Libretarianism?

Remove all ads!

I have a very devout Libretarian friend who is constantly trying to covert me to his philosophy. He has given me arguments for it, and though they seem logically sound, I am hesitant to comit myself to a cause based on one person's justification of it. So I was hoping to open up a thread discussing the virtues and the shortcomings of Libretarianism, if it would be a feasible system of government, and if it wouldn't be, what a better alternative is.

 

Real Libertarianism is a great concept. Just don't fall on the trap of false "libertarians": Those that support state intervention to push "libertarian" causes - Hah, such paradox!

 

There are a lot of sub-strands of libertarianism, particularly economic and civil. The basic premise of liberalism and libertarianism is that people should be free to act so long as they do not cause harms to or curtail the freedoms of others, and that there should not be arbitrary impositions or interference by the state. A lot of libertarian thought and support emerged out of opposition to the arbitrary powers wielded by the state (particularly monarchs, and particularly in the mid-to-late 18th century). Much of the original work is connected to an individual's property rights.

Central to libertarian belief (in my view, at least - my background is in criminological study) is that the individual should be free to do as they please if they are not bringing harm to others by their actions. State interference with a person's life is not justified if they are harming no-one else. Of course, defining "harm" is about as easy as answering "how long is a piece of string?".

To an extent, most libertarian philosophies require the existence of a state as a guarantor of most liberties (which, loosely, is what Locke and Beccaria referred to as the social contract). That is kept distinct from the concept of the "tyranny of the majority", which is antithetical to liberal doctrine and which Svy touched on earlier.

For some further references, the Wikipedia article on libertarianism is fairly useful as a starting point. John Stuart Mill's works can be quite useful as well, although much heavier reading.

 

In my experience and observations - speaking as an American - a Libertarian is, by and large, merely a Conservative who's embarrassed to call himself one when the Conservatives in power are unpopular. Same thing goes for "Progressives." Calling yourself a Libertarian is the political equivilant of an American citizen who, while overseas, claims to be Canadian just so nobody gives him any sh*t.

Based on the Bush administration's approval ratings as of late, I'd say there are a lot of "Libertarians" here in the states at the moment.

 

This is the central problem I have faced. I have been presented with the basic argument that the government should only interfere when protecting one's fundamental rights to not be harmed by another, however I have also been given the impression from others that Libertarianism is simply a offshoot of conservatism, favoring the privlaged/buisnessmen and providing "Solutions" for the poor and the less business-orientated that in fact bulldoze over those groups. I think I will check out Wikipedia before I make any judgements, but I would still appreciate further discussion and advice.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by devout here. I can only assume that they favor all of the common Libertarian talking points.

The problem with this philosophy is it is hard to embrace it fully if you look at the big picture. dmc brings up some very good points about some common libertarian beliefs:

I don't have any problem with gay marriage. I don't have much of a problem with legalizing many drugs. However, I tend to think that we should have public schools as good as is reasonably possible, I think that social security is in principle a good thing (there do need to be changes, but helping out seniors is, IMO, a good thing), and I definitely want my road plowed when it snows in the winter.

So deepfae, while I like some of the Libertarian points, there's also a lot of things I DON'T like about it, and I wonder if you're friend has really considered entirely what Libertarianism entails. I think he too, would like his road to be plowed, and would like to have public education, unless he's independently wealthy and can buy his own snow plow and pay for his own (and any children he may have) education.

 

Libetrarian ?That's liberal for dimwits. That's a rape of "liberal". Poor country, so far fom its roots, has forgotten the meaning of the words of its own language.

 

In respose to Aldeth: My frined argues that under a Libretarian society, private companies would handle the schools, roads, ect., and that this would result in an end of the need for taxes, because the governement would not have to have access to large funds in order to do what it currantly does. My qualm with this, however, is that I fear provate companies would be more liable to succomb to corruption than a democratic/republican government. Sure, political parties/administrations often play to special interest groups for the sake of funding, or undetake certain agendas with alteriar motives in mind (the war in Iraq *cough* benifits Cheney *cough*), but an administration is put in power by the people, and fundamentally has to strive not to piss off the people too much if it wishes to retain that power. Granted, in America the Bush administration seems to have been able to piss off A LOT of people and still remain in power, but certainly there is a way to put the government even more at the mercy of the people without eliminating 99% of its power. On the other hand, if private companies handled public services, whats to stop, say, the multi-billion road company from putting the people dependant on it for roads at its mercy?

 

In other words, see Thomas Jefferson...

 

Well, I'm not sure that would save the people any money in the long run. To give two examples - Where I work we hire a private company to plow our parking lot when it snows, and they are very expensive. The parking lot is privately owned so it doesn't get plowed with the roads (although the road leading to the parking lot obviously does). Since you need your roads plowed, they can basically charge whatever they want, and I'm not sure a private company can do it any cheaper than what the local road crews do it for.

As for education, have you seen the prices for private education? I find it almost impossible to believe that privatizing education would be cheaper in the long run. We're not just talking about teacher salaries and school supplies - there's a lot more to it that that. There's electricity, heat, lunch service, bus maintenance, etc. The county where I live has a county tax of 2.83% of your income - which is pretty small. The vast majority of that tax money goes to the school systems, and the second biggest expense is road maintenance. Granted, some of my state taxes also go to pay for things like that - for example, counties aren't required to pay for upkeep on Interstates that run through the county - that's handled by the state.

 

Nah, not igonrance, more conscious contempt, a certian distance to decorum and a penchant for the melodramatic.

I have yet to see anything that would warrant or justify the creation of the neologsim "libertarian". Besides of being fancy and modern and fashionable, what does it say that would make a real difference to liberalism ? Show me a real difference ?

All I've seen is noting new. The liberal credo "less goverment more freedom" and laissez-faire. Ok, the Austrian sub-branch of liberalism goes to extremes. Extreme thinking behind warm desks. So, woulnd't we all be better served with a litte more honesty? Call it liberalism à la Austria or Austrian liberalism. But what's the use in cripple-words like Libertarian ?

Language changes. Yes it does. But I am suspicious of American terminology. Too strange sometimes. Why do you need to create a new word for liberal?

These imporant nuances you mention, what are they ?

 

Iago, a Libretarian (in america at least) is part of a political party, like a Republican or a Democrat. The party has specific political philosophies, and to call it a new word for a liberal is wrong, because they mean two different philosophies. Dmc was right when he said that they both descend from similar roots, but have different meanings today. To call a Libertarian a Liberal would most likely insult him, since he would think you are implying that he is a democrat (though there is a little recognized, technical difference between democrats and liberals too).
In resonse to Aldeth: I agree that private schools/pivate companies for plowing roads, ect. are high priced, but the argument I have heard is that if one were to remove governmet restrictions on buisnesses (like minimum wage), that the prices would lower. Furthermore, say Libretarians, if everyting was handled by private corporations as opposed to the government, the competition of the market would drive prices down. But though this sounds nice and neat in so many words, I have to wonder if it would actually work out like that?

 

It's not really about LESS government, but a government that is closer to the people whom it represents. Less centralization (federal) and more local government, were people SHOULD be able to manage their own affairs more closely. All this privatization baloney has more to do with making money (for certain people) than about saving it. People would still be paying for the same things, but it would no longer be under public control. That's a very, very poor idea.

And Jefferson was one of the first proponents of public education, and while he was governor of Virginia, attempted one of the first plans for public education here in America. He understood that without an educated population, democratic government was doomed to failure.

In the end America is not a "libertarian" nation, nor is it "liberal." Jeffersonians have been losing out. America has more, or less been placed on the opposite track: a Hamiltonian one, based more towards urbanization and greater centralization. Jefferson believed that the town meeting was the best expression of self-government. In modern America that's probably the least powerful place of representation. And the current administration has centralized government even more, attempting to make even Congress obsolete.

All we need these days is a King and a few Ministers (Justices) who do his bidding. Everything else is irrelevant, or so it would seem.

 

To give Iago a more concrete example between liberal and libertarian is their spending philosophies. Lilberals tend to favor social programs like social security, medicare, etc., where libertarians do not favor these programs at all. Another area where libertarians are very different from liberals is their business philosophies, with libertarians being pro-big business (although not exactly opposed to things like unions as most conservatives).

There are certainly many other examples, but the main point is that liberal isn't the same thing as libertarian. There are certainly points on the libertarian platform that are liberal, but there are also conservative points as well.

 

Well, I am aware of the very odd terminology that prevails in American English. But I think that DMC, as a person with juristic background, is very aware of the actual meaning of liberal, interestingly, quite the contrarary of the odd common American usage.

That's why I took the wikipedia quote. Most Americans seem not to be aware of "liberalism" in its original sense. To me it seems they think of the term "liberal" as substistute for "left" or "member of the democratic party". Which is quite absurd. But the wikipedia quote nicely reminds us all of the acutaly and current meaning of "liberal"

A left-leaning liberal would be a "social-liberal" in contrast to a liberal. (Again, American terminology would contain different meaning with "socialliberal"). Chandos can therefore rightly claim liberal roots.

See, liberal still means liberal, and that's right wing. Therefore the term "Libertarian" is superflous as I don't see it adds anything or distracts anything from whatever is already included in liberal. I see no use for the word "libertarian".

But of course, what really nags me is... Liberalism is the fundament of the modern western state. If there's such huge difference in the usage and terminology, actually making the word "liberal" nearly unrecognisable.. what do I have in common with such a foreign and obscure culture ?

And another troubling point: If neither the democratic nor the republican party have a "liberal" tradition. What happened to the liberal tradition. Base of this assertion is, there's a third liberal party ("libertarian"), claiming that there's nothing liberal either about the Republicans or the Democrats. What happened to liberalism in the US of A

Did liberty leave through the backdoor ?

 

My point exactly...

 

Iago, the fact is that, whatever the actual meaning of the word liberal, it means what it means in american english today. Words change their meanings as their conotations change throughout history. That being said, I didn't start this thread to argue over the definitions of words. I think you made a good point in saying that the libertarian party pops up between the democrats and the republicans, proclaiming itself the true liberal party, and claiming to have the only american monopoly on true liberty. And from what I know about the politics of the Libertarian party, they seem to back up this claim, pretty much advocating liberty only to the extent of interfering with someone else's liberty. But my question is whether or not the ways the Libertarian party suggests going about allowing this much liberty wouuld actually work.

 

Actually, I thought Iago addressed that point pretty well. Although, I agree that some may not like his response very much...