The failure of American style Libertarianism. - General

I have decided once more to create a thread here, this time on a terrible -ism. Libertarianism, at a basic level, is the political ideology stressing human freedom and reduction of coercive force. For multiple reasons to be explained shortly, this is a wildly unrealistic ideology that doesn't work in practice, and is harmful in its adoption. I shall be mostly criticizing the Libertarian party of America, and linking often to them, for they represent the main views of American style libertarianism. [url]http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence[/url] [quote]Step 1. Protect Victims' Rights Protecting the rights and interests of victims should be the basis of our criminal justice system. Victims should have the right to be present, consulted and heard throughout the prosecution of their case. In addition, Libertarians would do more than just punish criminals. We would also make them pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss, medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should fully compensate you for your loss.[/quote] This is a case of whereby the criminal is assumed to be a bad person, in many cases the situation is much more muddled. The statement does not recognize that a great deal of crime is committed by people who aren't actually able to compensate you for the loss. It also stresses the punishment of criminals, when rehabilitation is a much more wise option to take, and is more successful at deterring crime (and bringing criminals back into society) than punishment. [quote]We believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%. In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate). Libertarians would repeal waiting periods, concealed carry laws, and other restrictions that make it difficult for victims to defend themselves, and end the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.[/quote] The problem here is that there hasn't been a proven link between high rates of gun ownership reducing criminal activity. Abroad in the rest of the developed world, there are considerably much less lenient laws on gun control, yet no high rates of criminal activity have been noted. Where it the case that high levels of gun ownership correlated with low levels of crime, then legislatures would adopt laws to get rid of gun control laws over time. [quote]Any society that lets kids grow up dependent on government welfare, attending government schools that fail to teach, and entering an economy where government policy has crushed opportunity, will be a society that breeds criminals. No permanent solution to crime will be found until we address these root causes of crime. The Libertarian Party would increase employment opportunities by slashing taxes and government red tape. We would also end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness. Most important of all, we would promote low-cost private alternatives to the failed government school system.[/quote] Here is an entirely fallacious argument. Initially it assumes that children in America are dependent upon welfare, that the education system does not work, and that government interference in the end is to blame for criminality, with the free market providing better alternatives. What's more, the argument does not consider the existence of crime before the establishment of welfare and education, or even heavy government intervention in the economy. Whilst it is true that the public sector has problems, to blame it for crime is outright insanity. The discipline of Criminology can provide several counter arguments, such as criminality being heavily influenced by poverty (which is partially alleviated by government funds allowing the unemployed to buy the bare essentials). Certainly in late 18th and early 19th century Britain, criminal activity was at an incredible high as the land enclosure movement was underway, throwing vast numbers of people off the land. These people were either forced to starve, or move to the cities where they suffered from poor wages and disease in the slums. The lack of government aid to the poor worsened the situation, and many people were forced to turn to crime. At the same time, a large number of hangable offences were introduced, the majority of which was to deal with the defense of property. In a Libertarian system, which stresses the importance of the right to property, and of heavy punishment, it would not be difficult to see such laws introduced. [quote]Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.[/quote] This is impossible to carry out. [quote]Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.[/quote] Many criminals never are responsible, and most often their actions are the result of environmental and biological factors, rather than free will. [quote]Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.[/quote] Pull a bunny out of a top hat. [quote]Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.[/quote] Meaningless rhetoric. [quote]Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.[/quote] Heavily contested. [quote]Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.[/quote] Meaningless rhetoric. [quote]1. End Welfare None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system. It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.[/quote] This here fails to recognize that these policies never work in practice. By removing a system deemed too costly to maintain, it removes lifelines for people in or on the brink of poverty. Jobs simply cannot be created anymore, as automated machinery continues to gradually replace workers, and that overseas countries are rapidly industrializing. By saying the church or private charity will solve the gap is naive at best, and downright evil at worst. Private charities cannot support people whom are in poverty, for if they did, then the multiple charities that appeared throughout the 19th century should have fixed the problem, instead of requiring government assistance. One of the main failures of Libertarianism itself, is that the followers tend to be unable to deal with any sort of analysis of power other than the most basic form of government intervention. Not only do they develop a mental block against the actual functioning of huge portions of society, but this then often turns into denial when anyone else says something contrary.

[quote]One of the main failures of Libertarianism itself, is that the followers tend to be unable to deal with any sort of analysis of power other than the most basic form of government intervention. Not only do they develop a mental block against the actual functioning of huge portions of society, but this then often turns into denial when anyone else says something contrary.[/quote] Meaningless rhetoric and strawman of the century.

[QUOTE=RinVII;38523154]Meaningless rhetoric and strawman of the century.[/QUOTE] Except the Libertarian Party is practically arguing for the reduction of government intervention in every area massively.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38523164]Except the Libertarian Party is practically arguing for the reduction of government intervention in every area massively.[/QUOTE] Other than self defense you're right. However, it's a stretch to say that libertarians are unable to analyze power or that they develop mental blocks. You also shouldn't equate Libertarianism in general with the Libertarian Party.

Their stance on welfare seems like the stereotypical argument against welfare that ignores the realities of poverty and relies on the just world fallacy.

[QUOTE=RinVII;38523185]You also shouldn't equate Libertarianism in general with the Libertarian Party.[/QUOTE] Except the Libertarian party represents the views of Libertarians. Does this also mean I cannot equate Conservatism with the Conservative party?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38523210]Except the Libertarian party represents the views of Libertarians. Does this also mean I cannot equate Conservatism with the Conservative party?[/QUOTE] You can't attack Conservatism by attacking the Conservative Party, also [IMG]http://www.speakoutnow.org/img/pic/NoamChomsky.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RinVII;38523230]You can't attack Conservatism by attacking the Conservative Party[/QUOTE] You can attack the particular brand of Conservatism that the party promotes however, and in the case of the Libertarian party, their views tend to generally reflect Libertarianism (yes there's factions such as objectivists but they share core ideological tenets).

Objectivism is far different than American Libertarianism and not a faction of Libetarian political theory. One is a philosophical movement and the other is a political ideology.

Libertarian philosophy bases itself entirely in a world where there's perfect conditions. In this theory world, libertarian philosophy would prosper. This world assumes that the free market has no faults, what's best for a company is always best for both the consumer and its workers, and that the government is always ineffective, at least more so than the free market. [editline]20th November 2012[/editline] In reality, this is not the case.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38523295]Objectivism is far different than American Libertarianism and not a faction of Libetarian political theory. One is a philosophical movement and the other is a political ideology.[/QUOTE] This is despite the fact that Objectivism has influenced Libertarians (most notably Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan).

[QUOTE=Zally13;38523335]Libertarian philosophy bases itself entirely in a world where there's perfect conditions. In this theory world, libertarian philosophy would prosper. This world assumes that the free market has no faults, what's best for a company is always best for both the consumer and its workers, and that the government is always ineffective, at least more so than the free market. [editline]20th November 2012[/editline] In reality, this is not the case.[/QUOTE] All you've done here is define Libertarianism as you see it. It doesn't so much base itself on a world of perfect conditions but argues that its core tenants are most expedient and fair for society we do live in. Defining reality is an important aspect of Libertarianism because it rejects feel-good policies in favor of the implementation of what they believe works. Your entire argument can be summed up as * Libertarianism is this * Reality is not this

[QUOTE=Strider*;38523388]Defining reality is an important aspect of Libertarianism because it rejects feel-good policies in favor of the implementation of what they believe works.[/QUOTE] And are these policies shown to be more effective than all other alternatives?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38523342]This is despite the fact that Objectivism has influenced Libertarians (most notably Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan).[/QUOTE] That's true because there is much overlap in their ideas, but their defense of free market propagation is different. Also, Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist and was friends with Ayn Rand personally.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38523414]That's true because there is much overlap in their ideas, but their defense of free market propagation is different. Also, Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist and was friends with Ayn Rand personally.[/QUOTE] An objectivist, but also a Libertarian Republican.

I'll take the bets this thread will go under like the last Sobotnik "debate" [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT debating" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

You did a critique of libertarianism without mentioning the economy... The wonders of a free and un-regulated market are the main talking points of most libertarians.

Fact of the matter here is that I am criticizing the Libertarian party generally, which I assume to largely represent most mainstream Libertarian views in America. And by criticize, I am quite hostile to their policies, which haven't been shown to be effective, and are often unrealistic. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;38532359]You did a critique of libertarianism without mentioning the economy... The wonders of a free and un-regulated market are the main talking points of most libertarians.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, one just needs to look at the 19th century Laissez Faire systems for that.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38523388]Your entire argument can be summed up as * Libertarianism is this * Reality is not this[/QUOTE] While certainly presumptuous, this is a perfectly valid form of argument even if its proponents are wrong. I think Zally13 was more aiming at the polarised, 'black and white' viewpoint that Libertarianism adopts in critiquing society in saying it requires a 'perfect world'

The problem is the libertarian party does not adhere strictly to libertarianism. Take a look at Gary Johnson, he does not want to completely end welfare as you cite about libertarianism in your post. He simply wants to allow each of the 50 states to experiment and use their funds as more tailored to what their state needs in terms of welfare. Besides as other said you rally don't mention much about libertarianism, just what they have on their website about crime mostly. Which is of course not their largest focus. [editline]20th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38532366] Oh yes, one just needs to look at the 19th century Laissez Faire systems for that.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about employed Lissez Faire systems in the 19th century. It wasn't the United States employing Laissez Faire was it?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;38534757]I don't know much about employed Lissez Faire systems in the 19th century. It wasn't the United States employing Laissez Faire was it?[/QUOTE] The Western world generally employed laissez faire economic policies throughout the 19th century after mercantilism was abandoned (The United Kingdom being a strong proponent). America's gilded age is when these policies tended to be rather prominent (despite government intervention being quite common, it was nowhere on the scale that many nations started to adopt by the mid 20th century).

I'm confused, the 19th century seems pretty far from Laissez Faire. The 19th century had the birth of two national banks, introduction of many tarrifs, introduction of the income tax, and many governement programs for expansion to the west. Mist likely more but I am on my phone.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;38535362]I'm confused, the 19th century seems pretty far from Laissez Faire. The 19th century had the birth of two national banks, introduction of many tarrifs, introduction of the income tax, and many governement programs for expansion to the west. Mist likely more but I am on my phone.[/QUOTE] On the other hand, no public healthcare or public education tended to exist, there were no minimum wages, no safety regulations, no child labour laws, no maximum working hours, etc. No consumer protection or regulation either, plus pretty much all programs to help the poor were charities and religious organisations.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38535461]On the other hand, no public healthcare or public education tended to exist, there were no minimum wages, no safety regulations, no child labour laws, no maximum working hours, etc. No consumer protection or regulation either, plus pretty much all programs to help the poor were charities and religious organisations.[/QUOTE] Yet people voluntarily chose abandoning rural areas in favour of working in city industries. You can talk all you want about the vices of nineteen century capitalism (and most of it will be true), yet when people had the choice of staying in their farms or starting from scratch as factory workers, most of them chose the latter. I'd love to hear your proposal of an ideal system.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;38535877]Yet people voluntarily chose abandoning rural areas in favour of working in city industries. You can talk all you want about the vices of nineteen century capitalism (and most of it will be true), yet when people had the choice of staying in their farms or starting from scratch as factory workers, most of them chose the latter. I'd love to hear your proposal of an ideal system.[/QUOTE] People chose to work in factories because the emergence of a market economy forced them to either work in a factory or subsistence farming. There wasn't much way for anyone to make money in agriculture at that time unless they were already rich and owned a lot of land.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;38535877]Yet people voluntarily chose abandoning rural areas in favour of working in city industries. You can talk all you want about the vices of nineteen century capitalism (and most of it will be true), yet when people had the choice of staying in their farms or starting from scratch as factory workers, most of them chose the latter.[/QUOTE] The growth of the urban worker wasn't a mass voluntary shift, it came about after improvements to the agricultural process and technology which forced them to move to urban centres in order to actually survive. The literal physical move can be construed as voluntary but the reasons behind the shift were entirely out of their hands. And, as evolution upon the excess of 19th century exploitation, we now have functional labour laws whose existence Libertarians, for some fatalistic reason, disagree with.

[QUOTE=Zally13;38523335]Libertarian philosophy bases itself entirely in a world where there's perfect conditions. In this theory world, libertarian philosophy would prosper. This world assumes that the free market has no faults, what's best for a company is always best for both the consumer and its workers, and that the government is always ineffective, at least more so than the free market. [editline]20th November 2012[/editline] In reality, this is not the case.[/QUOTE] as opposed to an increasingly more regulated world ran by narcisstistic parasite politicians? if anything people demanding increased government regulation and assumes that the conditions will improve are the ones whom are being unrealistic [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38535461]On the other hand, no public healthcare or public education tended to exist, there were no minimum wages, no safety regulations, no child labour laws, no maximum working hours, etc. No consumer protection or regulation either, plus pretty much all programs to help the poor were charities and religious organisations.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society[/url] it's true that public healthcare etc didn't exist (mostly), but more and more people were joining friendly societies. you know, healthcare without coercion. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38532366] And by criticize, I am quite hostile to their policies, which haven't been shown to be effective, and are often unrealistic. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] ok? are governments shown to be effective? the greek government is very effective i have heard

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38532366]Oh yes, one just needs to look at the 19th century Laissez Faire systems for that.[/QUOTE] To which any laissez faire economist would say never existed. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] The main disagreement I have with libertarianism (not the libertarian party; I don't really give much of a shit about party politics because it's patently fucking retarded and more or less everyone agrees) is down to issues of private property. I think the misunderstanding of private property causes most maldistributions of wealth, since at this stage in civilisations development, we're too attached to property appropriated (i.e. stolen) through the homestead principle, even if our attachment is tailored to our suppression.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;38535877]Yet people voluntarily chose abandoning rural areas in favour of working in city industries. You can talk all you want about the vices of nineteen century capitalism (and most of it will be true), yet when people had the choice of staying in their farms or starting from scratch as factory workers, most of them chose the latter. I'd love to hear your proposal of an ideal system.[/QUOTE] People didn't leave farms by their own free will, many of them were forcibly evicted when land enclosures were undertaken, joining up smaller farms into larger ones. In that case, for the first few decades, people starved, turned to crime, worked for a pittance in factories, pretty much anything to get by. My ideal system is one based on utilitarianism, with scientific methodology being used extensively to make that possible. Whenever an ideology would be found to contradict scientific knowledge (as Libertarianism does), then out the window into the dustbin of history it goes. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kentz;38538080]if anything people demanding increased government regulation and assumes that the conditions will improve are the ones whom are being unrealistic.[/QUOTE] Conditions did empirically improve though. Countries with public healthcare, safety regulations, free educations, etc all have higher standards of living. [QUOTE=Kentz;38538080][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society[/url] it's true that public healthcare etc didn't exist (mostly), but more and more people were joining friendly societies. you know, healthcare without coercion.[/QUOTE] Those only existed for the middle classes. What about the poor? [QUOTE=Kentz;38538080]ok? are governments shown to be effective? the greek government is very effective i have heard[/QUOTE] Yes but that's a single government in the history of millions. What about the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951?

[QUOTE=Kentz;38538080]as opposed to an increasingly more regulated world ran by narcisstistic parasite politicians? if anything people demanding increased government regulation and assumes that the conditions will improve are the ones whom are being unrealistic[/QUOTE] Advocating more attempts to try and fix a problem through some kind of governmental force is more unrealistic than leaving your country devoid of that attempt (and actively working to get rid of current regulations) at all?