians on the internet tend to be fanatics, and fanatics really hate it when you are skeptical of their dogma.

Regards,
RG the Heretic

P.S. The next book on my reading list:
Are Capitalism, Objectivism, And Libertarianism Religions?
Yes!: Greenspan And Ayn Rand Debunked

Isn't that cute.

[RandomGuy]

Isn't that cute.

It is about as cute as allowing people to lie to you about gas prices, and sucking up those lies as facts.

[RandomGuy]

There's No Collective or Social Reality
by Bob Powell, 11/12/07


I sent out a column by Paul Krugman, Same Old Party (it's included at bottom), to my distribution with the preface below. I received a response from a libertarian that's worth considering, not because it makes sense, but because it illustrates how disconnected these people are from reality.

There's no talking to them and I have no illusion that anything I say or write will penetrate. This is for those who don't appreciate how they think and how dangerous they are to us all. They must be confronted, their insanity must be exposed, and their policies must be reversed.

Too many people buy into the simplistic libertarian nonsense that's destroying America.

Here's how I prefaced Krugman's column:

From: Bob Powell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, October 17, 2007 8:19 pm
To: Recipient list suppressed:;
Subject: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN

The combination of "conservative" (read libertarian) economics and authoritarian disregard of the Cons ution is fascism, the combined government and corporate control of the nation.

On the purpose of the Republican, endless "war on terror", read the prophetic and insightful excerpts from the "War as Peace" section of #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell by Emmanuel Goldstein, The 'Book within a Book' from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four at Liberal Moment #19 - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Here's the response from a libertarian.

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:03:23 -0700
From: JW
Subject: RE: Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN
To: Bob Powell <[email protected]>

Your pathological hatred and misdirection of Libertarianism as having mauch anything to do with "conservatism and its modern practice is becoming both boring and stupid.

Nothing in Krugman's article has anything to do with Libertarian thinking or economics/

JW

--------------------------------------------------------



[long series of quotes about the exchange not shown]






[indeed it is, a recurring theme in this thread as well--RG]

I may have to dredge this up for the current Libertarian Avenger to digest.

[Poptech]

Bump. I have a feeling someone wants to revisit this.

PT, that's you.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. You have a "FAQ" from a guy who apparently has read nothing on the subject. I searched the page for:

Ludwig von Mises = 0 time
Friedrich Hayek = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Murray Rothbard = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Milton Friedman = 3 times (In the critical references section he did not read)

I can tell immediately he has spent his time almost exclusively arguing with Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians and confused this when talking to Limited-Government Libertarians. This is deducted from the arguments he is listing and how they are presented. Anarcho-capitalists can be very dogmatic and difficult to reason with.


There are effectively two types of Libertarians,

L1. Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians (Rothbard)

- They want to eliminate government.

L2. Limited-Government Libertarians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman)

- They want to minimize government.

LC Libertarian-Conservatives (Sowell) *

- Not Libertarians but often confused as such due to many similar economic views.


There are effectively two Economic Schools,

E1. Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard)

E2. Chicago School (Friedman, Sowell)


Then there are Objectivists (Rand) - these are not Libertarians.


Some interesting notes: Rothbard despised Friedman, Rand despised Libertarians and Rothbard considers Objectivists a cult.


The FAQ author has not done even his basic home work to bother. If you want to really learn the history I suggest reading,

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (Brian Doherty, 2007)

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure what you want me to say. You have a "FAQ" from a guy who apparently has read nothing on the subject. I searched the page for:

Ludwig von Mises = 0 time
Friedrich Hayek = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Murray Rothbard = 1 time (In the critical references section he did not read)
Milton Friedman = 3 times (In the critical references section he did not read)

I can tell immediately he has spent his time almost exclusively arguing with Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians and confused this when talking to Limited-Government Libertarians. This is deducted from the arguments he is listing and how they are presented. Anarcho-capitalists can be very dogmatic and difficult to reason with.


There are effectively two types of Libertarians,

L1. Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians (Rothbard)

- They want to eliminate government.

L2. Limited-Government Libertarians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman)

- They want to minimize government.

LC Libertarian-Conservatives (Sowell) *

- Not Libertarians but often confused as such due to many similar economic views.


There are effectively two Economic Schools,

E1. Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard)

E2. Chicago School (Friedman, Sowell)


Then there are Objectivists (Rand) - these are not Libertarians.


Some interesting notes: Rothbard despised Friedman, Rand despised Libertarians and Rothbard considers Objectivists a cult.


The FAQ author has not done even his basic home work to bother. If you want to really learn the history I suggest reading,

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (Brian Doherty, 2007)

Civil.

So that is the way you want to play it, eh?

Two can play that game.

Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?

[Poptech]

Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?

What is "moral" is subjective and what is considered "moral" will change based on who you talk to, it will also change based on who the person is bleeding to death.

Two extreme examples,

1. A 5-year old child was hit by a drunk driver. No I do not believe it is moral to let the child bleed to death.

2. A drug addict, murderer, rapist who had just broken into my home, raped and murdered my ten year old daughter. Yes I believe it is moral to let this murderer, rapist bleed to death.

My preferred government is not involved in healthcare in anyway. There are no licensing or regulations for any doctor or hospital. This would ensure an ample supply of both, especially religious based hospitals that would offer charity care. Most doctors and nurses go into medicine to help people so the far majority are unlikely to let anyone bleed to death. From a pure business perspective, having people bleed to death because they could not pay is not good for business. Would you go to a hospital like this? I and most other people would not.

The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource

[boutons_deux]

The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource

... more proof that "libertarian" policies are nothing but shilling for unregulated predation by for-profit medical services. "Govt is the only problem" repeats St Ronnie's bull lie.

[Poptech]

... more proof that "libertarian" policies are nothing but shilling for unregulated predation by for-profit medical services. "Govt is the only problem" repeats St Ronnie's bull lie.

For profit medical services can only exist if they provide a service people want and are willing to pay for. By removing all licensing and regulation it would allow extensive compe ion from inexpensive medical services offering care from those with less than 11-years of medical training such as highly trained EMTs and Nurses.

[spursncowboys]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the le? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

[Poptech]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the le? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

This helps him support his stereo typing and laziness in doing any research or understanding the actual positions of those he emotionally dislikes. The fact that his main source of information is some guy absolutely ignorant on the subject is testament to this.

[boutons_deux]

For profit medical services can only exist if they provide a service people want and are willing to pay for. By removing all licensing and regulation it would allow extensive compe ion from inexpensive medical services offering care from those with less than 11-years of medical training such as highly trained EMTs and Nurses.

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.

[Poptech]

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.

Randian's are Objectivists who are not Libertarians. Therefore I cannot be a Randian. I had no idea you were an evolution denier?

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Let's start off with one of my favorite questions about Libertarianism to gauge where you stand.

Is it moral for a hospital, any hospital, to allow someone to bleed to death in the ER for lack of treatment if that person can't pay? i.e. can hospitals under your preferred scheme of goverment refuse care to such people?

What is "moral" is subjective and what is considered "moral" will change based on who you talk to, it will also change based on who the person is bleeding to death.

Two extreme examples,

1. A 5-year old child was hit by a drunk driver. No I do not believe it is moral to let the child bleed to death.

2. A drug addict, murderer, rapist who had just broken into my home, raped and murdered my ten year old daughter. Yes I believe it is moral to let this murderer, rapist bleed to death.

My preferred government is not involved in healthcare in anyway. There are no licensing or regulations for any doctor or hospital. This would ensure an ample supply of both, especially religious based hospitals that would offer charity care. Most doctors and nurses go into medicine to help people so the far majority are unlikely to let anyone bleed to death. From a pure business perspective, having people bleed to death because they could not pay is not good for business. Would you go to a hospital like this? I and most other people would not.

I will follow this up until a point. I don't think this will be overly productive, but hey, what the heck. I can click on the "view post" and follow this as long as it is civil and fair/honest.

So, yes, it is generally immoral to let someone bleed to death in an ER.

What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.

[RandomGuy]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the le? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

Yup. All ideologies tend to have spectrums of people who fit along a continuum. People rarely fit neatly into predefined categories.

[RandomGuy]

amazing, yet another Randian/Darwinian ideologue, spewing naive fantasies, knowing they will never have chance to be realized.

Yes. It is very easy to advocate a general ideology, and quite another to construct a real world functioning system. Ask communists how that has worked out for them. (it hasn't)

[Wild Cobra]

Much like liberals, socialists, progressives, conservatives and blue dogs, libertarians should not have to match a litmus test of other people's notions of their ideas. If someone considers himself a libertarian, who are you to expect said person to match what you consider important to have validation of the le? It is kind of silly and I see it here alot.

I agree we need to keep some regulations in place, by we do have way too many.

PopTech...

If you are talking about removing all restraints of a marketplace, I disagree. Do you realize you are appearing as the "anarchist" type libertarian?

[Wild Cobra]

What do you do about a hospital that does that? What if it is good for business?

Such a hospital would be able to offer much lower cost treatment, because they wouldn't have to bear the costs of treating people who can't pay.

Would you go to that hospital when you had a choice? How many other people would feel like you, and not do business with an establishment they despise?

Most things need not be regulated. The marketplace will work by alloying people to make the choices they want.

[RandomGuy]

Would you go to that hospital when you had a choice? How many other people would feel like you, and not do business with an establishment they despise?

Most things need not be regulated. The marketplace will work by alloying people to make the choices they want.

If that was the only place I could afford treatment, you bet I would go to such a hospital, if the alternative woudl be to go untreated.

That is the way the free market works.

Such a hospital would always have a lower cost structure than one who took people who couldn't pay.