Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Richard Masters]

Libertarianism is no more dead than any other religion. Die-hards will continue to think there are excuses and new buds based on their view will spring forth.

Evidence? For any of your implied claims?

 

[Darat]

I think DD is using "religion" as a synonym for "ideology".

 

[Richard Masters]

Every single contemporary Libertarian presidential nominee, including Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and even Libertarian imposter Bob Barr has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, and has offered scathing indictments of our corrupt monetary and banking system.

Do you represent most Libertarians in some alternate universe?

Hi Tippit,

Do you understand the difference between the U.S. Libertarian party and libertarianism?

I've followed some of your arguments through many discussions, defending the Gold Standard, Austrian Economics, Neo-confederatism, and the NAU, and have to say it is disappointing thus far.

Sticking to some talking point when there is evidence that it is unreasonable, illogical, or out of context, just because Ron Paul, or Lew Rockwell, or Ben Bernanke said is hardly the way to argue on either side.

 

[Francesca R]

Whose libertarian platform should I check?

Back up a bit please. Are you saying that *any* libertarian platform believes that it is wrong to threaten and use lethal force to defend property, and that libertarian government should outlaw that?

 

[Richard Masters]

I think DD is using "religion" as a synonym for "ideology".

Oh, I thought he meant religion, as in cult-based, dogmatic and lacking evidence or critical thought.

I withdraw my objections, then.

 

[Richard Masters]

Back up a bit please. Are you saying that *any* libertarian platform believes that it is wrong to threaten and use lethal force to defend property, and that libertarian government should outlaw that?

No, to the first part, and yes to your last question.

 

[Francesca R]

Are you sure? Why would a libertarian government outlaw the ability to threaten and use lethal force in defence of property?

 

[Richard Masters]

Can you describe then how the Fed is Constitutional, and how Congress can borrow endlessly on the public credit based on the Constitution?

Can you describe how this flavor of the Constitution has anything to do with a discussion about libertarianism in general?

You claim to support liberty, but if you knew how the existence of the Fed directly contradicts liberty and fiscal restraint, you would have no choice but to denounce it.

The Federal Reserve does manipulate the market; but it does not affect your liberty as perversely as you seem to believe.

I can offer you a few hundred solutions to your objections to the Federal Reserve, and none of them require abolishing the Federal Reserve.

There's also a difference between having an economic buffer and misusing said economic buffer. At this point, there is no strong evidence that the Federal Reserve's total abolition will result in a perfect non-volatile market.

What there is evidence of, is that in general prices will approach levels that reflect the true worth of a product.

The Federal Reserve and its Constitutionality have little to do with libertarianism.

 

[Richard Masters]

Are you sure? Why would a libertarian government outlaw the ability to threaten and use lethal force in defence of property?

Because it is not proportional.

 

[Richard Masters]

As a follow up to those points, I don't see a lot of discussion here about unions. Unions are a collective enterprise as a co-op, or a collective bargaining unit, or more, and as such were able to act as advocates in the cases of worker endangerment. While the laws are certainly there, I am not convinced that government would have enacted as many as it did without a pattern of union leverage, votes if you will, being used against legislators.

Does a Libertarian agree that a union is an association of free men (and or women) who band together for common cause, that of an economic benefit? I have asked this of a few self proclaimed libertarians, and not gotten an answer that makes sense. Isn't a union's activity yet another part of the market, in terms of the labor market and its internal characteristics?

From a libertarian, please, how do you see where unions fit into the market?

DR

To the extent that people pool together and agree to do things a certain way, they are free to do so as long as they do not interfere with someone else's liberty and equal rights.

 

[Richard Masters]

No, no, no! Don't you see? After enough kids fell into machines and got maimed or killed, no one would want to go to work for that company anymore, and they would go out of business. And if they are out of business, then no kids can get maimed. It works perfectly! Libertopia is a great place for kids, at least the ones who don't get maimed or killed.

This is why Libertarians are laughed at.

Or:

No, no, no! Don't you see? After enough kids fell into machines and got maimed or killed, no one would want children to work anymore, and they would draft legislation against child labor. And if children can't work, then no kids can get maimed. It works perfectly! Centraltopia is a great place for kids, at least the non-orphan ones who don't depend on their labor to eat or to live.

 

[Francesca R]

Because it is not proportional.

Says who? You can do this *now* in many liberal democracies.

 

[volatile]

Or:

No, no, no! Don't you see? After enough kids fell into machines and got maimed or killed, no one would want children to work anymore, and they would draft legislation against child labor. And if children can't work, then no kids can get maimed. It works perfectly! Centraltopia is a great place for kids, at least the non-orphan ones who don't depend on their labor to eat or to live.

To repeat - this is why Libertarians are laughed at.

You're pro child labour?

 

[volatile]

Says who? You can do this *now* in many liberal democracies.

Indeed... and it's a central pillar of arguments in favour of gun ownership, for example.

 

[Richard Masters]

See how humanitarian those heroic, saintly industrialists were? They would - if Da Eeevil Gubmint had but let them - have made the phenomenom of mourning disappear completely, by the simply yet ingenious expedient of wiping out whole families at once in their factories.

My, how cynical. What would you do instead? Force the poor children to abandon their parents? Have them placed in a home they do not want to live in, with strangers, unable to visit mom or dad, raped and abused by their caretakers or fellow orphans and put to work picking oranges (without pay) at the local orphanage orchard?

How humanitarian of those heroic non-industrialists.

 

[Richard Masters]

To repeat - this is why Libertarians are laughed at.

You're pro child labour?

Today, in most contexts, no. Are you pro-absolutist dichotomies and false dilemmas?

 

[Richard Masters]

Says who? You can do this *now* in many liberal democracies.

I don't see the relevance.

Why does it matter what a liberal democracy does, regarding whether a certain act of violence is proportional to a very particular offense?

 

[volatile]

Today, in most contexts, no. Are you pro-absolutist dichotomies and false dilemmas?

Not at all. But it seems you are, given that "Centraltopia is a great place for kids, at least the non-orphan ones who don't depend on their labor to eat or to live" only holds true of you also believe that centrist governments would leave children to starve in the streets - which, note, would not happen. That's a classic false dilemma, right there from your own mouth.

In Libertopia, with their instinctive fear of both taxation and welfare, not so much.

You're no libertarian, Richard. You resist the core tenets of libertarian theory. For that, I commend you. Nevertheless, let's talk about what you were getting at here - in what circumstances is child labour acceptable? How would a libertarian system benefit orphaned children, or child workers?

 

[volatile]

I don't see the relevance.

Why does it matter what a liberal democracy does, regarding whether a certain act of violence is proportional to a very particular offense?

It hardly surprises me that you miss the relevance.

The relevance is - who decides what is, and what isn't proportional? And, more importantly, how can such a process ever be describe "libertarian"?

 

[Francesca R]

I don't see the relevance.

Why does it matter what a liberal democracy does, regarding whether a certain act of violence is proportional to a very particular offense?

I mention that in order to imply that your claim that any libertarian government would ever rule that deadly force to protect property was "disproportionate" . . . is incorrect. Perhaps you can provide a source for your view that it would. Certainly the libertarian platforms already mentioned in this thread (see drkitten's posts) would not.

ETA: from http://www.lp.org/platform

1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. [ . . . ] We oppose all violations of the right to private property

You can protect property in the same way as you can protect your life. You have the right to use force in self defence of your right to property just as you can in self defence of your right to life. You can keep and bear arms to protect your right to property.

Nothing about proportionality as far as I can see

http://www.lp.org/search/node/proportionality

Search
Enter your keywords:

proportionality
Your search yielded no results