The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[LnGrrrR]

First, it must be clearly desired by the people. It should be put to a national vote. SS and Medicare are programs wanted. Obamacare isn't. Would you agree with that?

Well, representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So if enough representatives vote on something and it passes, one would argue that the will of the people was represented.

I think there would be some heavy logistical issues in forcing a national vote onto every piece of legislation, don't you?

[LnGrrrR]

That's why the Airforce started as an offshoot of the Army, and the Marines from the Navy.

I think you're missing his point, which is how literally you translate the Cons ution. (ie. if the fourth amendment allows people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, that also logically extends to their cars, their electronic do ents, etc etc, even though that's not literally spelled out in the amendment.)

[Wild Cobra]

Well, representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So if enough representatives vote on something and it passes, one would argue that the will of the people was represented.

If that were true, Obama care would have never passed.

I think there would be some heavy logistical issues in forcing a national vote onto every piece of legislation, don't you?

Not every piece of legislation. Congress shouldn't be making so much legislation anyway.

Do you really like the overreach of our government?

[Wild Cobra]

I think you're missing his point, which is how literally you translate the Cons ution. (ie. if the fourth amendment allows people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, that also logically extends to their cars, their electronic do ents, etc etc, even though that's not literally spelled out in the amendment.)

Anything not shared, yes. Thing is, most en ies have you sign a third party waver, and even when you don't, where do you draw the line at probable cause.

We have argued probable cause before. We came to agreements on the black and white of it, just not the gray.

[LnGrrrR]

If that were true, Obama care would have never passed.

And yet, it did. Would you force representatives to vote exactly as their cons uent would want? Or should representatives have the freedom, once voted into office, to vote how they wish?

Not every piece of legislation. Congress shouldn't be making so much legislation anyway.

How would you determine which legislation was important enough for a national vote?

Do you really like the overreach of our government?

Did I say I did?

[LnGrrrR]

Anything not shared, yes. Thing is, most en ies have you sign a third party waver, and even when you don't, where do you draw the line at probable cause.

We have argued probable cause before. We came to agreements on the black and white of it, just not the gray.

You're overthinking this WC; RG was making a humorous comment that the Air Force and Marines are technically not explicitly outlined in the Cons ution; only the Army and Navy are. (Implying that Marines/Air Force would only be acceptable if under their respective branches, and not their own independent ones.)

[ALVAREZ6]

Libertarianism is only for smart people.

[ALVAREZ6]

Smart man:

[RandomGuy]

No.

Anything above 20% I would say is unreasonable. At what point below 20%... I haven't thought much on that.

If we allow a flat tax with a standard deduction and exemptions like many will insist on retaining, 17% taxation would probably be enough.

Oddly enough the debt panel convened by Obama came to many of the same conclusions. Their % was around 23% or so though.

[RandomGuy]

Power to the states. Instead of centralizing power and serving it up on a plate, reduce the power and scope of federal govt and allow states to govern their residents on a more local level.

Will they still be prone to corruption? Yes. BUT: Are state govts more apt to have to answer to voters? yes.

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

[RandomGuy]

Been browsing through the website:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com

Interesting guy who specializes in thinking about systems.

He also seems to think the US is heading for hyperinflation, and even quotes the same guy that Parker does.

Of course, he spends a lot of time skewering faulty Libertarian/Conservative reasoning as well.

It makes for intresting reading, even if the website seems slow.

[CosmicCowboy]

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

And state officials are a lot easier to arrest/prosecute/throw out of office.

[RandomGuy]

And state officials are a lot easier to arrest/prosecute/throw out of office.

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

[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

JW. 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.

RP. Congratulations. You're a perfect example of someone blinded by "ignorance is strength" doublethink.

Yes, I despise libertarianism because it leads to the destruction of a civil society and the very freedom libertarians claim to support. The reason I do is that I now have a real understanding of what's going on. Libertarians are sociopaths.

The end product of libertarianism is corporate control of government: fascism. Your defense of it is either ignorant and foolish or purely Orwellian.

JW: Your use of the term sociopath proves my point. Libertarians, by definition, are THE MOST respectful of others rights and feelings. Respect of others rights and property is paramount in the Libertarian philosophy. However, at the same time you seem to have little or no understanding of the meaning of the terms "laws of nature" or "nature's God" as used in the Declaration. There is no such thing as "social feelings," "social consciousness" or a "social being" or other such silly concepts. Tell me Bob, where does this common mind or en y exist in humans? It is a ridiculous creation of the socialist mind itself. No two people think the same on any issue even if they have some common area of agreement. Such common agreement is the lowest common denominator of agreement and typically represents the worst possible solution to any problem. Individuals find their own solutions, negotiate their own agreements and act on their own volition to solve their own problems. Tell me Bob, when was the last time you formed a committee to buy a house, a car, decide on how many kids to have, take a job or quit a job? What? Never? I'm shocked! You are the typical example of the common fool who believes such nonsense while actually practicing none of it.

RP: Here it is clearly. They believe:

There's no "social" anything. There is no collective. Only individuals have problems and individuals alone act on their own to solve them. Any idea of a collective reality is the ridiculous creation of a "socialist mind." Anyone who thinks otherwise is a common fool.

The problem with this is of course that there really is a collective dimension that's integral to reality. See What's Spirit Got to Do with It? and Problems: A Society's or An Individual's?

Ever hear that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?"

Well, that's literally true. because systems have "emergent properties." You can't cut an elephant in half and get two elephants; an elephant is the sum of its parts. A mind isn't in the parts of a brain; it's a manifestation of the whole of a brain and the interactions among its parts. There is society and culture that's made up of individuals, but is greater than the individuals themselves.

Here are examples of collectives that have a "mind of their own" and have a profound influence on our decisions, often without us being consciously aware of the influence:

Family. The reality that the family is a collective most directly drives a stake in the heart of libertarian belief.

Anyone who's familiar with the codependency model and has applied it to their own life knows this. When there's an addict in a family, the members of the family warp their behaviors in well-known, common ways to take on roles that help keep the family together. Roles: the enabler, hero, scapegoat, lost child, and mascot.

I once thought codependency had nothing to do with me, but that by attending a codependency workshop, I'd probably learn something anyway. To my great shock and dismay, I found my family members fit these roles exactly. And I'd thought I was too unique for that to be possible. I was too much of an individual to be so influenced. Oh, my.

Beyond this we know that maturity requires balancing between individual needs and family needs. Individuals can't just make their own decisions, independent of the family.

Unless, of course, they're juveniles ... teenagers ... libertarians. Teenagers and libertarians neglect responsibilities to the long-term and to the whole. They adopt a teenage, foot-stomping, "I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it" at ude. Immature, irresponsible. They're not responsible human beings.

Community. Boulder has different values than Colorado Springs. In Boulder they invest in infrastructure and restrict growth to be attractive by maintaining quality of life, but high taxes and higher home prices reduce the regions attractiveness. Colorado Springs tries to remain attractive with low taxes, but infrastructure backlogs grow which makes it less attractive.

In Colorado Springs, excessively influenced by libertarian, right-wing economic beliefs, they want a more "free market" economy that redistributes the costs of development onto the public at large ... cost-side socialism ... that leads to infrastructure backlogs, and they want low taxes that leads to even greater infrastructure backlogs.

Because of national-level policies, problems related to growth cannot be solved at the individual regional level. See the Growth Facts of Life for how regions can be individually logical, but collectively irrational. For other examples of the individually logical, but collectively irrational, see The Trade Deficit and the Fallacy of Composition.

Mob behavior. Mobs behave in ways the individuals in a mob would never behave on their own. The libertarian belief that individuals make their decisions on their own denies this can be.

Culture. There are common sets of beliefs that affect the behavior of individuals in a society. Anyone who's lived in a foreign country (I have) understands that they believe differently and behave differently because of those different beliefs. Every society has a culture that influences individual behaviors. The decisions we make are influenced by society. Even the information we take in is filtered through societal filters, through what our neighbors tell us and through the media. Europeans see the U.S. as dysfunctional and short-sighted, which of course we are. And conservatives quite readily demean Europeans, especially the French.

Soldiers. Soldiers on the battlefield come to understand that they need to look out for each other. They know that there but for the Grace of God go I. I've often heard that they stay with their units because their buddies depend on them ... they're part of their unit, their team, their ... uhh ... collective.

The same is true for each of us. When we see a homeless person on the street, "There but for the Grace of God go I." Some people can work their way out of poverty, but national policies condemn at least 12% of us to live in poverty. See There's no 'free market' for Labor for why.

Committees? No, we don't "form a committee." It's more subtle than that. We're heavily, and mostly subconsciously, influenced by the beliefs of our family, our community, and our culture. Even what we perceive gets to us through filters. These filters let some information through and not other information.

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

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

RP. This really proves you're either blind or can't read.

It's EXACTLY about that ... privatizing government functions into the hands of unaccountable corporations as contractors. Halliburton even moves to Dubai to escape scrutiny. These private corporations then use their profits to fund elections and control politicians ... creating fascism. That's why the occupation of Iraq, with more private contractors than troops, is so difficult to end ... tons of money are being made through "war profiteering."

JW: No Bob, it proves you can neither read nor think much without hurting yourself. Libertarians neither desire or condone use of the state by rent-seeking corporations to obtain benefit for themselves. Libertarians demand exactly the opposite. An end to state power exactly so corporations cannot seek influence or benefit from them. Without a huge sate apparatus in place to manipulate corporations live and die according to the free-market, not government induced influence through handing out power and benefits. this again proves your breath-taking misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy and practice.

RP: Now this is really telling. Corporations are fictional en ies. They ONLY exist through the power of the state that defines them and the rules by which they operate: in the shareholder interest with limited liability. It's impossible to get rid of the state apparatus and have corporations.

The idea that there's a "huge state apparatus" that manipulates corporations ignores that it's the reverse. Corporations manipulate government to define the rules to serve their interests. These rules allow them to privatize the profits and socialize the costs onto the public through negative externalities.

Examples of negative externalities are pollution, injuries and deaths of employees, and increasing burden on infrastructure required to support their ability to sell and distribute their products. A smaller, less-powerful government that does not serve the public, the common, the collective interest only makes it possible for corporations to manipulate government more easily.

Libertarians would say that the individual should just sue the corporation to enforce their individual rights to recover damages. But when there's pollution, the cost to any given individual may be small and, on an individual basis, it won't be economically possible. If the pollution causes death, then each individual has to prove individually that the pollution caused the death; again this is not economically feasible.

This "you just don't understand Libertarian philosophy" is a recurring response to those who expose its flaws.

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

[RandomGuy]

Same Old Party By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2007

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don't know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism -- and Mr. Bush hasn't strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he's the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush's general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here's how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a "rather cavalier at ude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems" because "the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority -- so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government."

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that "under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds -- demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors."

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In "The Conscience of a Conservative," published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size."

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Cons ution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top -- who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons -- I've got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as "humiliating to the South."

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts -- which, for a time, were all too successful -- to intimidate the press. But this administration's media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh's apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon's media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration's attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater -- who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life -- staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration's authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that "the White community in the South is en led to take such measures as are necessary to prevail," and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after "consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal" -- presumably a reference to the do ent known as the Cons ution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: "Well, how did we get here?" They may tell themselves: "This is not my beautiful Right." They may ask themselves: "My God, what have we done?"

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism's true, loyal heir.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

*sigh*

We still have that in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

[LnGrrrR]

Then why did we have state political machines in the early 1900's?

Because we didn't have a powerful federal en y

Let's face it, whoever at the top is tough to throw down. If you weaken fed to the amount that states have more power, it will be tougher to throw them in jail.

[Parker2112]

*sigh*

We still have that in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

the whole point, and nothing but the point

[Parker2112]

RG, mind this quote, as it seeks to undermine libertarian philosophy:

It's impossible to get rid of the state apparatus and have corporations.

This overstates libertarians aim as wishing to completely dissolve government alltogether.

Overstating things a bit, dont you think? Also a common thread among opponents around here, dont you think?

Rivaling the republican tendency to claim anyone who supports health care reform is a socialist/communist, no?

This dude's take is the pits.

There is a huge difference in removing federal powers ac ulated contrary to the cons ution and returning them to the states, vs dissolving any and all semblance of organized society.

To avoid discussion of the former and focus on the latter is to engage in disengenious debate.

And Ihavent heard you even touch on states rights.

[Parker2112]

State governments are also waaay easier for a multi-billion dollar corporation to buy.

OK, so you did lay down this one conclusory statement.

Care to back that up?

Bonus Points: Care to touch on how much easier it is to monitor/hold your govt accountable at local/state level?

[MannyIsGod]

*sigh*

We still have that in Chicago but it's not the norm.

The more you keep money/decisions local, the better chance you have that the government will be responsible to the people.

Oh Really?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=132

I know I really work at trying to be an informed voter but have to admit that in some of the small local races, especially for the boards, water districts, etc. I don't really have a clue...I will typically just not to vote in that election if I don't have an informed opinion.

[RandomGuy]

OK, so you did lay down this one conclusory statement.

Care to back that up?

Bonus Points: Care to touch on how much easier it is to monitor/hold your govt accountable at local/state level?

I will offer as evidence every single statement you have made about how corporations affect our government through campaign contributions and other methods. Do I need anything further? If you like, I can mine your posts for quotes to support my assertion.

As for "bonus points":
Sure.

The answer is I don't really know for certain one way or ther other, having no direct experience. However, I do find it eminently plausible that it easier, and would accept that assertion as reasonable.

Bonus points: Name your governor, the top three legislative leaders, any two members of your state's supreme court, and your state attorney general, and the heads of the three largest state agencies by budget, without looking any of them up.

Care to touch on whether it is really feasible in the real world to depend on people to do that monitoring?

One of the main criticisms of Libertarianism is that it is vastly unrealistic for larger political en ies.

If you can't answer my bonus points quiz, what makes you think things will magically change if we accepted the Libertarian form of government you advocate?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh Really?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=132

Your point?

You obviously went to a lot of trouble to make it...

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[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.

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.