Is Libertarianism unrealistic?

Painter said:

It is no more unrealistic than Conservatism.

Centering everything around pumping the super rich with the hope that some might trickle down and be lapped up by the working class is not a sustainable ideology.
Just as Libertarians would plunge us into anarchy if they got what they wanted, Conservatives would plunge us into despair, chaos, and revolt.

Click to expand...

Libertarianism is not about pumping the super rich. At all. Thats just another myth bandied about.

I find it funny that the people who complain that libertarians advocate the defense of the super rich dont even realize that the super rich rule over them right now, even with a heavily regulated economy in place. It just proves how naive they really are.

PoS said:

Libertarianism is not about pumping the super rich. At all. Thats just another myth bandied about.

I find it funny that the people who complain that libertarians advocate the defense of the super rich dont even realize that the super rich rule over them right now, even with a heavily regulated economy in place. It just proves how naive they really are.

Click to expand...

or how many of the super rich are the very ones who want a collectivist government with high income tax rates and death taxes.

nothanks700 said:

If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Click to expand...

If by "libertarian" you mean the term that socially-liberal, far right-wing capitalists who inexplicably (but quite ironically) stole from socialists and anarchists for reasons totally unknown, then yes, that right-wing libertarianism is completely unrealistic. It totally and grossly misunderstands human nature, human progress, it profoundly lacks self-awareness, and it has wildly internally inconsistent principles and policy prescriptions. (I've discussed this before.)

With that said, I agree with a tremendous number of the ideological commitments (Note the difference between this and "policy positions") that right-wing libertarians have. In fact, if you were to take all of the political ideologies --Liberals v. Conservative v. (right-wing) Libertarian v. Authoritarian... On the principles, I'd have the greatest agreement with right-wing libertarians. On policies, I'd probably agree with liberals the most. (With that said, I agree with the Green party the most.)

nothanks700 said:

If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Click to expand...

It is an ideal, much like conservatism and liberalism. It actually borrows from both ideals. It is a realistic ideal,

Absentglare said:

The only way that libertarianism can be realistic is if it satisfies order insofar as dismantling the power structures that currently result in drastic inequity.

Click to expand...

And this is the reason we need Liberty now more than ever.

PoS said:

Libertarianism is not about pumping the super rich. At all. Thats just another myth bandied about.

I find it funny that the people who complain that libertarians advocate the defense of the super rich dont even realize that the super rich rule over them right now, even with a heavily regulated economy in place. It just proves how naive they really are.

Click to expand...

What is even better is the people that say such things support government doing research for business or providing them the funds to do it themselves. Do libertarians support that? Nope. They advocate businesses do their own work with their own funds while using their own time to do it. They don't provide them squat really, but still liberals, the very people that endorse government funding of such things as wind turbines, say it is libertarians that support pumping the super rich.

Not necessarily, as there's always the possibility for someone to forfeit everything society has to offer and live the life of a hunter-gatherer.

It's very hard for me to take seriously the advocates of an arrangement of society that defies the societal arrangement to begin with. It's a curious thing how such an absurdity can take over someone's mind to the point where he dedicates his life for it and views the world through it. I'm just going to leave this here:

Gaztopian said:

Not necessarily, as there's always the possibility for someone to forfeit everything society has to offer and live the life of a hunter-gatherer.

It's very hard for me to take seriously the advocates of an arrangement of society that defies the societal arrangement to begin with. It's a curious thing how such an absurdity can take over someone's mind to the point where he dedicates his life for it and views the world through it. I'm just going to leave this here:

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with what he said there. Can you perhaps tell me what you see wrong with what he said?

We watch Big Brother (no, not the stupid TV show).

Patrick Henry was the first notable American Libertarian.

Yes, it's that simple.

Henrin said:

I see nothing wrong with what he said there. Can you perhaps tell me what you see wrong with what he said?

Click to expand...

He first contends that the individual is sovereign and his liberty to conduct his affairs as he pleases is inviolable, that the government should play no role in his welfare. But when pressed on the hypothetical situation the moderator cited, he couldn't endorse leaving someone to die as the consequence of his life decisions. That reveals a paradox in libertarianism: you either live by the doctrine and undo the social arrangement, or you set limits and undo the doctrine.

Absolutely. The US founders tried libertarianism, and it clearly didn't work.

VanceMack said:

The problem with Libertarian politics is it always devolves into the whackjob drug legalization anarchist rhetoric. We need better candidates and they need to be working on campaigns year round...not just in the last few months of a presidential election year.

Click to expand...

Libertarian candidates for president always devolve into 'whackjobs' just like Conservative candidates for president always devolve into 'whackjobs'. Definition of 'whackjob':, IMO, highly ideological and not practical to the running of the country.

Did you see my smirk?

Gaztopian said:

He first contends that the individual is sovereign and his liberty to conduct his affairs as he pleases is inviolable, that the government should play no role in his welfare. But when pressed on the hypothetical situation the moderator cited, he couldn't endorse leaving someone to die as the consequence of his life decisions. That reveals a paradox in libertarianism: you either live by the doctrine and undo the social arrangement, or you set limits and undo the doctrine.

Click to expand...

Why libertarians detest the Donald who has libertarian-like philosophies but also wishes to maintain the integrity of the federal government.

German guy said:

When I define libertarianism as "ideology that puts a maximum emphasis on freedom":

It's IMO unrealistic to the degree there is poverty and inequality. In very wealthy countries where basically everybody gets a fair share (in his eyes) of the cake, it may work well.

But the problem is, "freedom" won't fill your belly, and "freedom" won't make life for you and your family safe enough not to live in fear. That's the problem. So when you're hungry, you don't give a damn about freedom, until your belly is filled. And when you live in constant fear of falling victim to a crime or conflict, freedom isn't your primary concern, but safety of your health and body is.

So these people will turn to other kinds of ideologies than libertarianism, sometimes even to militants or radicals, which is the point when libertarianism won't work anymore. Because extreme economic liberty causes extreme inequality, libertarianism is sawing off the branch it's sitting on.

Click to expand...

Another way of defining libertarianism is small government. Libs are the only group who are truly for small government.

cabse5 said:

Libertarian candidates for president always devolve into 'whackjobs'

Click to expand...

And when they go Rand Paul and try to be moderates, the base readily excommunicates them as apostates.

Gaztopian said:

And when they go Rand Paul and try to be moderates, the base readily excommunicates them as apostates.

Click to expand...

Better to be for small government than to claim you're for small government when you aren't (lyin' Ted).

cabse5 said:

Libertarian candidates for president always devolve into 'whackjobs' just like Conservative candidates for president always devolve into 'whackjobs'. Definition of 'whackjob':, IMO, highly ideological and not practical to the running of the country.

Did you see my smirk?

Click to expand...

Not sure if I saw your smirk, but I definitely observed your slant. Centrists are funny.

nothanks700 said:

If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Click to expand...

Your argument that bigger government (without corruption) is better due to economies of scale is missing the whole point of the Libertarian agenda. They often challenge the efficiency of government, but that's not what drives them. That's just a single point. Their challenge with making something like healthcare a single-payer system is that perhaps everybody does not believe in paying for health insurance. Or perhaps they don't believe in the Social Security System.

The problem is that the majority decides on what the government takes over, i.e. retirement or health insurance. And then minority who would not want the service they're now being forced to accept, HAS to buy into it, literally at the point of the gun (evade taxes? armed men take you to jail).

The majority forces the minority to purchase, with their dollars, what the majority believes they ought to have. They have taken away the freedom of choice for these topics. They believe these services from the government are at the cost of our freedom. Many would even argue they would rather pay more and make the decisions individually than the government to force them to do it their way.

There is some guilt that I feel in supporting the government initiatives that will increase government costs. Because I know that if we the majority give the government an additional power, we are allowing them to take money from those who may disagree with us, in order to support our cause.

Libertarianism is based on the false premise that we all act rationally and in our own self interest and will get the best results through voluntary associations and cooperation. It is an ideal that runs up against reality, which slowly chips away at it over time. Each person comes to believe that everything they want to do should be accepted and not interfered with if they don't see the harm it might do. But as more and more people do what they think they are free to do, they bump up against those who don't see it as they do. These disagreements are seen as constraints on individual liberty and begin the great unending debate over the unanswerable question: Where do my rights end and yours begin for every single individual in society? The complexity of this leads to making laws and rules to constrain liberty until we start complaining that there is no liberty.

PoS said:

Libertarianism is not about pumping the super rich. At all. Thats just another myth bandied about.

I find it funny that the people who complain that libertarians advocate the defense of the super rich dont even realize that the super rich rule over them right now, even with a heavily regulated economy in place. It just proves how naive they really are.

Click to expand...

Orrr... maybe we do realize that the super rich 'rule' over us right now, but we also believe that libertarian government would just further cement that. Libertarianism barely works when everyone is on equal footing, when you already have such widespread inequality it would just exacerbate it.

fredmertzz said:

Your argument that bigger government (without corruption) is better due to economies of scale is missing the whole point of the Libertarian agenda. They often challenge the efficiency of government, but that's not what drives them. That's just a single point. Their challenge with making something like healthcare a single-payer system is that perhaps everybody does not believe in paying for health insurance. Or perhaps they don't believe in the Social Security System.

The problem is that the majority decides on what the government takes over, i.e. retirement or health insurance. And then minority who would not want the service they're now being forced to accept, HAS to buy into it, literally at the point of the gun (evade taxes? armed men take you to jail).

The majority forces the minority to purchase, with their dollars, what the majority believes they ought to have. They have taken away the freedom of choice for these topics. They believe these services from the government are at the cost of our freedom. Many would even argue they would rather pay more and make the decisions individually than the government to force them to do it their way.

There is some guilt that I feel in supporting the government initiatives that will increase government costs. Because I know that if we the majority give the government an additional power, we are allowing them to take money from those who may disagree with us, in order to support our cause.

Click to expand...

And if you think that, then you miss the point of society. What you advocate for is anarchy. Most libertarians understand that the need to pool resources is necessary for a society. It's why libertarians make 'special exceptions' to their 'no aggression principle' theory, and support 'forcing' people to contribute towards a military, or a police force. Any libertarian that is not an anarchist, doesn't have an issue with the principle of pooling everyone's resources together, they just have an issue with the scale to which it is done. Yet they act as if they're on some moral high ground that they're different. Really they're no different from liberals or conservatives, they believe the govt should provide certain services and not others. In the same way, as a progressive, there are services I believe the govt should provide (the list for me will be larger than it is for you) and services I don't (e.g. war on drugs). You don't like contributing towards a society for everyone? Then go buy yourself an island.

This 'belief' that they have the moral higher ground stems from their idea that the services that they advocate for from the govt, are inherently better than the services conservatives/liberals advocate for because of pie in the sky ideals such as NAP and natural rights blah blah blah, which as many people have mentioned, are simply ideals that only exist in their head.

It obviously depends on the extent/type of the Libertarianism.

Anarchocapitalism is laughably impractical and inevitably devolves to the level of so many failed African states in an orgy of feuding warlords; it makes as many flawed assumptions about the 'fundamental benevolence' (lol) of human nature as its anti-thesis of totalitarian communism does. The 'non-aggression principle' is one of the most hilariously naive things I have ever read.

Libertarianism that recognizes the necessity of government, collective enterprises (such as defense and a legal system of legislation, prosecution and enforcement) and basic regulations (particularly as related to safety standards for food, drugs, etc) is perhaps 'viable' but far from ideal, particularly if it makes no attempt to defend against the formation of private monopoly, and choking consolidations of wealth. Though I realize government can be instrumental in the formation of such outcomes, this is a far cry from the inevitable result of monopoly in a system that makes no attempt whatsoever to curtail it. Further, government can be well insulated against the corrupting influence of private interests with adequate legislation guarding against money in politics and enabling public funding of elections as many wealthy countries have proven; the idea often peddled by Libertarians that the only cure for government corruption is the wholesale elimination/reduction of its power is utterly mythical.

VanceMack said:

The problem with Libertarian politics is it always devolves into the whackjob drug legalization anarchist rhetoric. We need better candidates and they need to be working on campaigns year round...not just in the last few months of a presidential election year.

Click to expand...

It is important to differentiate between libertarianism (little "L") that is synonymous with classical liberalism and Libertarianism (capital "L") that denotes members of a political party. Those are two entirely different animals.

While the Libertarian Party has many admirable components in its usual political platform, it also overuses, sometimes to extreme, political power and/or the courts to enforce its own view of how the world should look. In other words, it too often would not allow a state or community to organize itself and establish a culture that the Libertarians (capital "L") would see as contrary to Libertarian concepts. They utilize organizations such as the ACLU to enforce their disciplines when the law doesn't intervene for them. For instance, while they personally might be morally straight laced, religious, or whatever, they would deny a community the right to have any public religious display, corporate public prayers, etc., restrict or ban drugs, booze, pornography, or whatever.

They way overstep the concepts of libertarianism (little "L") that takes a central government hands off and live and let live policy on how people choose to live their lives whether Puritan strict or Deadwood lawless free for all or anything in between.

The brand of libertarianism espoused by most of the libertarians here is extremely overbroad and would essentially make it impossible to have a country in the modern world.

Some degrees of libertarianism could work, say, ending drug prohibition and leaving people to be responsible about what they put in their bodies. But frankly, most of the "libertarians" here sound a lot more like anarchists to me. There's nothing government they don't want to get rid of. Which kind of leaves....no government, hence no country, if they had their way.

Henrin said:

There is many advantages that an organization of force has over an organization that relies on voluntary exchange and cooperation. However, the fact that everything the organization does relies on violence makes it undesirable and something that should be considered by any decent non-violent human being as uncivilized and counter to everything we want in human society.

Regardless, it is true that when the organization of force commands over a people they will likely create a better fighting force, more resources that are able to pooled, and more over reaching protections than a society that has no such organization in place or at the very least has a restrained organization of force in place.

What it really comes down to is how many freedom you want and what risks you are willing to take.

Click to expand...

Your post sounds more like Henrintarianism...

nothanks700 said:

If we consider that libertarianism, at least in it's current political capacity, seems to be verging toward anarchy. Is this a reasonable way of looking at the world? Government in it's purist form is designed to make an entire group of people more powerful. Government gives us the ability to pool resources, create protections, foster growth, etc.

By this logic, the larger government is, the better. The only caveat being that corruption in government would be the issue. But theoretically, big government with little corruption would ultimately be the most advantageous to a society.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the Christians who claim to be righteous are less Christian for it. I see a similar dynamic with libertarianism.