Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
Ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that a very large portion of people with libertarian views don't vote for the libertarian party, myself included.
The government and complicit media have taken a trivial issue and blown it up to be Macys-Day-Parade-size floating boogieman. The Libertarian party if they were to have a float in the parade would be one of Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison or Henry Ford.
You support the trivial while ignoring the massive benefits that non-force free enterprise contributes to individuals, society and humanity.
In a way you're right. The American Revolution was largely a libertarian event. The French Revolution was not. The differences are obvious.
What you seem to have in mind, though, is to say the American Revolution took after Burke, who, you claim, was anti-libertarian, while the French Revolution took after Locke. Of course, out in the real world the American Revolution took after Locke and the French Revolution took after Rousseau. Burke was a minority MP whose best work was ahead of him at the time of the American Revolution.
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess. ) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.--Frederic Bastiat
Burke summed it up with this statement "Liberty without wisdom, and without virtue is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.)
And do you imagine that the government can impart wisdom and virtue?
And true to form, the anti-libertarian crowd chimes in with their own personal obsession -- drugs.
Suppose the US had a law against abortion, would it 'follow then' that the US 'may' "morally" put economic sanctions on countries or even wage war on a country that allows abortion?
In short I'm bringing up the concept of "sphere of application" for certain "group rights" and how the scope is dependent on the right being claimed.
If we orient ourselves toward granular government and concert our efforts against allowing mass democracy to bulldoze over the availability of choice, we have to manage the co-existance problems and what you might call the transition/implementation problem. The latter I think calls on a different form of lawmaking that is not so binary and tries to phase-in or out various prohibitions.
So, recognizing a community has the right to live 'porn-free' or drug-free, but denying blanket democratic imposition of these rights on any larger scale, we go on to say: If a community is evolving toward a prohibition or repeal, they must proceed using a guideline for transition-- one that doesnt "turn people into criminals overnight" nor "let the drug trade out of a cage".
Here, too. The right to life is the pinnacle of all rights.
There are always conflicting rights, and any judgement of which should predominate in a given conflict is the critical factor in applying this principle.
Name for me a set of "conflicting rights", and I promise you that I can disprove one of them.
What about all the issues where libertarians reach the opposite conclusions from liberals --taxes, property rights, affirmative action? And libertarians are split on the abortion issue.
Hence, IMHO, a tremendous weakness in libertarian thought.>>
That is really it's strength. The only thing libertarians need agree on is a noncoercive society. While I'm aware that people can argue about exactly what this means, it really isn't ambiguous most of the time, especially compared to other ideals such as a "just" or "moral" society.
<< Now, again, just what is libertarianism?...How do you sell a point which can be defined in so many different ways? The non-initiation of force and laissez-faire economic stance of libertarianism is highly attractive. But is that all there is to it? >>
Well, every political philosophy from socialism to conservatism is defined differently by different thinkers. But, yes, non-initiation of force IS basically "all there is to it." The disagreements are ironing out what this means, which is obvious on many issues and less obvious in others (e.g. abortion). What makes libertarianism fundamentally different is that all other political philosophies are based on a model like Plato's Republic --they have a very specific vision of an ideal society. Libertarianism, on the other hand, allows for many different "utopias," the only condition being that they don't infringe on one another. This is probably an ideal that will never be fully realized (like any ideal), but it's the one that allows for the most freedom. So when people complain that it's too "vague" or encompasses too many possibilities, they are missing that this is the very point of libertarianism.
You say that this is a strength of libertarianism, right? But let me ask you this question. Does the concept of "over-diversification" mean anything to you, as in the business model?
The article comes close to implying that Libertarianism actually facilitates traditionalism, because traditionalism will triumph based on Darwinian principles, if allowed to act in an unfettered manner. That is an empirical matter, and I suspect wrong. It also misses the point, the point being that the issue is to what degree can traditionalism tolerate non-traditionalism in its midst, for the good and just society to survive and prosper, and facilitate the legitimate pursuit of human happiness?
Libertarianism is superficially attractive in suggesting that everyone has a right to do their own thing, provided that it does not impose costs on others. Traditionalists would have a weak case in opposing this. To do so smacks of officious intermedling, and a certain cultural hubris. It would also choke off cultural experimentation that might be healthy and necessary as technology and other external conditions evolve.
The rub of course is the "not imposing costs on others" bit. Most of our actions and cultural morays impact others, and impose costs and/or offer benefits. Tolerating Darwinian poverty, an uneducated populace that in too many instances can't afford or chooses not be seek knowledge, untrammeled substance abuse, irresponsible procreation, environmental pollution, a lack of revenues derived from coercive taxation necessary to finance the common defense and roads and public safety, does impose costs on the society at large that are not resolved by any private contract, and are not internalized in the price system. Someone is getting a free lunch, and someone is paying for it, no matter how much the libertarians would wish to deny it, and avoid dealing with it.
Thus the task is to find a balance between individual liberty and community concerns. Libertarian sensibilities and methods of internalizing as much as reasonably possible into the price system are useful in arriving at the most optimal balance, but not the whole solution. Much of it is beyond ideology, and must rely on practical experience and empirical data, the use of which must be combined with ideology, in seeking that elusive golden mean.
You mean over-diversification, like when a government involves itself in a bunch of things it has no business doing, like regulating how much water we can have in our toilets?
Over-Diversification: Keeping an eye on opportunities for expansion is an important part of maintaining a healthy and successful business. But too much emphasis on diversification can be a bad thing, according to the study.Are you saying that this doesn't happen to governments?
Take Amazon.com. The e-retailer leveraged its success away from music and books and into unrelated areas and got burned. For example, its furniture store, a partnership with Living.com, was shut down last August when Living.com folded.
Over-diversification is a problem because growth and innovation alone aren't sufficient means for achieving lasting success. Innovation must be tempered with efficiency, profitability and true wealth creation, according to the study.
I would agree that growth and expansion are not a moral ambition for the government, but that doesn't seem to stop them.
In what way do you think this principle applies to libertarianism? Or were you using a different definition of "over-diversification"?
Over-diversification, as I posed to Lchris in political theory, is an apparent "strength" to him or her (don't know which by the name). Thus, I speak of over-diversification being the cause of a poor theorectical basis for the philosophy of libertarianism.
It appears to lack glue and cohesiveness. The libertarianism, say, of The Cato Institute and of a site like LewRockwell.com appear different outside of the non-initiation of force idea. Which one is the most indicative of libertarianism? If it is up to the interpreter, then you must admit that all interpretations of libertarianism are correct.
If not, which definition is correct? And what is this called? Circular-reasoning.
Over-diversification, therefore, makes libertarianism weak in its ability to gain any headway in its success of seating its members in seats of Congress, which is the point of any political party and its philosophy. Otherwise, it is just mass theorizing. And this is not surprising, seeing that as you mentioned Amazon.com weakened itself by overreaching.
You can't be good at everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.