- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
FrenchAffair: you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I respect this site enough to try to limit myself to posting about things that I know about. I ask that you please do the same.
Libertarians
- Thread starter Jokster
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I_am_John_Galt said:
Attacking the person rather than the argument is a common logical fallacy. I have responded to the arguments presented against mine in turn, if you can not do the same common courtesy and professionalism would ask you to simply not respond rather than try to save face by a lack luster personal attack against me.
Political ideologies, their differences and applications in the world has been the main field that I have studies in university for the last 2 years so your outlandish claims that I am uninformed it baseless. With out doubt there are individuals who know plenty more than I do, and if you happen to be one of those people then an exchange of arguments would be the course of action to take. But if all you can do is attack my person, and like you claim have respect for this site. Then respect this site by not sinking to the level of personal attacks.
Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"- Seth Finkelstein
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem: it is a statement of fact. If you feel the need to compare credentials, one of my degrees is in Political Economy. Economics covers the sphere of production, where Politics studies the mode of distribution: Political Economy is the study of the interaction of the two. Libertarianism is a philosophy of Political Economy. While you seem to have (very) superficial understanding of some of the economic aspects of libertarianism, the political, and political economy aspects are apparently completely beyond you. You don't seem to understand the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism nor, ironically, between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism. Your arguments aren't being refuted directly not because we disagree, but because they are nonsensical: you might as well be arguing that the Air Force has outdated submarines. Mr. Majoor gave you some very good advice ... I suggest you read some of what he, I, and others have written here on the subject, because your idea of what Libertarianism is flat out wrong. Here's a primer from the Cato Institute: <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-01-99.html">Key Concepts of Libertarianism</a>.
In particular, I draw your attention to:
In particular, I draw your attention to:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
It is a subjective opinion. I’m going to assume based on your name and defense of these principles that you adhere in some form to the philosophies of Ayn Rand and thus your perspective is going to be one of pro-libertarian. An individual who subscribes to another philosophical and political standing might agree with what I am saying. So instead of delving into accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, if you from your perspective disagree with what I (or anyone) says you are fully welcome to state your case and I am fully open to read and debate any issues of this. How ever lets keep mature about this, if I don’t know what I am talking about, you can easily demonstrate that by a simple and well placed counter argument. Logical and reason will stand clear from illogical and the irrational, so there is no need for accusations.
It is far more than just that. It is a all encompassing political philosophy. It embodies a broad, but limited (in numbers) spectrum of groups that share similar theories on not just economic issues, but as well social and moral.
Libertarians seek to install social and moral policies just as much as economic ones.
I fully understand the differences on paper, but in practical application those differences are a lot smaller than Libertarians would like us to believe.
Libertarianism is vastly similar to Anarchism in it’s approach to many issues, creating what we can call somewhat “regulated anarchy” which would ultimately lead to circumstances that can be described in no other way than authoritarianism.
Libertarians would effectively give corporations a free hand, with no regulations upon business, no regulations upon workers rights or standards these corporations would eventually have a over dominating control of society, especially for the workers depended on them for their very survival (remember, there would be no social programs to help the unemployed or exploited) and would become slaves in everything but name. Enslaved by the conditions created by Libertarian policy.
They are based on the simple conclusions that can easily be come to simply by looking at what Libertarians support and though rational thought seeking what the conclusion of those policies would be upon a developed nation. The vast majority (over 99.98% to be exact) of Canadians came to the same conclusion so unless you are claiming that all but a few accost this broad nation are “nonsensical” your claims are incorrect.
Which can be boiled down to the commonly quoted phrase of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, and as long as what you do does not infringe upon another right to those three things you can do it. How ever it does nothing to address what I speak of, which is the corner stones of civilized society, which would be removed under a libertarian government.
“Each man for himself” is the only appropriate moto for Libertarians, and it charactizes the philosophy entirely and nothing I have claimed is contrary to what Libertarians propose.
If you wish I can quote the Libertarian platform where they seek to eliminate government mandated minimum wage, or public health and education… or even the basic government institutions that ensure minimum standards of workers rights (since of course the “market force” will make it all work out for the best)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Those that claim that hedonism, selfishness and anarchy are not what Libertarianism is about are absolutely correct, however...
I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty. All you have to do to see the fallacy of this argument is look back into history. Sweat shops are a direct result of unregulated business. The illiberal practices of the so called company towns in the old west were another, indentured servitude was the practical outcome, though it was never called that.
All this liberty of business and economy does is redirect the power away from elected governments (in a democratic system) to unelected businessmen who's only responsibility is to make money for himself, the company and if there are any, shareholders. It's the final triumph of the oft' perverted "Golden Rule", you know the one that goes "He who has the gold, makes the rules." I for one would not want to live in a society in which that was more of a fact than a clever turn of phrase.
I can almost hear the argument now... "But if workers are treated poorly then they can go work somewhere else." A common refrain, but largely unlikely and impractical in a libertarian society. Without any social programs anyone who does not work is reduced to the status of beggar at best. Debtors prisons, another result of pay as you go liberty.
Another libertarian argument is that if the people don't like what the company does then they can buy their products elsewhere. Except for the small omission that Libertarianism has absolutely no problem with monopolies. Just imagine what an unscrupulous Bill Gates could do with enough money to buy an entire nation. Can you say corporate state?
Buy the police, fire departments, the military. The few existing politicians would be easily bought if not out-right then by proxy (if you own everything then your power in an economic and practical sense is unlimited).
Think of the POWER! When the only obstacle to power is money there is literally no obstacle to someone with enough money.
Of course none of this is what Libertarianism is all about... in the same way that Stalin's purges, gulags and the iron curtain are not what communism is about.
I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty. All you have to do to see the fallacy of this argument is look back into history. Sweat shops are a direct result of unregulated business. The illiberal practices of the so called company towns in the old west were another, indentured servitude was the practical outcome, though it was never called that.
All this liberty of business and economy does is redirect the power away from elected governments (in a democratic system) to unelected businessmen who's only responsibility is to make money for himself, the company and if there are any, shareholders. It's the final triumph of the oft' perverted "Golden Rule", you know the one that goes "He who has the gold, makes the rules." I for one would not want to live in a society in which that was more of a fact than a clever turn of phrase.
I can almost hear the argument now... "But if workers are treated poorly then they can go work somewhere else." A common refrain, but largely unlikely and impractical in a libertarian society. Without any social programs anyone who does not work is reduced to the status of beggar at best. Debtors prisons, another result of pay as you go liberty.
Another libertarian argument is that if the people don't like what the company does then they can buy their products elsewhere. Except for the small omission that Libertarianism has absolutely no problem with monopolies. Just imagine what an unscrupulous Bill Gates could do with enough money to buy an entire nation. Can you say corporate state?
Buy the police, fire departments, the military. The few existing politicians would be easily bought if not out-right then by proxy (if you own everything then your power in an economic and practical sense is unlimited).
Think of the POWER! When the only obstacle to power is money there is literally no obstacle to someone with enough money.
Of course none of this is what Libertarianism is all about... in the same way that Stalin's purges, gulags and the iron curtain are not what communism is about.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,300
- Points
- 1,040
>I have responded to the arguments presented
You have not. You have re-created the same straw man as many others who object to libertarian principles. Libertarianism is not the absence of law and government. Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government. All of the failings being pointed out are the failings of people. People do not magically shed their weaknesses when they take up politics or careers in public service. The ultimate short cut to money and power is government and employment in government service. Where should we expect people long on desire but short on willpower and industriousness to seek their aims?
Yes, people working privately can foul up the lives of others. But no-one can f*ck up the economy, people's investments and livelihoods, the environment, or the well-being of entire cultures and groups of people so fast and on such a scale of magnitude as governments, even governments with noble intentions. You don't need to look outside the borders of Canada to find government abuses that far outweigh anything people acting privately could aspire to. Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.
You have not. You have re-created the same straw man as many others who object to libertarian principles. Libertarianism is not the absence of law and government. Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government. All of the failings being pointed out are the failings of people. People do not magically shed their weaknesses when they take up politics or careers in public service. The ultimate short cut to money and power is government and employment in government service. Where should we expect people long on desire but short on willpower and industriousness to seek their aims?
Yes, people working privately can foul up the lives of others. But no-one can f*ck up the economy, people's investments and livelihoods, the environment, or the well-being of entire cultures and groups of people so fast and on such a scale of magnitude as governments, even governments with noble intentions. You don't need to look outside the borders of Canada to find government abuses that far outweigh anything people acting privately could aspire to. Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Rather than spending our valuable time sweeping straw men out of the room, we really should be concentrating on how to institute Libertarianism as a viable political philosophy. The Dead Hand of Socialism and the Grasping Hand of government are certainly doing their best to arm wrestle the Invisible Hand of the market to the ground (although the true result is the growth of unintended consequences as market forces continue to operate in the new and distorted environments). Blogging seems to be a good starting point, as it is an unfettered medium with low entry barriers, and has the added bonus of being linkable to kindred spirits, and is also a two way medium, thus available to educate people.
Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.
WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........
Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.
WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
Fascism is nationalistic and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Then it would seem you have yet to delve far enough into the illogical and delusional world of Libertarians.
I quote you from the Libertarian Parties platform
”Replacement of all government-granted monopolies and subsidies with deregulated free markets
“we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics.”
“The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights”
Libertarians believe that all woes of the world will be solved though the magical “market force”. To them, sweatshops exist only because of government interference into the market place. To them, the unregulated economy is the unfailable solution to every problem.
Libertarians also have no issue with sweatshops. For them to interfere in private business is against the fundamental principle of their philosophy. The answer a Libertarian would give as to this situation is that if the workers do not like the conditions that they are working in they can quit and find a new job.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
JesseWZ said:
Communism and Fascism are practically the same in essence. Communism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “people” above all other, and Fascism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “state” above all other.
In practice, Fascism and Communism are very similar. Fascism can not be “right wing” as the “farther right” ones goes on the spectrum the less government involvement, the more individual freedoms one has. The extreme form of the “right wing” is Anarchy. Fascism and Communism are both aspects of extreme “left wing” philosophies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
How ever, the definition of “rights” to a Libertarian is far from what most people in our society would define them as.
Libertarians do not believe in the right to education, health care, food, shelter…. To a Libertarian all those things depend on the basis of if or if not you can afford them.
Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
JesseWZ said:
Actually Jesse, I think that is a common misconception, but read Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html to see how the one dimensional "left/right" divide distorts political thinking.
You might also like the thread on the Euston Manifesto http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html which looks at quite a few competing ideas in the realm of politics and ideology. Many of our better posters participated in that one, and I thought it was a good debate.
Enjoy!
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
FrenchAffair said:
Really? Are you talking about what amounts to a very minimal pay here in Canada, or fairly high wages for their country? A little perspective may be in order. Now I am sure that should.....say the "Unions" move into these places,..........you'd see even more changes............but that would throw this discussion about "Libertarians" right out the window. These nations will soon overtake ours with their manufacturing and become the World's producers, while we devolve into States where 'Tourism' will be our only 'Seasonal Employment'. The "Money" is on the move.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
a_majoor said:
But in the ideal libertarian society there would be significantly less law (and I would argue order) than there is today. Imagine the actions and methods of drug dealers in Toronto in the absence of legislation. Do you honestly believe that their methods would change if the drugs suddenly became legal. Unfettered access to our children and no recourse for Joe and Jill six pack.
In theory... again just like the behemoth communism, libertarianism sounds great on paper. Remember communism was supposed to set people free. The ultimate goal was to enable people to work as and when the spirit called them, at whatever they wished, for the good of all. In reality the command economy led to unending menial labour for all and replaced the "upper class" with the apparatchik.
In theory the free market would lead to unrestricted competition and monopolies would be a fleeting thing as you say but I can just as easily see the rise of what I called the corporate state which controls not through the mechanism of legislation but through the much broader and much more invasive use of market domination.
How can a mom and pop business exist in a market dominated by such a corporation? How long until the mom and pop can't find suppliers because they are all owned by the corporation? Mom and pop have to import their resources from far away because the monopoly owns all the required resources near them, this drives mom and pop's price up and they can not compete and they go out of business, or perhaps better yet the corporation buys them out and continues running mom & pop's business making the same product giving an illusion of competition where there really is none. The corporation has done nothing wrong, in fact by ensuring their survival they have done everything right according to the market. Now imagine a corporation that could do that in any and all markets. Not only do they rule the forestry sector but the petro chemical sector, security industry, fire/rescue services, housing, grocers. No one works, purchases or manufactures anything which can not be controlled by the corporation through the "free" market.
Before you begin countering this theory, I would remind you that your scenario too is just a theory. Neither of them can be proven or has been proven to date so the surety with which you counter the assertions of those like FrenchAffair and I is a fallacy predicated on theory, that's it, that's all.
My mother is a wise woman, she always called for me to exercise restraint. "Moderation in all things" she would say.
I can agree with many Libertarian principals but I'm looking for a balance, somewhere between the Libertarian and modern liberal society. Our society the thing we call Canada and our identity would not exist without at least a portion of what we call the nanny state, our freedoms would never have been guaranteed if some among us had not been forced or coerced into accepting them.
I will never be able to swallow the Libertarian ideal whole there is just too much theory, not enough practical application, too much belief, not enough proof.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Reccesoldier said:
You have just, in essence, discribed conglomerate that was set up by K.C. Irving. He set up a chain of Gas Stations, then Refineries, then the Trucking companies to transport his product. He branched out into the Logging Industry and Pulp and Paper. He linked all his businesses to cut costs. His enterprise even runs a chain of hotels. They are into the Food Production (Potatoe farms, etc.) and Food Processing business. The are in the Shipbuilding and Shipping business (to transport Crude to their refineries from their offshore productions facilities). They have large property holdings in major metropolitan centeres. The list is almost endless, as to what kind of business empire the Irving family has created.
Irving Oil
Irving Shipyards
Irving Shipping
Keddy's
Canada Splint
Irving Pulp and Paper
Irving Forest Products
Irving Refineries
Kent Building Supplies
Cavendish Farms Foods
Telegraph-Journal (Saint John)
Times & Transcript (Moncton)
Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
MITV (later sold to Global Television)
The Tribune (Campbellton and Restigouche County)
La Voix (French Language) (Campbellton and Restigouche County)
The Bugle-Observer (Woodstock)
La Cataract (French Language) (Grand Falls, New Brunswick)
Le Madawaska (French Language) (Edmundston, New Brunswick)
Midland Trucking
and many more to basically 'own' the Maritimes and much of the Northeastern US.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese interference)of any kind. 
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Reccesoldier said:Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese interference)of any kind.
Actually, there is no need to think of what kind of setup would happen. The ownership of most of the industry and media in the Maritimes by one family has more or less stifled the Region. Their control of so much of the economy in the Region, has political ramifications. In many cases, if it isn't an Irving controlled 'idea', it is 'not going to happen'.
What isn't tied up by this family, has been taken up by the McCain and Sobie families.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Brad Sallows said:
So your opinion then, is that it is presumptuous to rephrase your statement in a clear and simple way, one that easy to understand, and ask you if that is correct in order to understand your perspective better.
Since nothing was clarified, I can answer the point I heard, which is that punishment (coercion), has no place in a libertarian society. This is not in accordance with reality. You have only two tools with which to influence behavior, the carrot and the stick. They are inescapably linked, because withholding the carrot is a form of stick, and sparing the stick is a form of carrot.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
George Wallace said:
I do not understand how one can be so naïve.
Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.
a) To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries
Or
b) Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health?
Corporations are out to make money, not improve the quality of life of individuals. Nike is going to make a lot more money if they can manufacture their shoes for 25 cents an hour labor over in south east Asia…. If they improve the conditions of those workers, they will demand more money. The more money Nike has to pay workers… the less money they make.
It is in corporations best interest to keep these parts of the world impoverished. Libertarians not only would endorse that, but they would bring the same lack of regulations that allows and creates those conditions in south east Asia and Africa to Canada.
No they can’t. Look at what Wal-Mart did when workers in Quebec unionized. They fired the workers and shut the store down. And that is in Quebec.
Workers in the 3rd world are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. If they try to create unions these corporations will just shut their factory down and move it somewhere else. Leavening these people with out any means at all.
These people can not organize unions because they are enslaved in everything but name.
You’re delusional fantasies about the “utopia” a Libertarian society would create can only draw parallels to the “utopia” communists claim their manifesto would create…. We all see how that worked out in practice… just as we can see how a libertarian “utopia” would work out in reality just by looking at situations where many aspects of Libertarian policy are currently at work.
- Status
Similar threads
