|
Filippo Corridoni posted:what the hell is this ridiculousness about philosophy? Libertarianism is an elitist far-right movement which was invented by lobbyists for the anti-new dealer wing of american capitalism (composed of heavy manufacturers, industralists, and all the bankers giving them credit) trying to make their lassiez-faire ideals survive in a postwar world of government intervention: Philosophy has everything to do with it; libertarianism is philosophical to its core. Whether so-called libertarians live up to the philosophical aspirations of libertarianism or not, the libertarian critique of the state, authority, and coercion, must be taken into account. It's simply ridiculous to claim that libertarianism is an "elitist far-right movement invented by lobbyists," since Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, Bakunin, Goldman, and even Chomsky and Marx, should rank amongst the foremost libertarians in the Western intellectual tradition. I'm also slightly drunk, so take what I say with a
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
quickly posted:Philosophy has everything to do with it; libertarianism is philosophical to its core. Whether so-called libertarians live up to the philosophical aspirations of libertarianism or not, the libertarian critique of the state, authority, and coercion, must be taken into account. It's simply ridiculous to claim that libertarianism is an "elitist far-right movement invented by lobbyists," since Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, Bakunin, Goldman, and even Chomsky and Marx, should rank amongst the foremost libertarians in the Western intellectual tradition. I'm also slightly drunk, so take what I say with a You're thinking of the wrong libertarianism if you're putting Chomsky and Marx in this basket. This thread is pretty much about right-libertarianism, so yes Stirner and Tucker, maybe Proudhon and Bakunin, no Goldman. This is a libertarianism that is purely about property above all else; so basically a sanitized form of feudalism, with the appropriate level of critique of state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You're thinking of the wrong libertarianism if you're putting Chomsky and Marx in this basket. This thread is pretty much about right-libertarianism, so yes Stirner and Tucker, maybe Proudhon and Bakunin, no Goldman. This is a libertarianism that is purely about property above all else; so basically a sanitized form of feudalism, with the appropriate level of critique of state. I tend to consider the moral core of libertarianism to be constituted by the intuition that individuals should be free to pursue their goals and develop their capacities as persons. In this sense, I think that the reservation about Proudhon and Bakunin, and certainly about Chomsky and Marx, is mistaken, since each is concerned with precisely those goals. I disagree with the right-libertarians about private property, but don't disagree with the libertarians generally. For this reason, I think that even right-libertarians must be taken seriously in their critique of authority, the state, and coercion. Other than that, point well taken. quickly fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
quickly posted:I tend to consider the moral core of libertarianism to be constituted by the intuition that individuals should be free to pursue their goals and develop their capacities as persons. In this sense, I think that the reservation about Proudhon and Bakunin, and certainly about Chomsky and Marx, is mistaken, since each is concerned with precisely those goals. I disagree with the right-libertarians about private property, but don't disagree with the libertarians generally. For this reason, I think that even right-libertarians must be taken seriously in their critique of authority, the state, and coercion. Other than that, point well taken. In that case, your definition of libertarian is greatly at odds with that of the rest of the world. What you are talking about is closer to humanism, although specifying individuality puts it closer to liberalism (which is not synonymous with libertarianism). Marx really doesn't fit by your definition, since he was quite explicit about restricting the pursuit of individual liberty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
quickly posted:I tend to consider the moral core of libertarianism to be constituted by the intuition that individuals should be free to pursue their goals and develop their capacities as persons. In this sense, I think that the reservation about Proudhon and Bakunin, and certainly about Chomsky and Marx, is mistaken, since each is concerned with precisely those goals. I disagree with the right-libertarians about private property, but don't disagree with the libertarians generally. For this reason, I think that even right-libertarians must be taken seriously in their critique of authority, the state, and coercion. Other than that, point well taken. The only critique right-libertarians have of the state is that it infringes upon their rights as feudal lords. That it has all that pesky "voting" and "rule of law" getting in the way of them enjoying their spoils. How do you put Marx, a critic of the fetishization of private property, anywhere in the same political sphere as people who idolize private property? They are like a caricature of what he says Capitalism is all about. It doesn't matter what you consider libertarianism to be, we are talking about a modern American movement, not textbook definitions from half a century ago or what people in the UK think. I'm well aware they have left/communist libertarians there, but in the US libertarianism means something different, which this thread has been going into very heavily. As I see it other than "state bad" they have very little in common. They don't agree on why the state is bad, or what a "state" even is, they mean entirely different things by "coercion" (did you know that a homeless person squatting on your doorstep is initiating violence against you?), and are only against authority inasmuch as it stops them from doing things they like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
I suppose it would be a good argument to say that the think-tanks that created the contemporary libertarian movement co-opted a term coined to describe certain strains of socialism. Mixing those up with the current use of the term without acknowledging how present-day libertarians have radically altered its meaning, then mudding the waters further by conflating both with other socialists and then going further by applying specific elements of the present meaning to an otherwise overly general definition of the term is just confusing and misleading, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
It was either Nozick or Rothbard who openly bragged about having stolen the word "libertarian" from the left-anarchists who invented it. Also one of many things L. Neill Smith deserves a kick in the nuts for is naming one of the "good guys" in his property-fetish alternate reality novel "The Probability Broach" after Kropotkin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I suppose it would be a good argument to say that the think-tanks that created the contemporary libertarian movement co-opted a term coined to describe certain strains of socialism. R.A. Wilson posted:Of course, there is an opinion broad in the land that libertarianism does mean a mindless, heartless and mechanical system of medieval dogma. I don’t know how this impression came about, although it probably has something to do with Randroids and other robot Ideologists who occasionally infest libertarian groups. Frankly, I have always loathed being associated with such types and devoutly wish libertarianism could be sharply distinguished from Idolatry and fetishism of all sorts. If liberty does not mean that we can all be more free, not less free, then I need to find a better word than “liberty” to describe my aspirations. So what would be a good contemporary term for these strains and aspirations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Ephemeron posted:So what would be a good contemporary term for these strains and aspirations? Anarchism. Or liberalism, since half the work has been done anyhow (although that would just make things even more confusing). Seriously, though, he's acknowledging that the term has been appropriated, which is a prerequisite for anyone who wants to reclaim it. Humanism also works, if you want the really broad definition that I was responding to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of Milton Friedman, is there a reason people like Ron and Rand Paul love this guy? Sure, he was a really conservative economist, but isn't his biggest claim to fame that he advocated for a really active Federal Reserve, something that Ron/Rand want to completely abolish? Is this just another one of those Reagan/Jesus instances where conservatives admire someone but they have no idea what they've actually done? Friedman is a libertarian hero in general, not just a Paul one. He ranks up with Hayek, von Mises, etc. in their list of saints and is constantly brought up as the authority on why Keynes was a bad bad man, and why FDR was literally Satan for behaving according to Keynesian principles. Most of the adoration comes from his work "proving" that the New Deal did not alleviate the Depression and his close association with Pinochet's regime, but literally anything Friedman ever said might as well be scripture to the libertarians that aren't really ready to go all in on ancap economics. Edit: I think his popularity has died down some since 2008 though. Friedman's work is favored by moderate libertarians because it both is and isn't Keynesian, allowing them to feel contrarian without actually advocating a massive upheaval of property rights. There are fewer of those around since cold hard economic reality has driven most of them to either see reality or burrow really deep into the crazy. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Most of the adoration comes from his work "proving" that the New Deal did not alleviate the Depression This is one of those things that really bugs me. Cards on the table I'm quite a fan of Friedman and his work, but this is not what he said at all. Well, it is but the 'why' is very important here - the New Deal had lots of moving parts and some of them worked contrary to one another. Public works projects to get people employed and out of poverty, coupled with excised taxes on electricity, gasoline and other goods which fell mostly on the working class sort of cancelled each other out. As I recall, he viewed the parts of the New Deal that were essentially "Stop people from starving in the street" as a success and entirely necessary, it's just the economic policies within the new deal were often counterproductive, giving with one hand and taking away with the other (often through regressive taxes that hurt the working man even more disproportionately). Friedman had a word for what we consider "libertarians" today - anarchists (in the colloquial "we don't want any authority over us, gently caress you dad" sense, not the original sense).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:This is one of those things that really bugs me. Cards on the table I'm quite a fan of Friedman and his work, but this is not what he said at all. Well, it is but the 'why' is very important here - the New Deal had lots of moving parts and some of them worked contrary to one another. Public works projects to get people employed and out of poverty, coupled with excised taxes on electricity, gasoline and other goods which fell mostly on the working class sort of cancelled each other out. As I recall, he viewed the parts of the New Deal that were essentially "Stop people from starving in the street" as a success and entirely necessary, it's just the economic policies within the new deal were often counterproductive, giving with one hand and taking away with the other (often through regressive taxes that hurt the working man even more disproportionately). Oh, I know that there is more detail to his analysis than the libertarians present. I never said that the libertarians were using his words honestly, did I? Friedman has been canonized and sanitized for libertarian consumption in many of their publications.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Do libertarians have an answer for the concept of externalities, or do they have to reject its very existence? If a company's activities poisons a local water supply, why would they, in their own rational economic self-interest, pay for cleanup when it's cheaper for them to do nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Do libertarians have an answer for the concept of externalities, or do they have to reject its very existence? Well its obvious that lawsuits will sole this, of course its also best to be resolved in private arbitration. Because of course the individual has the same power as a large corporation
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
They're also okay with organizations like homeowners' associations that impose fees and regulations on the people who choose to live or work in a certain area. The people there all agreed to follow the rules and pay the fees as a condition of using the space, and they can go somewhere else if they can't (or won't!) meet those terms anymore. Libertarians also point out that you can "vote with your wallet" for company policies by buying from companies you like and boycotting companies you don't like. (Then they scoff at liberals for doing just that.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Do libertarians have an answer for the concept of externalities, or do they have to reject its very existence? Because people will boycott the company, thus reducing their profits. Doesn't matter if they're the only supplier in the area, or they've got good enough PR to cover it up. The ~Free Market~ will settle it, because it's not rational for people to purchase from a company that pollutes, even if they've got no other choice. And if anyone's dumb enough to buy anyway? Well, clearly they rationally chose pollution, as is their free market choice. That's the big hole in libertarianism for me: the idea that everyone, at all times, balances resource costs perfectly logically. It allows them to conflate purchases with needs, since people obviously analyzed the choices and chose what they need. Thus, the market is at all times heading in the direction that is best for society, by definition what people buy is what they need. People, after all, never purchase something on impulse or for non-logical factors. We are all perfect robots in our perfect economy, except that some of us are better robots than others and naturally rise to the top over the inferior robots. I suppose this explains why one of the libertarians I know was endorsing teaching calculus to pre-schoolers: if they don't know advanced math and can't balance complicated resource costs, they're utterly screwed. This sounds like a good idea to me, because pre-schoolers are very definitely capable of abstract thought. *cough cough* BULLSHIT *cough cough*
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Karia posted:Because people will boycott the company, thus reducing their profits. Doesn't matter if they're the only supplier in the area, or they've got good enough PR to cover it up. The ~Free Market~ will settle it, because it's not rational for people to purchase from a company that pollutes, even if they've got no other choice. And if anyone's dumb enough to buy anyway? Well, clearly they rationally chose pollution, as is their free market choice. Libertarians always forget the people whose job it is to write the news and to inform also have a tendency to be owned by powerful industrial interests or for those interests to respond to abject criticism by inventing their own studies and news articles. I treat it with the same basic danger that I treat with the religious notion of holy torture. They are so naive they are a danger to others and themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:They're also okay with organizations like homeowners' associations that impose fees and regulations on the people who choose to live or work in a certain area. The people there all agreed to follow the rules and pay the fees as a condition of using the space, and they can go somewhere else if they can't (or won't!) meet those terms anymore. That seems to go against a lot of what libertarianism is supposedly about. So because my neighbours got together and formed a homeowners' association and decided that the association does not allow for people with homes painted red in their neighbourhood, I suddenly lose my property rights because my neighbours don't like my use of my property? Is the idea that these associations would require 100% approval to form in Libertopia, or they would need 100% approval to pass any restrictions on who can live/have what kind of houses in the area?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Inequality is just the genetic nobility of certain bloodlines manifesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:Libertarians always forget the people whose job it is to write the news and to inform also have a tendency to be owned by powerful industrial interests or for those interests to respond to abject criticism by inventing their own studies and news articles. I treat it with the same basic danger that I treat with the religious notion of holy torture. They are so naive they are a danger to others and themselves. I don't see it as naivete. To me, naivete is just believing in stupid things because of inaction: not looking up information, refusing to think about it and synthesize information, have cognitive dissonance between things because you never bother to figure out the connection between them, etc. Libertarianism, on the other hand, requires active effort to believe in it. To believe in it, you have to actively seek out sources supporting it, actively synthesize it, actively find other believers, actively construct a belief framework that allows for that degree of hypocrisy. This makes them far more dangerous, because they actually believe that they've got evidence and rational thought supporting it, and have formed arguments that make sense within their belief system. Standard right-wing Fox News nutjobs are naive: it's a low-information belief system. Libertarianism is a high-information belief system: it just so happens that all the information is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Karia posted:I don't see it as naivete. To me, naivete is just believing in stupid things because of inaction: not looking up information, refusing to think about it and synthesize information, have cognitive dissonance between things because you never bother to figure out the connection between them, etc. Libertarianism, on the other hand, requires active effort to believe in it. To believe in it, you have to actively seek out sources supporting it, actively synthesize it, actively find other believers, actively construct a belief framework that allows for that degree of hypocrisy. This makes them far more dangerous, because they actually believe that they've got evidence and rational thought supporting it, and have formed arguments that make sense within their belief system. That is true, I guess I was using naivete as a word to suggest they haven't gone that next logical step of understanding any and all political ideologies are flawed and you have to accept they are an attempt at understanding a way in which the world works, not that the world works in this way. Setting yourself up in any belief system and not continuing to actively participate in the world these systems belong to feels like your just too naive to understand there is more. Karia posted:This makes them far more dangerous, because they actually believe that they've got evidence and rational thought supporting it, and have formed arguments that make sense within their belief system. I mean the low information system works this way too. I believe that once you start to think like this regardless of what level of information you are using that you are being naive. Mostly because even if someone were to get violent over these ideas I immediately forgive the act because if you were to force yourself to believe these things or at least believe you are compelled to believe them that some of us would probably act in those disgusting ways as an attempt to reconcile the real world and the world we believe we exist in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:That seems to go against a lot of what libertarianism is supposedly about. So because my neighbours got together and formed a homeowners' association and decided that the association does not allow for people with homes painted red in their neighbourhood, I suddenly lose my property rights because my neighbours don't like my use of my property? Is the idea that these associations would require 100% approval to form in Libertopia, or they would need 100% approval to pass any restrictions on who can live/have what kind of houses in the area? HOAs are corporations created by real estate developers and then transferred to the homeowners once enough lots are sold, so I wouldn't expect your neighbors to just up and found one. When you buy a lot in the development, you enter into a voluntary contract to abide by the HOA's rules in exchange for a place in the HOA (or at least the promise that you will have a place in it). If you want to paint your home red and your HOA forbids it, you can either 1) use your influence with the HOA to change the rules, 2) move to a place where you are allowed a red house, or 3) suck it up. AFAIK some people can get away with violating regulations as a legacy: my parents were able to get the other members of their HOA to make sure that only modernist houses get built in their development from now on, but they didn't even try to get the non-modernist homes that were already built demolished because that would be too much. American HOAs used to impose covenants that excluded certain types of people (mostly members of certain races), but these were finally outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. (Source and more information) Sometimes HOA regulations are onerous - even draconian - but libertarians such as Jim Fedako consider them preferable to governmental regulations because HOA regulations are enforced by voluntary contract. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:HOAs are corporations created by real estate developers and then transferred to the homeowners once enough lots are sold, so I wouldn't expect your neighbors to just up and found one. When you buy a lot in the development, you enter into a voluntary contract to abide by the HOA's rules in exchange for a place in the HOA (or at least the promise that you will have a place in it). If you want to paint your home red and your HOA forbids it, you can either 1) use your influence with the HOA to change the rules, 2) move to a place where you are allowed a red house, or 3) suck it up. AFAIK some people can get away with violating regulations as a legacy: my parents were able to get the other members of their HOA to make sure that only modernist houses get built in their development from now on, but they didn't even try to get the non-modernist homes that were already built demolished because that would be too much. American HOAs used to impose covenants that excluded certain types of people (mostly members of certain races), but these were finally outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. (Source and more information) You sound like having to move because your house can't be red sounds like an actual solution that won't cause problems further down the line. The problem with this thinking is the eventual segregation of ideas or peoples and even under stupid ideas like taste this can exacerbate problems decades down the line. You are basically deciding that collective taste decides where you live and I don't see how that could influence politics, access to education, and access to healthcare at all. Edit: Sorry, I live in Indiana and I have to deal with this thinking on a daily basis. You were talking about a position you didn't agree with anyway. FADEtoBLACK fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:HOAs are corporations created by real estate developers and then transferred to the homeowners once enough lots are sold, so I wouldn't expect your neighbors to just up and found one. Ah, I think this was my major problem. I thought once the Libertarian revolution happens, existing HOAs would for some reason be dismantled since they were created under the current statist legal/government/economic system, and so neighbourhoods that wanted HOAs would need to form new ones and neighbourhoods that today don't have HOAs might suddenly have them. Since they are created by the developers when they are the majority property owners and then transferred over to the homeowners when enough of them buy lots, there's nothing really for a libertarian to object to and so there's no need to dismantle them or change how new ones get founded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:You sound like having to move because your house can't be red sounds like an actual solution that won't cause problems further down the line. The problem with this thinking is the eventual segregation of ideas or peoples and even under stupid ideas like taste this can exacerbate problems decades down the line. You are basically deciding that collective taste decides where you live and I don't see how that could influence politics, access to education, and access to healthcare at all. Yes, that was sarcastic. I actually agree with you! Presenting a libertarian argument in the libertarianism thread doesn't mean I agree with the libertarian argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
I've been coming from the I/P thread and I sometimes forget people can have opinions they do not personally support in an effort to talk about it. I'm really sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
I think the difference between Freidman and the rest can be described this way: When I read Friedman, I find that he looks at evidence and argues from evidence. That's different than stating with an abstract assertion and arguing from that assertion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I think the difference between Freidman and the rest can be described this way: It all makes sense unless you consider the working-class.  Anatomy of an Economic Miracle posted:With the arrest of General Pinochet, the usual slime of the right pronounced that his dictatorship created an economic "miracle." We will ignore the "ends justify the means" argument along with the question of why these defenders of "liberty" desire to protect a dictator and praise his regime. Here we concentrate on the facts of the "miracle" imposed on the Chilean people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
And that has what to do with the differences between neo-liberals and libertarians? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And that has what to do with the differences between neo-liberals and libertarians? They're equally terrible. Libertarians talk a lot of nonsense about individualism because they're pushing ideology, neoliberals talk a lot about economic growth because they're pushing technocratic policy. They're both still wrong about everything. E:literally the only difference is that libertarians talk about the free market being a moral imperative no matter what and neoliberals pretend like they don't
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
I basically agree with this: Libertarians talk a lot of nonsense about individualism because they're pushing ideology, neoliberals talk a lot about economic growth because they're pushing technocratic policy. While disagreeing with this: They're equally terrible. One those things is significantly more worse and more dangerous than the other. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
As you may recall, I'm on the Ayn Rand Institute's email list. Yesterday they sent me an email with this completely unironic title: Edit: Horseshoetheory.jpg Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Filippo Corridoni posted:Tripe. Wow. That is a really terrible unsourced undergrad Lat Am Studies paper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:As you may recall, I'm on the Ayn Rand Institute's email list. Yesterday they sent me an email with this completely unironic title: Wow, better bone up on my Correct Mao Zedong Thought then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Wow. That is a really terrible unsourced undergrad Lat Am Studies paper. By all means, tell us more about how great Pinochet's regime was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:By all means, tell us more about how great Pinochet's regime was. It wasn't great. It was loving scary. The article above is total poo poo, though, and the view that everything was happily chugging along and then the dictatorship happened and the Chicago Boys wrecked everything is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Well you are more than capable of actually posting why its wrong. Other than it offends your preconceived notions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
I don't understand why people promote Ayn Rand, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about and even said women shouldn't lead countries right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:I don't understand why people promote Ayn Rand, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about and even said women shouldn't lead countries right? Turns out that a lot of people are just waiting for the chance to morally justify taking everything that they can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:I don't understand why people promote Ayn Rand, she clearly didn't know what she was talking about and even said women shouldn't lead countries right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:20
|
|