Posted on 03/07/2005 1:08:36 PM PST by quidnunc
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties — I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism — enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
-snip-
Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution.
How so?
Does a hippie commune have a government?
Does a hippie commune have a government?
---
Sure. They have rules how they accept new people and rules of conduct, distribution etc... Certain individuals, like the founders, or those with leadership traits have more sway then others. I guess you could call their form of government communist. However, what is important is the size of the network. Familes are 'communist', but there is a level of trust that enables them to function normally.
This is where sociology breaks down into psychology. If everyone was a good person and everyone was trusting then socialism/communism looks fairly attractive. The problem is that a majority of people will not work their fair share for people they don't know and will take advantage of the fact that 'everything is everyones'. People don't
trust strangers and those who wield raw power the harshest begin to take control. Morality soon breaks down. Also, the advantages of a market for increasing productivity and selecting out good and bad companies becomes more apparent in larger populations.
Small communist groups can sometimes succeed. Even small socialist countries like Sweden have survived for a remarkably long time, with 'relative' prosperity in a socialistic system.
What would your answer be to your question?
Libertarians have the vision of every sovereign individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.
This libertarian vision or principle has an enabling rule: don't assault people physically or steal their property.
This stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution.
Libertarians have the vision of every sovereign individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.
This libertarian vision or principle has an enabling rule: don't assault people physically or steal their property.
And this is wrong?
As gardening wastes time when stealing your neighbors veggies is easier individually, or taxing him collectivly.. or chargeing him rent as the top of the food chain..
Libertarians are bizaaro "Marxists"... What a concept.....
Good answer. Perhaps we're debating semantics here, e.g. the definition of a government. Here's my answer (and also why I asked that question).
Strictly speaking, the definition of socialism is for the state to take control of all wealth and restribute it to their owners as they deem fit. In communism, there is no ownership. In that way, USSR, Cuba, et al, were socialist whereas Sweden is an uber welfare state.
Pure Marxism means no government, no economical control. Everyone takes what they need and provides for those who need it. As you say, the only true Marxism occurs in hippie comunes and families. This is because the effort it takes to maintain this system without an enforcing body scales exponentially to a point that it is unsustainable beyond a few dozen people.
My point in asking the question was that classical Marxism doesn't require a government as defined by a military, an elected body, and so forth. In an anarcho-capitalist system, I would imagine that people would corral themselves into tribes as a matter of survival: the only difference between such a system and classic Marxism would be the degree of a concept of ownership. You can see this by the fact that anarchists very closely associate themselves with communists.
This isn't to say that libertarianism doesn't have a lot of good points either; I am a small-l libertarian, after all.
hmmm... yea, I think we are mostly dancing around definitions. Let me try it this way:
In pure Marxism everyone takes what they need and provide for those who need it - the Communist utopia. What people need and what people should provide those in need is not defined - there is no need to define it because 'whatever the perfect answer is' will already be known by the 'educated masses'. The people ARE the state and since none of them disagree with the state then there is no need for any enforcing body etc... If no one committed any crime then there would be no need for police. So whether I say everything is owned by the state, or you say everything is owned by the people - is a bit of a moot point, cuz the people are all sheep and all think the same (hence the bloody, hellish attempts to brainwash entire populations through terror and doublethink). If everyone was a policeman, there would not be a need for what we think of as an official police force, but the line between saying there is NO police force and that there is a TOTAL police force is almost non existent.
In extreme (and not the kind that a vast majority of Libertarians subscribe to) Libertarianism, more accurately described, as you put it, as Anarchist Capitalism, all (or almost all) needs will be met and those that need will be provided. Indeed, a society will form that is very similar to the pure Communist one. A key difference is that the giving and providing is 'voluntary' (a Communist utopia is ‘voluntary’ too, but everyone 'chooses' the same thing - as soon as one person doesn't conform then the masses must pounce on him/her and a ‘state’ forms and the society reverts to Socialism). In an Anarchist Capitalist society it is unknown what % of people will give, but assumed that the prosperity will be so great that there will be more then enough for all. So there are no sheep. People will think and act differently with varying shades of 'generosity'.
The differences are most glaring between these two ideologies in the beginning, Communists have to fight for more state control and anarchy capitalists have to fight for less state control. So, it is a bit curious to me that the Communists and Anarchists have allied together as much as they have.
After the Russian revolution I believe the Communists were initially allied with the Anarchists, but soon brutally purged them. A similar event occurred in the Spanish civil war. I think the historical Anarchists were a bit different in ideology then what we consider Capitalist Anarchists or extreme Libertarians. Or? It is a bit ironic that, in reality, Communists could get closest to their goal by doing the exact opposite of what Marx suggests.
The author of the original piece is full of it because the actual results and pathways of the two different ideologies are so different that it is absurd to even compare them. Movement in the Libertarian direction yields only goodness, while movement in the socialistic direction yields only evil. IF such a utopia as the Communists and extreme Libertarians strive for really exists, it can certainly only be reached by the Libertarian path. And I have yet to see any historical example where government progressed so far towards the Libertarian extreme as to become hurtful.
I dunno... It this is all a bit confusing to think about for too long. :)
btw that site on your tag line is a neat site, I read the entire thing through a year or two ago.
Walter Williams kicks commie butt!
How true... But lets not go there.(:-)
Wrong! Libertarians do believe in total individualism. You ought to read the LP Statement of Principles and platform. As far as anarchists go, the vast majority of the vocal anarchists are collectivists, and thereby not libertarian. There are however individualist anarchists, of which many can be found in both the libertarian movement as well as the Libertarian Party.
Libertarians are not particularly constitutionalists, and for the most part have little to say about it. The constitution is just not an issue of study or importance to them. Go to any of the major libertarian literature and book dealers. What little you will find on the constitution is by far out weighed by that which runs counter of the constitution. At this time in our history, I don't think Libertarians have anything to teach "Conservative" Republicans.
I would say however, at this time, that we Libertarians have a lot to teach liberal democrats (but the Constitution is not one of the items, for them either).
Maybe, if you really hate people. But if you find people generally attractive, and find their their individuality enjoyable, then socialism/communism is down right ugly under its best of all possible circumstances.
Yup. Diversity, safety, and freedom. Pick two.
Yeah ok.
The founding fathers were "classic liberals" or libertarians. Where do you get this stuff at?
This has been a much debated item in the libertarian movement, as well as in the LP itself. True, when the debates ground to a halt between 1983-87, the anarchists had the upper hand in making your claim, declaring total victory. But that was not because they were right. The minarchists just failed to effectively radicalize their presentation. Had they done so, I say the minarchists would have won the debate hands down. In other words, the anarchists won only by default, and not because their position was in fact better supported.
The differences are most glaring between these two ideologies in the beginning, Communists have to fight for more state control and anarchy capitalists have to fight for less state control. So, it is a bit curious to me that the Communists and Anarchists have allied together as much as they have.
You seem seem to be confusing "anarchy capitalists" with "anarchists." The former is only one type of the latter. Among anarchists, the range of opposing philosophies is as great as the range exists any where in political philosophy. The anarchists that are usually found in alliance with communists are collectivist anarchists (ie Anarcho Syndicalists), and very rarely anarcho capitalists.
After the Russian revolution I believe the Communists were initially allied with the Anarchists...
Actually the both were circumstantially allies long before that, going back before even Marx. Even Marxism qualifies as a type of anarchism, and thereby can be propagated as a the true anarchist philosophy over all others, depending of course on the propagandist's point of view. One might also keep in mind that there were two Marxes, an early and later one. Early in his life he called for weakening the state, later in life he favored its strengthening, as the best means to move forward. Such positions have nothing to do with the political philosophy, they fall under the category of political strategy.
The author of the original piece is full of it because the actual results and pathways of the two different ideologies are so different that it is absurd to even compare them.
Not so, with regard to "pathways" only. Pathways are a question of strategy, and not ideology. Libertarians strategies are a long way from being settled, and in actuality can never be completely settled. Though I would propose that where the strategy runs counter to the philosophy, then it should be a settled matter. For example, the number one strategy in use with in the LP today is to hide the LP principles so as to better reach out to conservatives. I say this amounts to fraud, and should have been rejected back in the early 80s as as running counter to Libertarian philosophy. But it was put forward and made popular, with out debate. Liberarians had grown tired of the infightening that had brought the party uncontroled growth, and feared such growth might lead it to far down the left wing path. So the leadership called for an end to debate, popularized it with speakers and articles, and thereby ended up going down a right wing path, ultimately to the harm of both the conservative as well as libertarian movements.
Absolutely elegantly put.
Founding fathers were "liberals," and not libertarians. What stuff?
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.