Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

[Chaos]

Reading the posts of the libertarians (and Libertarians, of course ) on this boards I have come to the conclusion that libertarian theories (I think the terms "dogma" and "ideology" are too negative) are based on a couple of implicit assumptions.

- every participant in an economy will always act in a completely rational way
- the best way to ensure the welfare of all is to let everybody act only for his/her own benefit
- in a free market economy, all parties (workers, owners of the means of production, and investors) are essentially equally powerful, so dealings between them will, by and large, be fair
- in a free market society, both sides of the supply/demand equation are essentially equally powerful, so dealing between them will, by and large, be fair
- any form of taxation is a crime committed by the government (I´m not getting into the details of whether it is theft, armed robbery, extortion, or whatever)
- everything that government does, private corporations could do better
- any reduction in regulation will cause those who were regulated to act in a better way towards the object of regulation (e.g. less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions)

Those are the ones I can think of right now.

Before I give my comments on these assumptions I´d like the libertarians among you to tell me if you feel I have accurately and fairly represented them, and if there are any basic assumptions that I´ve missed.

I also ask non-libertarians, especially those who regularly criticize libertarianism, not to respond right now. I´d like to be sure I have the basics right before I start the actual discussion.

Thank you in advance.

 

[toddjh]

What is a libertarian? I'm not trying to sidetrack this thread in semantics, I'm wondering if I qualify. I, generally speaking, think the government should be much smaller and has no business legislating morality or prosecuting "victimless" crimes, but honestly, I think the big-L Libertarians are a bunch of wackos.

Should I participate?

Jeremy

 

[shanek]

- every participant in an economy will always act in a completely rational way

Nope. Not necessary. Market forces tend to balance out irrational behavior.

- the best way to ensure the welfare of all is to let everybody act only for his/her own benefit

Nope. In fact, this country is full of Libertarians working for others, through charity or other voluntary means. We just don't believe you get to force others to do so against their will.

- in a free market economy, all parties (workers, owners of the means of production, and investors) are essentially equally powerful, so dealings between them will, by and large, be fair

Nope. Defending against fraud is one of the legitimate functions of government.

- in a free market society, both sides of the supply/demand equation are essentially equally powerful, so dealing between them will, by and large, be fair

Nope; same as above.

- any form of taxation is a crime committed by the government (I´m not getting into the details of whether it is theft, armed robbery, extortion, or whatever)

Nope; if the tax is voluntary, it's okay. Like a lottery, for example.

- everything that government does, private corporations could do better

Nope. I wouldn't necessarily trust a private corporation with our national defense, although they're certainly welcome to participate in the defense of the country as is any citizen. I wouldn't trust a private corporation to run our court system, although they're certainly welcome to offer voluntary arbitration services.

- any reduction in regulation will cause those who were regulated to act in a better way towards the object of regulation (e.g. less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions)

Nope. Just that it'll allow the free market forces to do their work.

Thank you in advance.

No problem.

 

[Patrick]

0.every participant in an economy will always act in a completely rational way
1. the best way to ensure the welfare of all is to let everybody act only for his/her own benefit
2. in a free market economy, all parties (workers, owners of the means of production, and investors) are essentially equally powerful, so dealings between them will, by and large, be fair
3. in a free market society, both sides of the supply/demand equation are essentially equally powerful, so dealing between them will, by and large, be fair
4. any form of taxation is a crime committed by the government (I´m not getting into the details of whether it is theft, armed robbery, extortion, or whatever)
5. everything that government does, private corporations could do better
6. any reduction in regulation will cause those who were regulated to act in a better way towards the object of regulation (e.g. less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions)


Short version reply:

0. False, the market punishes irrational behavior - this is to the ultimate good of all.

1. true, plus recovering the idea of private social charity to aid those who can't help themselves.

2-3. false, only statist societies are based on power, free societies are based on freedom. Free societies work to the good of all, but presuppose rational behavior in the marketplace.

4. false, the people support the rational functions of government, mainly a military, a police force and courts.

5. true, except for the military/police

6. true in a COMPLETELY free society. The long version of this I don't have time for now, but will get to later.

 

[Brian]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

Nope. I wouldn't necessarily trust a private corporation with our national defense, although they're certainly welcome to participate in the defense of the country as is any citizen.

I find this a little troubling, but only if it means what I think it means. Now, if the US ever was invaded, hell yes, everyone who can shoot straight should pick up a gun.
But what happens if a private defense company builds a few nukes? Mainly what happens when Iran or North Korea, or the enemy of the day gets pissed?
Hmmm. If the US signed a treaty not to have more than X nukes, would that allow the gov to prohibit private nukes?

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

Nope. Defending against fraud is one of the legitimate functions of government.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think that what Chaos means is that l(L)ibertarians (BTW what exactly is the difference between capital L and small l libertarians?) don't regard it as potentially problematic that the rich and powerful could use their power to rig the system to their advantage, without resorting to actual fraud, fx by forming cartels and monopolies, or that some people would be born into the world with less resources and so forth.

Nope; if the tax is voluntary, it's okay. Like a lottery, for example.

If a tax is voluntary it isn't a tax. At least not under the standard definition:

tax
A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tax

From your answer I assume that you agree that taxes are a crime. Does this extend to tariffs? I seem to remember that some Libertarian wanted to pay for the government with tariffs, but I'm not entirely sure, and I never understood why tariffs weren't just as oppressive as regular taxes.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

(BTW what exactly is the difference between capital L and small l libertarians?)

The same difference between a Democrat and a democrat, or a Republican and a republican.

The capital letter generally indicates membership in the political party. The small letter indicates one subscribes to a general philosophy.

I am a republican. I certainly am not a Republican.

It gets a little more confusing with libertarian/Libertarian because the party's rhetoric and philosophical bent claims to pertain to the small letter philosophy in its name.

It isn't like the RNC is mainly concerned and arguing for a republican form of government. Or that the Democrats are always pushing for more purely democratic insitiutions.

 

[Chaos]

Thanks for the replies so far.

Let me elaborate on my points.

- every participant in an economy will always act in a completely rational way

Maybe "rational" is not a good term. Let me rephrase it as a question:

According to libertarian theories, would most people line their own pockets at the expense of their employer, other people, or the government, would they excessively pollute the environment to increase their profits, or commit any other crimes, if they could get away with it and they would not, in the forseeable future, suffer any negative consequences for it?

The point I was trying to make is that, as far as I understand it, libertarian theories answer this question with "no".

- the best way to ensure the welfare of all is to let everybody act only for his/her own benefit

There´s a German proverb that says "if everybody just looks after himself, everybody is cared for".
They example of people working in charities does not necessarily contradict this - after all, they do this because they want to, as a hobby, you might say. Which might be interpreted as being for their benefit. I admit it´s a stretch, though.

So maybe the point should be rephrased as "...to let everybody do what they want to."

- in a free market economy, all parties (workers, owners of the means of production, and investors) are essentially equally powerful, so dealings between them will, by and large, be fair
- in a free market society, both sides of the supply/demand equation are essentially equally powerful, so dealing between them will, by and large, be fair

With "power" I did not mean use of force or legal power or something.
What I meant was, for example, that worker (with their ability to go on strike against recalcitrant employers) have no more leverage in negotiations than employers (with their ability to lay off recalcitrant workers) have.
Or that, for example, neither producers nor consumers can enforce a price level in their favor on the other.

- any form of taxation is a crime committed by the government (I´m not getting into the details of whether it is theft, armed robbery, extortion, or whatever)

I was under the impression that taxation is, by definition, forceful. So I rephrase it as "any form of forceful taxation..."

- everything that government does, private corporations could do better

All right, so "almost everything..."

Besides, inhowfar couldn´t private companies provide defense? Mercenaries were an established part of warfare for a very long time. AFAIK the Swiss Guards (in the Vatican) and the Nepalese gurkhas are, technically, mercenaries.

- any reduction in regulation will cause those who were regulated to act in a better way towards the object of regulation (e.g. less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions)

Shanek, I don´t think this points says anything else than "it'll allow the free market forces to do their work" - although implicitly, I admit.
Your theory is that less regulation allows market forces to do their work - which will then result in what the regulations were originally intended to achieve.



BTW, by my definition, a "libertarian" is someone who more or less agrees with the ideas of Libertarians - far enough to vote for them, though he/she maybe won´t because he/she doesn´t see a chance for them to win.
A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian party or at least completely agrees with their ideas.
Of course, there are also LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only), the "small government" Republicans like the current administration.

 

[Mike B.]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

Of course, there are also LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only), the "small government" Republicans like the current administration.

Good Point!

 

[chulbert]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

According to libertarian theories, would most people line their own pockets at the expense of their employer, other people, or the government, would they excessively pollute the environment to increase their profits, or commit any other crimes, if they could get away with it and they would not, in the forseeable future, suffer any negative consequences for it?

All of those behaviors have consequences in a libertarian system, many of which are the same as our current system. Employers may fire and/or sue you, citizens may sue you, and the government may sue and/or incarcerate you.

Whether or not you choose to "line your own pockets" at the expense of others is your own moral dilemma.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in your question that without laws people would not behave in a decent manner. I reject that assumption.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

But what happens if a private defense company builds a few nukes?

Well, holding something like that would constitute a clear and present danger, for many reasons. So I think it's reasonable to restrict that.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

I think that what Chaos means is that l(L)ibertarians (BTW what exactly is the difference between capital L and small l libertarians?)

Big-L Libertarians have joined the Libertarian Party.

don't regard it as potentially problematic that the rich and powerful could use their power to rig the system to their advantage, without resorting to actual fraud, fx by forming cartels and monopolies,

Cartels and monopolies don't work without government support.

or that some people would be born into the world with less resources

Well, whose fault is that? The more fair you make life, the less free you make it.

If a tax is voluntary it isn't a tax.

Okay, fine; but then don't go pretending that taxes are the only way to fund the government. You can't have it both ways.

Does this extend to tariffs?

Tariffs and excises are the least objectionable form of taxes in that they're self-limiting. The more you raise them, the more the price of the good and the fewer goods people buy. The government can't grow unchecked like it can with an Income Tax. For over 100 years, the tariffs and excises kept the size of government in check. The politicians found themselves in a world of trouble whenever they raised them too high. The only problem is when they start putting tariffs or excises on specific goods to drive up the price of them. They should be at a level amount across the board.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

According to libertarian theories, would most people line their own pockets at the expense of their employer, other people, or the government, would they excessively pollute the environment to increase their profits, or commit any other crimes, if they could get away with it and they would not, in the forseeable future, suffer any negative consequences for it?

Well, I would say that the question is faulty as there are negative consequences in the free market of doign those things.

The point I was trying to make is that, as far as I understand it, libertarian theories answer this question with "no".

Actually, I would be forced to answer "yes," but the situation you have described it is not how it works in the real world. They WOULD suffer negative consequences.

So maybe the point should be rephrased as "...to let everybody do what they want to."

Much better.

With "power" I did not mean use of force or legal power or something.
What I meant was, for example, that worker (with their ability to go on strike against recalcitrant employers) have no more leverage in negotiations than employers (with their ability to lay off recalcitrant workers) have.
Or that, for example, neither producers nor consumers can enforce a price level in their favor on the other.

Well, there's an equilibrium price of labor just like there is in any other market. Whenever one side or the other tries to move the wage away from equilibrium, market forces come in and drive it right back there. So, in that sense, yes, they are equal.

[snip taxation issue, as I dealt with it above]

All right, so "almost everything..."

How about, "A very large amount of what government is now doing could be done better by private entities working in the free market"?

Besides, inhowfar couldn´t private companies provide defense? Mercenaries were an established part of warfare for a very long time. AFAIK the Swiss Guards (in the Vatican) and the Nepalese gurkhas are, technically, mercenaries.

Yes, and Boeing can make fighter jets. Everyone has a role they can play in the nation's defense if they want.

- any reduction in regulation will cause those who were regulated to act in a better way towards the object of regulation (e.g. less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions)

Shanek, I don´t think this points says anything else than "it'll allow the free market forces to do their work" - although implicitly, I admit.

Well, the problem in the example "less emissions reduction regulations will result in less harmful emissions" is that it implies that less harmful emissions will be a direct result of removing emissions regulations. Not so. It will be a direct result of market forces, and only indirectly because of reguations due to the fact that there's now more capital in the free market.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

There seems to be an underlying assumption in your question that without laws people would not behave in a decent manner. I reject that assumption.

As would I, but I would only point out that it's not necessary for everyone to behave decently.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

Nope. I wouldn't necessarily trust a private corporation with our national defense, although they're certainly welcome to participate in the defense of the country as is any citizen. I wouldn't trust a private corporation to run our court system, although they're certainly welcome to offer voluntary arbitration services.

Of course an increasing amount of uk defence at least is done by private companies.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Basic assumptions of libertarianism?

Well, holding something like that would constitute a clear and present danger, for many reasons. So I think it's reasonable to restrict that.

I would have thought that being nuked off the face of the planet in return would be bad for profits.

 

[Patrick]

would they excessively pollute the environment to increase their profits

Just a peripheral comment on this - pollution is a major characteristic of statist, not free societies. The worst environmental pollution ever seen was the horrifying toxic areas in eastern europe revealed after the end of the cold war. This is because areas that nobody owns (or that the state owns) are used as pollution dumps. There are many many examples of the essence of this in practice - for example, why public toilets can be abominable but those in office buildings are usually well maintained. When land etc is private, it is cared for, or at least pollution is contained within it. If pollution leaves someones property and harms someone else, then the civil courts envisioned in a libertarian society are available for redress.


With "power" I did not mean use of force or legal power or something.
What I meant was, for example, that worker (with their ability to go on strike against recalcitrant employers) have no more leverage in negotiations than employers (with their ability to lay off recalcitrant workers)
.

Strikes and layoffs, at least as they occur in our statist society, have no place and wouldn't occur in a free society. Wages, layoffs, etc are determined by market forces and are rational.

BTW, by my definition, a "libertarian" is someone who more or less agrees with the ideas of Libertarians - far enough to vote for them,
"Libertarians" and "libertarians": Last time I checked, the Libertarian Party is pro-abortion. Over the long history of the LP, it has been hijacked at various times by various stripes of libertarians. Your definition is therefore not a good one - instead you should go by the general consensus of "libertarians", and realize that even with them, there are disagreements (just as within other parties.)

 

[shanek]

"Libertarians" and "libertarians": Last time I checked, the Libertarian Party is pro-abortion.

The LP platform makes no distinction one way or the other. This is an issue that has even Libertarians divided, so there isn't an official party position.

I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

Women's Rights and Abortion

The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.

and realize that even with them, there are disagreements (just as within other parties.)

If not moreso. We are, after all, a party full of opinionated individualists.

 

[Otther]

The LP platform makes no distinction one way or the other.

It still allows it... other than the funding of abortion, this is essentially a low-goverment pro-choice position.

 

[Patrick]

Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

This is unclear -- what does "free choice" mean? Can it mean what pro-abortionists usually mean by "choice", ie., permitting abortions? If so, then the LP is pro-abortion.