Libertarianism = Liberty? No

David Octavius · 05-21-2007, 02:54 AM

I wish to submit the outrageous claim that libertarianism is in fact not liberty at all, that it is in fact a form of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of people) and social darwinism (survival of the fittest in society) that is wholly inconsistent with those who believe that all people ought to have their basic liberties (however you define basic) protected.

Libertarianism in its simplest elements is formed around the concept of "full self-ownership" - that is full ownership of your person and property. So far so good, but then it gets hairy when it branches out, the two I will deal with are the anarchists and the Consequentialist (I will not go into the objectivists view because Ayn Rand herself said it has nothing to do with libertarianism). The Anarchist version of libertarianism holds that the free market and society itself is enough to provide all that is needed which includes infrastructure, security and punishment, while Consequentialists believe there should be some government use of force to protect liberty (as minimal as possible of course).

The Anarchists version would inevitably lead to Social Darwinism as those that do well in the market (whether by going by the market rules or not) gain much power and are able to better control the market and all that it creates to violate the rights of those who don't do as well. Liberty itself is a commodity that can be bought at volume, if you have it you command more power over others and the ability to violate rights - after all, those who control the markets sets the rules, what is to stop them from using that control to violate the rights of the poor since they control the resources that give liberty? Moreover, there is no self ownership, not everyone can be a king in the marketplace, there must be some losers who will involuntarily lose their property and there also must be some who are just workers under the rule of someone else - which could include long hours, poor conditions and unreasonable expectations that violate a persons private life - the marketplace itself becomes the state. As stated above, the ones that control it, control the rules and thus will control liberty as we will not have enough power to overrule them.

The Consequentialists are a little more in line with reality, admitting that the markets are not always perfect or rational and that some government power in needed to correct it. But the problem here is, who defines what needs correcting and how much is needed? Such legislation that affects the markets and thus affects the individual is a violation itself since it holds the theory of negative liberty to heart (that is no interference unless the person violates another persons rights). So in essence this becomes positive liberty - that is we must act to maximize liberty - and this falls squarely into being active in the forum of government.

But there is a problem with that, by being active in government libertarianism must concede some power. That power could be to any form of government man can think of, but the very act of giving up some power means that there is no "full self ownership" anymore, that we give some of that up to attain greater liberty.

The best form of government that can protect liberty is the republican form of government our founders advocated whereby certain rights must always be protected from encroachment from the people or government itself through checks, election and fragmentation of power. Such a government that seeks to gurantees the rights of everyone is not consistent with Consequentialists in that they focus on maximizing the consequnces of actions to maximize (especially) market effectiveness, which is utilitarian in nature - protecting everyone equally is not effective or efficient for the market, it doesn't maximize its potential thus it would not always be protected.

Libertarianism is these two forms at least would become a form of tyranny because it DOES NOT seek to protect everyones basic rights, in the Anarchists version, the few would have more rights than the many, in the Conseq. version it is for the benefit of the many over the few. Thus libertarianism is not consistent with those who believe everyone should have liberty.

PS - I realize I opened myself up for a lot of personal attacks but I think every ideology should be questioned and its defenders should prove its fitness - I am open to hearing constructive arguments, but personal attacks will not be answered and will assumed to me as you could not defend your beliefs

Thorgrim · 05-21-2007, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I wish to submit the outrageous claim that libertarianism is in fact not liberty at all, that it is in fact a form of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of people) and social darwinism (survival of the fittest in society) that is wholly inconsistent with those who believe that all people ought to have their basic liberties (however you define basic) protected.

Libertarianism in its simplest elements is formed around the concept of "full self-ownership" - that is full ownership of your person and property. So far so good, but then it gets hairy when it branches out, the two I will deal with are the anarchists and the Consequentialist (I will not go into the objectivists view because Ayn Rand herself said it has nothing to do with libertarianism). The Anarchist version of libertarianism holds that the free market and society itself is enough to provide all that is needed which includes infrastructure, security and punishment, while Consequentialists believe there should be some government use of force to protect liberty (as minimal as possible of course).

The Anarchists version would inevitably lead to Social Darwinism as those that do well in the market (whether by going by the market rules or not) gain much power and are able to better control the market and all that it creates to violate the rights of those who don't do as well. Liberty itself is a commodity that can be bought at volume, if you have it you command more power over others and the ability to violate rights - after all, those who control the markets sets the rules, what is to stop them from using that control to violate the rights of the poor since they control the resources that give liberty? Moreover, there is no self ownership, not everyone can be a king in the marketplace, there must be some losers who will involuntarily lose their property and there also must be some who are just workers under the rule of someone else - which could include long hours, poor conditions and unreasonable expectations that violate a persons private life - the marketplace itself becomes the state. As stated above, the ones that control it, control the rules and thus will control liberty as we will not have enough power to overrule them.

The Consequentialists are a little more in line with reality, admitting that the markets are not always perfect or rational and that some government power in needed to correct it. But the problem here is, who defines what needs correcting and how much is needed? Such legislation that affects the markets and thus affects the individual is a violation itself since it holds the theory of negative liberty to heart (that is no interference unless the person violates another persons rights). So in essence this becomes positive liberty - that is we must act to maximize liberty - and this falls squarely into being active in the forum of government.

But there is a problem with that, by being active in government libertarianism must concede some power. That power could be to any form of government man can think of, but the very act of giving up some power means that there is no "full self ownership" anymore, that we give some of that up to attain greater liberty.

The best form of government that can protect liberty is the republican form of government our founders advocated whereby certain rights must always be protected from encroachment from the people or government itself through checks, election and fragmentation of power. Such a government that seeks to gurantees the rights of everyone is not consistent with Consequentialists in that they focus on maximizing the consequnces of actions to maximize (especially) market effectiveness, which is utilitarian in nature - protecting everyone equally is not effective or efficient for the market, it doesn't maximize its potential thus it would not always be protected.

Libertarianism is these two forms at least would become a form of tyranny because it DOES NOT seek to protect everyones basic rights, in the Anarchists version, the few would have more rights than the many, in the Conseq. version it is for the benefit of the many over the few. Thus libertarianism is not consistent with those who believe everyone should have liberty.

PS - I realize I opened myself up for a lot of personal attacks but I think every ideology should be questioned and its defenders should prove its fitness - I am open to hearing constructive arguments, but personal attacks will not be answered and will assumed to me as you could not defend your beliefs

Nice title, I agree with that

Utilitarianism in libertarianism? I don't see why you would think that

I agree with the basic premise, although it does read a bit like a freshman paper on libertarianism, the concepts are so vague and the attacks so broad...I just don't know where this post is going

However, to your points, as it where

Both forms lead to slavery, in some form, we've seen it in the past, look at coal miners of the 19th century and robber barons, and anarchists get exactly what they want, chaos, and total chaos makes just as good morality as total order (think fascism beyond even what North Korea runs, if that's even possible) in this situation, of no control, eventually there would be "badlands" and we all know pretty girls like running up debts, I am sure more than a few would land themselves into such debt their creditors would force them into sexual slavery...you're against that? Too bad they got guns...oh you'll step in with your order...civil war, chaos, bloodshed...it would be horrific

Also, I object to your statement that our form of government is the best available, as we've seen, the presidency and (ill regret saying this) supreme court have taken powers the founders never intended for them to have, now we have domestic spying that is so advanced rights are being violated without the american people even knowing, how can a "democracy" protect against that? With gerrymandered House districts, an electoral college, and a Senate where 36 million Americans get two Senators, while 0.5 million others get two? Also there are more people in DC than in Wyoming, yet they do not have one rep or any senator...you look at that and say it's fair democracy? Even if it were, considering the expansions of power by military-industrial influences, the population is simply too busy in the rat race to keep up, and only momentarily stop to vote to keep their "tyranny of the majority"

thomez · 05-21-2007, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

although it does read a bit like a freshman paper on libertarianism

very much so

the concepts are so vague and the attacks so broad...

and the facts so mangled...

no time to respond now, gotta go to work, but this will be easily torn to shreds I'm sure

kinggovernor · 05-21-2007, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Moreover, there is no self ownership, not everyone can be a king in the marketplace, there must be some losers who will involuntarily lose their property and there also must be some who are just workers under the rule of someone else - which could include long hours, poor conditions and unreasonable expectations that violate a persons private life - the marketplace itself becomes the state.

i don't have time to read the entire thing, so I will disagree with the bolded part, assuming that it was supposed to be the main point. You do not need to be a "king in the marketplace" to benefit from the marketplace. Nor does one trader need to lose property for others to gain, in fact it is quite possible that both traders benefit from an exchange and that is why they complete the exchange. An exchange can even be Pareto Optimal, but that does not measure equity in the market, so trader A may recieve a $10,000 benefit by the trade and trader B many only recieve $1000 of benefit from the trade. However, they are both benefitting from the trade and should complete the transaction.

I think you are trying to talk about free trade versus so called "fair trade"

David Octavius · 05-21-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

very much so

and the facts so mangled...

no time to respond now, gotta go to work, but this will be easily torn to shreds I'm sure

Why would I write an acedemic paper in a forum?

I knew people would not read the entire thing as it is so why go to the effort of writing something twice as long to get the same types of comments? That was not the point, I wrote something quickly to get responses and from those responses is where the real debate lay. So far thomez has given nothing, what facts are mangled? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

You do not need to be a "king in the marketplace" to benefit from the marketplace.

I never said that, I said there will be Kings in the marketplace, its always been like that, and with no regulations whatsoever those kings will take advantage of the lower players, if you you think that is impossible than you havent paid attention to the history of capitalism.

And no I dont believe in fair trade.

thomez · 05-21-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I wish to submit the outrageous claim that libertarianism is in fact not liberty at all, that it is in fact a form of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of people) and social darwinism (survival of the fittest in society) that is wholly inconsistent with those who believe that all people ought to have their basic liberties (however you define basic) protected.

yes, this claim is thusfar outrageous

Libertarianism in its simplest elements is formed around the concept of "full self-ownership" - that is full ownership of your person and property. So far so good, but then it gets hairy when it branches out, the two I will deal with are the anarchists and the Consequentialist (I will not go into the objectivists view because Ayn Rand herself said it has nothing to do with libertarianism).

anarchism is anarchism, libertarianism is libertarianism

The Anarchist version of libertarianism holds that the free market and society itself is enough to provide all that is needed which includes infrastructure, security and punishment, while Consequentialists believe there should be some government use of force to protect liberty (as minimal as possible of course).

yes, smallest government possible to ensure personal liberty and provide the common defense

The Anarchists version would inevitably lead to Social Darwinism as those that do well in the market (whether by going by the market rules or not) gain much power and are able to better control the market and all that it creates to violate the rights of those who don't do as well.

this vague statement seems like an argument against monopoly? that is the only time where those that do well can violate the rights of those that do poorly with the market - when there is not adequate competition

Liberty itself is a commodity that can be bought at volume, if you have it you command more power over others and the ability to violate rights - after all, those who control the markets sets the rules, what is to stop them from using that control to violate the rights of the poor since they control the resources that give liberty?

this section highlights a fundamentun misunderstanding of how a market works

how exactly do you suppose the market will be controlled to violate the rights of the poor, and what resources "give liberty"? (if there is such a thing)

Moreover, there is no self ownership, not everyone can be a king in the marketplace, there must be some losers who will involuntarily lose their property and there also must be some who are just workers under the rule of someone else - which could include long hours, poor conditions and unreasonable expectations that violate a persons private life - the marketplace itself becomes the state. As stated above, the ones that control it, control the rules and thus will control liberty as we will not have enough power to overrule them.

a market is not a zero-sum game, exchange relationships can be mutually beneficial. People will work jobs that they agree to work, nothing more. If they need to find a new employer, they are free to do so. A labor pool has competition both ways, and those who are valuable to employers are obviously going to do the best in the labor pool. how do you suppose liberty will be controlled?

The Consequentialists are a little more in line with reality, admitting that the markets are not always perfect or rational and that some government power in needed to correct it. But the problem here is, who defines what needs correcting and how much is needed? Such legislation that affects the markets and thus affects the individual is a violation itself since it holds the theory of negative liberty to heart (that is no interference unless the person violates another persons rights). So in essence this becomes positive liberty - that is we must act to maximize liberty - and this falls squarely into being active in the forum of government.

yes, you have just made a lengthy but common sense statement that minimal government is necessary to ensure liberty

But there is a problem with that, by being active in government libertarianism must concede some power. That power could be to any form of government man can think of, but the very act of giving up some power means that there is no "full self ownership" anymore, that we give some of that up to attain greater liberty.

another common sense statement that minimal liberty must be given up to maintain a society with any form of government

The best form of government that can protect liberty is the republican form of government our founders advocated whereby certain rights must always be protected from encroachment from the people or government itself through checks, election and fragmentation of power. Such a government that seeks to gurantees the rights of everyone is not consistent with Consequentialists in that they focus on maximizing the consequnces of actions to maximize (especially) market effectiveness, which is utilitarian in nature - protecting everyone equally is not effective or efficient for the market, it doesn't maximize its potential thus it would not always be protected.

Here is where you become the "most wrong" - there is nothing about our republican form of government that itself violates the wishes of libertarians. Your bolded statement simply makes no sense at all - protecting the rights of individuals is not against the market unless you suppose that rights extend beyond their logical bounds.

Libertarianism is these two forms at least would become a form of tyranny because it DOES NOT seek to protect everyones basic rights, in the Anarchists version, the few would have more rights than the many, in the Conseq. version it is for the benefit of the many over the few. Thus libertarianism is not consistent with those who believe everyone should have liberty.

the bolded section is another false statement - our original government, as setup in 1787 and the Constitution, was a libertarian form that did protect basic rights, as were listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights

the "Conseq. version" is not setup to benefit the many over the few, it is setup to provide liberty to all and the benefit to each individual will be decided by their actions

libertarianism is infact very consistent with those who believe in personal liberty for everyone - a statement to the contrary is a falsehood

PS - I realize I opened myself up for a lot of personal attacks but I think every ideology should be questioned and its defenders should prove its fitness - I am open to hearing constructive arguments, but personal attacks will not be answered and will assumed to me as you could not defend your beliefs

a defender of libertarianism really has nothing to answer to someone who has such a perverse view of its tenets that it could not be construed as factually accurate in the least

Thorgrim · 05-21-2007, 11:27 AM

"there is nothing about our republican form of government that itself violates the wishes of libertarians"

i think quite a few libertarians would take exception to the constitution, or any republican government, granting federal powers, but rather, at this stage, "re-trying" the conditions that were present during the articles of confederation...implying that we only needed a strong central government to start the country, not to keep it...thus, the constitution is flawed, and in more than just that way

As I've mentioned before, there is a huge loop hole in the constitution where 2/3rds of the senate and the president can dictate absolute policy through treaty negotiations with even another US territory

David Octavius · 05-21-2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

anarchism is anarchism, libertarianism is libertarianism

yes, smallest government possible to ensure personal liberty and provide the common defense

This makes your whole post suspect to say the least as it demonstrates a flawed understanding of the ideology, there are anarchists who are libertarians and they are not for the smallest government possible, they dont want state involvement at all

Publius · 05-21-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

This makes your whole post suspect to say the least as it demonstrates a flawed understanding of the ideology, there are anarchists who are libertarians and they are not for the smallest government possible, they dont want state involvement at all

And there are Democrats that want to socialize all private enterprise in the United States, that doesn't mean they're the mainstream and all Democrats are Socialists. Most mainstream libertarians are minarchists at the very most, anarchists are on the fringes of the ideology, and pretty much completely outside the Libertarian Party.

thomez · 05-21-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

This makes your whole post suspect to say the least as it demonstrates a flawed understanding of the ideology, there are anarchists who are libertarians and they are not for the smallest government possible, they dont want state involvement at all

sounds like you are describing an anarchist

a libertarian is ok with government, but small and limited in scope

thomez · 05-21-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

And there are Democrats that want to socialize all private enterprise in the United States, that doesn't mean they're the mainstream and all Democrats are Socialists. Most mainstream libertarians are minarchists at the very most, anarchists are on the fringes of the ideology, and pretty much completely outside the Libertarian Party.

I am not quite sure how you could lump them all together, an anarchist and a libertarian have very different beliefs. The difference between "no government" and "small and limited government" being acceptable is huge, and would seem to reason that using the 2 distinctions, anarchist and libertarian, would make more sense than lumping them together as "libertarians" and then expressing a divide within the single group.

David Octavius · 05-21-2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

sounds like you are describing an anarchist

a libertarian is ok with government, but small and limited in scope

I describe two types of libertarians, the anarcho kind and the consequentialist, there are many more to be sure but as I stated above it would be fruitless to describe them all since it would not be read anyway. I picked those two because it seems that what most of libertarians in this forum are in one of these two categories.

Anyway this strays from the point, libertarianism is just a dressed up form of tyranny. In the guise of giving everyone liberty without any effective means of restraint when it violates someone else's, all it really does is ensure that those with the most power (whether that is the marketplace or in government itself in whatever form) dictate the liberty of the rest.

Publius · 05-21-2007, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I describe two types of libertarians, the anarcho kind and the consequentialist, there are many more to be sure but as I stated above it would be fruitless to describe them all since it would not be read anyway. I picked those two because it seems that what most of libertarians in this forum are in one of these two categories.

Anyway this strays from the point, libertarianism is just a dressed up form of tyranny. In the guise of giving everyone liberty without any effective means of restraint when it violates someone else's, all it really does is ensure that those with the most power (whether that is the marketplace or in government itself in whatever form) dictate the liberty of the rest.

your second paragraph is correctly only for the "anarcho" type of libertarians though, who really in my opinion aren't libertarian at all. Even the most minarchist of true libertarians recognize one role of government to be the protection of liberties from threats by others, either from outside (with a military force) or from within (with police and the court system).

You're suggestion could be correct amongst the smallest of minorities of "libertarians" but it is completely incorrect for the vast majority. It is again as if you're suggesting that, because there are some extremist fringe Democrats that support socializing everything, the Democratic ideology is one of pure socialism or that, because there are some extremist fringe Republicans that support Christian theocratical rule, the Republican idiology is one of pure theocracy.

In short, your argument is correct about a small fringe group, but wholly and completely off the mark regarding 95% or more of libertarians.

Dumpy Dooby · 05-21-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I am not quite sure how you could lump them all together, an anarchist and a libertarian have very different beliefs. The difference between "no government" and "small and limited government" being acceptable is huge, and would seem to reason that using the 2 distinctions, anarchist and libertarian, would make more sense than lumping them together as "libertarians" and then expressing a divide within the single group.

Anarchy is applied freedom throughout the land. There are very few differences between an anarchist and a libertarian. Anarchy's downfall is the moment one guy declares himself more valuable than another guy. This is why anarchy is a mere ideology, and is never intended to be a serious political solution. I think a lot of people confuse anarchy with "kids hating laws" in the same way that a lot of people confuse atheism with "kids hating god." Anarchy isn't about hating laws or the government. Anarchy is about not infringing on the unalienable rights of others, and not needing a government to tell you not to infringe on those rights.

thomez · 05-21-2007, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

In short, your argument is correct about a small fringe group, but wholly and completely off the mark regarding 95% or more of libertarians.

I believe that is called a Red Herring, no?

thomez · 05-21-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Anarchy is applied freedom throughout the land. There are very few differences between an anarchist and a libertarian. Anarchy's downfall is the moment one guy declares himself more valuable than another guy. This is why anarchy is a mere ideology, and is never intended to be a serious political solution. I think a lot of people confuse anarchy with "kids hating laws" in the same way that a lot of people confuse atheism with "kids hating god." Anarchy isn't about hating laws or the government. Anarchy is about not infringing on the unalienable rights of others, and not needing a government to tell you not to infringe on those rights.

I believe that even if there are "few differences" the difference between wanting "no government at all" and wanting "small, restricted governme