Bringing in libertarianism

My question to the libertarian minded would be how would you bring in a libertarian type policies without helping the already rich and powerful?

Low or no taxation would give the already rich an advantage

Few regulations again would help the wealthy

Little or no state welfare provision would seem to make it more difficult to get out of poverty

Having to pay for healthcare, education or training would also give the richer an advantage.

And repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage.

In short even if brought in slowly the system would only seem to help out the richer and more advantaged in society?

 

The point is, if everyone does everything for free for everyone else, everyone gets what they need. Poor people don't have to pay, and get supported by everyone else. Rich people aren't taking advantage of people.

 

MR

Sounds more like anarchy?

And if everything were free their wouldn't be rich or poor people?

 

I've actually always been confused as to what libertarianism actually is. Maybe you should post some faqs Balbus....or I invite any lib to do what Shane99x and post one yourself.

Isn't libertarianism a form of socialism where there must always be a ruling class?

 

I think they're like democratic socialists with a forced middle class....

who can tell these days...

 

Sounds similar to the U.S today.

 

Obviously libertarianism isn't very appealing if noones here to explain it to us.

 

Very true Field very true.

*waits for answers*

 

GOd, the anticipation is KILLING me, aaaaaaargh. *shaking violently*

of course we could just google it...but who can be arsed these days,

 

Lying in a field

I don’t think it is my place to do a libertarian FAQ but well…try this…it’s a chapter from the book ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006862454/qid=1141817809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-7013781-2335648

A very good introduction to Anarchy and a book I’ve often recommended to people on this forum. He introduces the philosophical underpinning of right wing libertarianism, which he terms anarcho-capitalism.

**

Chapter 36: The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in the West where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political agenda. It has become a major ideological challenge to the dominant liberalism which sees a role for government in the protection of property. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government and allow complete _laissez-faire_ in the economy. Its adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.

Anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow private interest will translate itself into public good rather than public squalor. They are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the support of positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be enough to bring social order.

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had the greatest impact in the United States, where the Libertarian Party has taken it up as the house ideology, and where Republicans like Ronald Reagan wanted to be remembered for cutting taxation and for getting 'the government off peoples' backs'. In the United Kingdom, neo-Conservatives argue that 'there is no such thing as society' and wish to 'roll back the frontiers of the State' -- a view adopted evangelically, in theory if not always in practice, by Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. State socialism is attacked not so much because it is egalitarian but because it seeks to accrue more powers for the State to exercise centrally.

The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal _Liberty_ in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers. The young essayist Randolph Bourne, writing outside the anarchist movement, distinguished between society and the State, invented the famous slogan 'War is the Health of the State', and drew out the authoritarian and conformist dangers of the 'herd'.[1]

FRANZ OPPENHEIMER's view of the State as 'the organization of the political means' and as the 'systematization of the predatory process over a given territory' influenced libertarians and conservatives alike in the twenties.[2] The Jeffersonian liberal ALBERT JAY NOCK reached anarchist conclusions in _Our_Enemy_The_State_ (1935) at the time of the New Deal. A conservative of the _laissez-faire_ school, he foresaw 'a steady progress in collectivism running into a military despotism of a severe type'.[3] It would involve steadily-increasing centralization, bureaucracy, and political control of the market. The resulting State-managed economy would be so inefficient and corrupt that it would need forced labor to keep it going.

Nock's warning did not go unheeded. FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK spelt out in _The_Road_to_Serfdom_ (1944) the dangers of collectivism. In his restatement of classic liberalism in _The_Constitution_of_Liberty_ (1960), he rejected the notion of social justice and argued that the market creates spontaneous social order. But while he wished to reduce coercion to a minimum, he accepted the need for the coercion of a minimal State to prohibit coercive acts by private parties through law enforcement. He also accepted taxation and compulsory military service. While a harsh critic of egalitarianism and of government intervention in the economy, he was ready to countenance a degree of welfare provision which cannot be adequately provided by the market. His views have had an important influence on neo-Conservatives, especially those on the right wing of the Conservative Party in Britain.

Anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard go much further. In some ways, their position appears to be a revival of the principles of the Old Right against the New Deal which sought government interference in the economy, but they are not only motivated by a nostalgia for a thoroughly free market but are aggressively anti-authoritarian. Where Tucker called anarchism 'consistent Manchesterism', that is taking the nineteenth-century _laissez-faire_ school of economists to their logical conclusion, anarcho-capitalists might be called consistent Lockeans.

Following Locke, classic liberals argue that the principals task of government is to protect the natural rights to life, liberty and property because a 'state of nature' where there is no common law the enjoyment of such rights would be uncertain and inconvenient. The anarch-capitalists also ask, like Locke in his _Second_Treatise_, 'If Man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom?'[4] Unlike Locke, however, the anarch-capitalists do not find such a state of nature without a common judge inconvenient or uncertain. They maintain that even the minimal State is unnecessary since the defence of person and property can be carried out by private protection agencies.

DAVID FRIEDMAN sees such agencies as both brokers of mini-social contracts and producers of 'laws' which conform to the market demand for rules to regulate commerce. Each person would be free to subscribe to a protective association of his choice, since 'Protection from coercion is an economic good'.[5] Apart from adumbrating _The_Machinery_of_Freedom_ (1973), Friedman has populated Hayek's defence of capitalism as the best antidote to the serfdom of collectivism and the State.

The writings of AYN RAND, a refugee from the Soviet Union, best represent the intellectual background to the new right-wing libertarianism in the United States. In her _The_Virtue_of_Selfishness:_ A_New_Concept_of_Egoism_ (1964), she attempted a philosophical defence of egoism while in her novels she portrayed a superior individual fighting the forces of collectivism, particularly in the form of the State. Her superior individual, driven by a Nietzschean will to power, appears in the guise of a capitalist entrepreneur who is presented as the source of all wealth and creator of all progress. Rand claimed that she had a direct knowledge of objective reality, and her 'Objectivist' movement had a considerable vogue in the sixties. Like most anarch-capitalists, she is convinced of the truth of her own views, which to others appear mere dogma. She remains a minimal statist rather than a strict anarchist.

Amongst anarch-capitalist apologists, the economist MURRAY ROTHBARD is probably most aware of the anarchist tradition. He was originally regarded as an extreme right-wing Republican, but went on to edit la Boetie's libertarian classic _Of_Voluntary_Servitude_ and now calls himself an anarchist. 'If you wish to know how the libertarians regard the State and any of its acts," he wrote in _For_A_New_Liberty:_ _The_Libertarian_Manifesto_ (1973), 'simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.' He reduces the libertarian creed to one central axiom, 'that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else'.[6] Neither the State nor any private party therefore can initiate or threaten the use of force against any person for any purpose. Free individuals should regulate their affairs and dispose of their property only by voluntary agreement based on contractual obligation.

Rejecting the State as a 'protection' with an illegitimate claim on the monopoly of force, Rothbard would like to see it dissolved, as would Friedman, into social and market arrangements. He proposes that disputes over violations of persons and property may be settled voluntarily by arbitration firms whose decisions are enforceable by private protection agencies.

Rothbard described an anarchist society where 'there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual'. But where Tucker recognized no inherent right to property, Rothbard insists on the need for a 'basic libertarian code of the inviolate right of person and property'.[7] In addition, for all his commitment to a Stateless society, Rothbard is willing to engage in conventional politics. He helped found the Libertarian Party in the USA which wants to abolish the entire federal regulatory apparatus as well as social security, welfare, public education, and taxation. Accepting Bourne's view that war is the health of the State, the Party wants the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, end its foreign commitments, and reduce its military forces to those required for minimal defence.

Rothbard argued at the 1977 Libertarian Party Congress that to become a true libertarian it was necessary to be 'born again', not once ut twice, in a baptism of reason as well as of will. Since in his view libertarianism is the only creed compatible with the nature of man and the world, he is convinced that it will win because it is true. Whatever the workers and bureaucrats might think or want, Statism will collapse of its own contradictions and the free market will prevail throughout the world.

However libertarian in appearance, there are some real difficulties in the anarch-capitalists' position. If laws and courts are replaced by arbitrary firms, why should an individual accept their verdict? And since he 'buys' justice, what assurances are there that the verdicts would be fair and impartial? If the verdicts are enforced by private protection agencies, it would seem likely, as ROBERT NOZICK has pointed out, that a dominant protective agency (the one offering the most powerful and comprehensive protection) would eventually emerge through free competition.[8] A _de_facto_ territorial monopoly would thus result from the competition among protection agencies which would then constitute a proto-State. The only difference between the 'ultraminimal' State of a dominant protection agency and a minimal State would be that its services would be available only to those who buy them.

Nozick's work _State,_Anarchy_and_Utopia_ (1974) is widely regarded as one of the most important works in contemporary political philosophy. Inspired in part by individual anarchist arguments, especially those of Spooner and Tucker, and replying to the libertarian view of Rothbard and Rand, he calls for a minimal State to oversee private protection agencies to ensure contracts are kept by property-owning individuals. He insists however that a man ruled by others against his will, whose life and property are under their control, is no less a slave because he has the vote and periodically may 'choose' his masters. Nozick has helped to make libertarian and anarchist theory acceptable in academic circles. But in the end he opts for a nightwatchman State in order to protect the individual's rights to life, liberty and property. In his 'framework for utopia', he proposes a society of independent city-States organized according to their inhabitants' preferences. He defends capitalism under the theory of just entitlement, arguing that just acquisitions and just transfers made in the absence of force or fraud legitimize the distribution of wealth resulting from capitalist exchange. However poorly a person may fare in the exercise of human liberty, there is no moral reason to correct market forces by redistributing wealth. The acceptable maxim of capitalism for Nozick is therefore: 'From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen'.[9]

Nozick joins a group of American philosophers like JOHN HOSPERS and ERIC MACK who adopt 'minarchy' rather than anarchy. They call for a minimal State, restricting the scope of the modern state to Locke's 'common judge with authority' to make laws (for the protection of property), to punish thieves and malefactors, and to defend the nation against foreign aggression.[10] They are right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists in the tradition of Jefferson, insisting 'that government is best which governs least'.

A more thorough-going philosophical defence of anarchism has been put forward by ROBERT PAUL WOLFF. He rejects the political legitimacy of the State on a neo-Kantian principle of moral autonomy. he assumes that in so far as people are rational and are to act they must be autonomous. The autonomous man who determines his own acts refuses to be ruled and denies all claims to political authority: 'For the autonomous man, there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a command.'[11] Wolff does not however see any immediate implications for his philosophical anarchism and ethical individualism. In his 'Utopian Glimpses of a World Without States' in _A_Defense_of_Anarchism_ (1970), he maintains that a high order of social co-ordination in a society in which no one claims legitimate authority would only be possible after its members had achieved a high level of moral and intellectual development. Indeed, rather than offering a defence of anarchism as a political theory, he seems more concerned with elaborating a form of moral and political scepticism.[12]

Wolff's practical proposals are also problematic. He recommends a form of 'instant direct democracy' based on a system of 'voting machines' in every home linked to a computer in Washington. Each Bill would then be voted on by all the people after it had been discussed by their representatives in a national assembly. But such a system could easily lead to representatives manipulating their votes as they do in existing parliamentary democracies. There is also a big difference, recognized in part by Wolff, between the passive role of listener and the active role of participant in a debate. The kind of direct democracy practiced in ancient Athens, which actively involved all the citizens, would appear to be preferable to television viewers being merely able to register their response to decisions made by an elected elite. Wolff's proposal would turn citizenship into little more than a spectator-sport. He allows no meaningful debate or collective discussion of ends.

Although he recommends extreme economic decentralization, Wolff alines himself with the anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians by wanting to retain private property and the market to co-ordinate human behavior. Again, he suggests that the army could be run on the basis of voluntary commitment and submission to orders but this would seem little different from existing forms of voluntary conscription.

In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and poor as they do at present. It is difficult to imagine that protective services could impose their ideas of fair procedure without resorting to coercion. With the free market encouraging selfishness, there is no assurance that 'public goods' like sanitation and clean water would be provided for all. Indeed, the anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective interests and responsibilities. They reject the rich communitarian tradition of the ancient Greek _polis_ in favor of the most limited form of possessive individualism. In their drive for self-interest, they have no conception of the general good or public interest. In his relationship with society, the anarcho-capitalist stands alone, an egoistic and calculating consumer; society is considered to be nothing more than a loose collection of autonomous individuals.

The anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative. It calls for the absence of coercion but cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence. Nor does it recognize the equal right of all to the means of subsistence. Hayek speaks on behalf of the anarcho-capitalist when he warns: 'Above all we must recognize that we may be free and yet miserable.'[13] Others go even further to insist that liberty and bread are not synonymous and that we have 'the liberty to die of hunger'.[14] In the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all.

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.

As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]


(copied from http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp000051.txt)

 

lol I was to lazy to google it...and you want me to read that? aaarrrghhhh I'm gonna go back to tweak'n my game character for tonights RP -_-

 

I read the whole thing, without my glasses. I think I deserve a beer.

Thanks balbus, that was informative. I am under the impression that social libertarianism is different to anarcho-capitalism. It seems the former are concerned liberals who reject the notion of socialism. The latter are simply ruthless lying bastards. I would like to find out more..again, any libs going to give us a crack..libertine, perhaps?

I know exactly what you mean when you say Rat is a libertarian. Perhaps in 40 years when life has kicked the living ego out of him he'll stoop to admitting that hes as labelled as the rest of us.

Thanks for the book suggestion too. So far a lot of the books on anarchism i've found are pap, that one looks good. I'll look out for it in town tommorow.

So kris, what RPG you playin?

 

Here is a more personal viewpoint from many conversations with libertarians.

To me the problem is that sometimes it seems like there are as many versions of libertarianism as there are libertarians.

With some emphasising the social element or minimal state argument over the economic side of libertarianism.

The difficulty is that often it is hard to see how you can have one without the other and at other times the two elements seem to contradict each other.

**

Ok, here are some of the ideas associated with libertarianism

Removing or drastically lowering of taxation – making the already rich vastly richer.

Removal or reduction in regulations – repealing all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws such as health and safety provision. There also seem to be many contradictions here because many libertarians - when asked - seem to be in favour of quite a few regulations but still say they are in favour of having fewer.

Replacing state welfare by charitable donations – but when it is pointed out that the reason state provision was brought in, was that charity was unable to cope and was often controlled by the wealthy and could be unfair, corrupt and linked to patronage, they somehow claim they could get it to work.

Reduction in government power – after many arguments this still has never been successfully explained to any degree of satisfaction because the goal post always seem to be moved. It seems that libertarians want contradictory outcomes they wish for a government that is both strong and weak.

**

The thing is that libertarianism claims to be some kind of merit based system, where people will sink or swim (as in make money or not) according to their merits.

The problem is that for this to work the way it is envisioned would mean that everyone would have to begin this experiment at the same level. Otherwise those with advantages within the system that have nothing to do with their individual merits, (such as inherited wealth or top of the range education and background) are more likely to succeed in such a system than those that are poorer and less well educated. Meaning that you are more likely to create a plutocracy than a meritocracy.

Therefore to make the system work all money and wealth would have to be confiscated and redistributed equally, everyone would have to be brought up to the same level of education and all bias toward race or class wiped from peoples memory.

This seems to me to be something that is even beyond utopian and into the realms of extreme fantasy.

**

So what type of RPG, I’ve just started the PC RPG, Knights of the Old Republic?

 

Libertarianism is basically the belief in very little government interference in both economic and social matters. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and economically conservative. Of course, it is far more complicated, but thats the basic idea.

 

Libertarianism sounds like....

Capitalism.

 

I think it means removing tabs on the rich so that they can become excessively wealthy. ie. incentive, economic development, global competitiveness

Technically this works in raising living standards and allowing the economy to flourish. Problem is, the leadership never seems to want to distribute this newly availiable wealth among the majority.

So its basically a recipe for the United States today.....

The most powerful and wealthy first world nation in the world....
.....with living standards among lower classes that rival a third world country

So thats about it.

 

My friend and I are working on a Zombie splatterpunk universe, but we threw in some video game/anime/dark humor kinda make it more intresting.

One of my guys was born on the ides of march. Well he can't die yet so insted I had his mom get killed by a crime lord, and his dad was killed by his Mech suit by being elctrocuted to death.

His name is Solomon...So hes really intelligent however he has little or no self control (remeber whole Vainty Vainty lets all get drunk and party spree?)

Just a bunch of random stuff like that.

 

"Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and economically conservative"

This is often the problem with libertarians they often talk in slogans but seem to shy away from genuine discussion or refuse to answer criticisms.

I mean what to libertarians mean when they claim to be ‘socially liberal’?

A libertarian once told me that they believed in ‘life, liberty and property’ and that the liberal element was the ‘life and liberty’ part. Which seemed just like more slogans, I mean who is going to say they are in favour of ‘oppression and death’?

But I took it that the person meant he thought that the libertarian belief in individual freedom and the right to life were the socially liberal element.

The only problem is that the individual freedoms open to a person and even their life span can often be a matter of their economic position.

Infant mortality and life expectancy are different according to wealth.

If someone is poor and badly educated they are more likely to get jobs that have elements of risk involved in them and live in environments that are unhealthy.

In a society where wealth dictates the level of education a person receives a persons individual choices are limited by how much more wealth they have.

In a society where wealth dictates the level of healthcare someone receives even how long a person lives can be dictate by wealth.

The problem is that economic concerns have a habit of having an impact on social conditions.

**

To me libertarianism is an ideology that allows individual to abdicate from any responsibility for problems within the community.

Responsibly for social ills are passed on to the individual, if people are poor it must mean that it is their choice to be poor, it has nothing to do with societal inequality and is therefore nothing to do with them.

The fact is that their ‘liberal values’ seem only to extend to the ones they don’t have to pay for, as soon as there is seen to be an economic cost to them, it suddenly seems to becomes a matter of ‘economic conservatism’ that they don’t have to pay.

 

"Libertarianism is basically the belief in very little government interference in both economic and social matters"

Again what does it actually mean?

What is meant by interference?

One libertarian said this was to do with the libertarian rejection of government coercion. A government should not be allowed to force people to comply with its rules even to the point that it should not be able to demand for taxes only ask for contributions. And that an individual should be able to decide what to pay for.

But the limited government ethos also implies that responsibilities once undertaken by the government are taken over by private companies or corporations.

**

So say that there is a tax for road use to pay for maintenance, under a libertarian system the individual should be able to decide if he wishes to pay that tax or not, and the government should have no power to force payment or exact punishment.

But if the roads were privatised and a company or corporation demanded that you pay them for the use of their roads it is OK under a libertarian system for them to take a non payer to court to try and extract the money or seek punishment.

You see for libertarians one is the tyranny of communal government which the individual needs saving from and the other the sacrosanct property rights of the private individual or corporation, which each person should uphold.

And the private company would not only want the money to maintain and build new roads (or reduce such things to boost profits) but also wish to make a profit for its owner(s) by charging whatever the market would allow.

**

For libertarians it is the same with laws or regulations for them they should only be guidelines, which the individual chooses to follow, or not.

It is the individual and not the community that decides.

So an individual decides if they are able to drive while intoxicated or not, and no one should be able to interfere with that decision. So a drunk driver is ok until an accident when they can be prosecuted for damaging property (including that of another individuals own body)

The community may all know about and fear that individual’s decision but they are unable to do anything about it but hope the person kills themselves before they kill or maim someone else.

(It should also be remembered that it is also up to the individual to take out insurance or not, if someone is maimed by a poor drunk driver they might not get any compensation)

Also the thing is that a libertarian system makes a mockery of democracy, for even if the community wanted to pass a law that could stop the drunk driver before an accident they cannot because they would only be allowed to make guidelines that they know the drunk would ignore.

**

 

the thing with libetarianism, is that there are types, at completely opposite ends of the economic scale.


Libetarian socialists are comparable to anarcho-syndicalists, and straight libetarians are similar in many ways to anarcho-capitalists.


the difference being that they believe in a minimal state, so its not anarchy... Nozik's state of nature stuff is good reading for libetarians or those interested in it.