Talk:Libertarianism/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, (new)(back)


Alan Greenspan[edit]

The article gives the impression that Alan Greenspan was implementing Randian ideas which led to the housing bubble and collapse. Anybody remotely aware of Ayn Rand or monetary policy would realize that Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman acted in a way that Ayn Rand severely criticized while she was alive. Greenspan implemented an inflationary monetary policy at the Fed, which Ayn Rand spoke against in her publications. You can find many quotes by her on this exact subject here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/inflation.html#order_2. The article's current mention of Greenspan is an outrageously erroneous pile of nonsense.

You remind me of Pure Marxists who claim famous communist leaders weren't the real deal because they didn't implement true communism. Sectarian differences notwithstanding he was a libertarian, and he implemented more libertarian policies than nearly all of the Fed chairman before him. ClothCoat (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
While your point is valid, I think you either need to read up on what a no true scotsman actually is or what communism actually is. You're either completely ignorant of one or the other. The USSR was never communist. Communist territories have existed, but they were not thanks to the bolsheviks. Yes, the USSR was a variant of (shitty) socialism. No, it was not communism, and only someone who is literally completely ignorant of what communism actually is would say that it was. Don't act like a stupid person. You're better than that. — Unsigned, by: 24.243.62.225 / talk / contribs

Let's be rational about libertarianism[edit]

Let's be rational about libertarianism

This article is embarrassingly non-neutral, giving an (illogical and propagandistic) American social liberal narrative as opposed to a rational analysis of libertarian philosophy, its history and its role in the modern world. I write as a European who is sympathetic to the ideals of non-aggression and limited government interference in our personal and economic lives.

Essentially, it should be pointed out that libertarianism is not some new American phenomenon - it is the modern incarnation of the philosophy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism lives on to this day in Europe with a variety of European parties that are pro-free market and pro-individual liberty being called the "Liberal Party", such as "FDP.The Liberals" in Switzerland, which is the biggest Swiss party by number of members. Because the American centre-left (whose ideology largely resembles what is called "social democracy" in Europe) began in the early 20th Century to call themselves "liberals", American classical liberals arguably needed to find a new name to avoid confusion, and for whatever reason they settled upon "libertarian". But you can read the works of any 18th or 19th century liberal, say The Law by Frederic Bastiat, and you'll the same ideas as those being promoted by modern libertarians: free markets as opposed to centralised authority, property rights that arise out of creation of value as opposed to state decree, and the liberty and rights of the individual to pursue happiness on his own terms.

Classical liberalism was the dominant worldview not only among the early European industrialists, but also among the founders of the United States and writers of its constitution. Without a doubt classical liberalism is older than socialism or social democracy (i.e. social liberalism) - the original meaning of "left wing" were those in the French Assembly who supported individual rights, free markets and republic as opposed to those on the original "right wing" who supported aristocracy and traditional power structures.

Libertarianism (classical liberalism) isn't a panacea and has never been proposed as such, it is just the consistent rejection of involuntary authority - the rejection of all authority that others seek to involuntarily assert over your life or legitimately-acquired property. An absence of involuntary authority doesn't mean abuses don't still occur (because humans will never be perfect) - it just means that when they do, you have the right 1. to leave and 2. to seek justice. In comparison, if you are victimised by a government, not only will you not necessarily have the right to leave (and if that government does allow you to leave, it will involve moving a long distance and entering a new culture - and note the word "allow" - when an involuntary monopoly of power is involved you only ever have revocable privileges, not defendable rights), you can't seek justice because the government has claimed a monopoly on the deliverance of justice and no organisation will rule against itself if it doesn't want to.

A rational person is surely one who is skeptical of those who possess aggressive militaries, compulsory education systems, expansive tax collection infrastructure, police forces, monopoly justice systems and media outlets, and who heavily regulate the emergence of competitors to these services. Libertarians may not be the only group of people who are thinking critically about authority, but they're certainly included among those who do. --Anotherrationalist (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting this alternative POV. Seems quite rational :) Evan R. Murphy (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you think RationalWiki is Rational? That's you're problem right there, it's essentially a liberal circlejerk when it comes to anything remotely political. --70.74.184.181 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean to say it is an illiberal, social democratic circlejerk.

Most of your post is just a history of left-right politics please do not do that try to stay on topic in the future.
"A rational person is surely one who is skeptical of those who possess aggressive militaries, compulsory education systems, expansive tax collection infrastructure, police forces, monopoly justice systems and media outlets, and who heavily regulate the emergence of competitors to these services. " Right but we're not criticizing them for this, this would be considered an inherent part of democracy. We're criticizing them for things like global warming denialism, an extreme opposition to the welfare state in favor of rather dubious economic assesments, and a tendency to view everyone who opposes them as only marginally different from Hitler or Stalin.
To the BON, stop being so stereotypical. ClothCoat (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

inaccurate[edit]

Ludwig Von Mises was NOT a deontological libertarian, but a consequentialist one. Also, the FEE does promote libertarianism with consequentialist stances and arguments. The section about notable libertarians does not include a handful of Nobel laureates (Smith, Buchanan and others) and other public figures. --Edosan (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't you edit the article... ClothCoat (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Anon in the wrong spot[edit]

Comments:

Can't find a discussion page so I'll leave this here. As a moderate libertarian, I am not totally anti-welfare or government. I just believe the government often creates many of the problems it then has to solve, anybody can objectively agree with that. In regards to NAP, one chooses to smoke cigarettes of their own free will, while failure to pay taxes/other illegal activities come with government mandated consequence and thus don't permit the freedom to choose glorified by us. And no political ideology is without its' flaws.

- Thanks to RW readers and editors for allowing me to add this— Unsigned, by: 99.113.64.37 / talk 02:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Matt Kibbe?[edit]

Is this book in any way significant to libertarianism? Is there any good reason to have it here in this article? (Or indeed anywhere else on the wiki?) - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Gerard, it's only the libertarian manifesto! Read-Write (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A manifesto, perhaps. Matt KibbeWikipedia suggests he's a hardworking recipient of wingnut welfare. He's certainly no prominent philosopher of libertarianism. Where did you get the idea he was? Possibly this book, or Kibbe, is worth an article, but that slab of text doesn't really warrant mention here - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will side with me against you, sir, a great & powerful moderator. I will move it. Read-Write (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That's the sort of thing someone who doesn't have a good argument says to pretend they totally have one - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Global warming denial[edit]

Libertarians are the core of the global warming denial movement in the US. This is hardly mentioned in the article, yet the interwebs are full of data on it. And why isn't the fact that they are routinely referred to as "Libertardians" by sane people noted? Scribe (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I would question that. There's a heaping helping of non-libertarian right-wingers in the movement, including a large chunk of the Religious Right who deny global warming because Jesus. And the Religious Right is generally emphatically not libertarian; they want laws based on (their interpretation of) the Bible. Also "libertardians" is silly and childish, not to mention demeaning to people with disabilities. I hope to think RW is a bit above that. --Ymir (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Chomsky's take?[edit]

Chomsky has talked extensively about Libertarianism multiple times, including this video, do you think we should add his critiques to his page as well? Thoughts? AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For an article that begins by saying that left wing libertarianism came first, and the right coopted the term, this article puts a hell of a lot more focus on right wing libertarianism.— Unsigned, by: 67.248.64.115 / talk

Breaking down a city[edit]

A Ferengi disguised as human libertarian (economist) suggested in an opinion article years ago to break down a certain large city (state capital), so the different neighborhoods would compete among themselves -never mind that: 1) I can't see how a residential suburb with nothing but shops could do that with the historic downtown, the financial zone, or an industrial state-, especially considering differences on income, etc. 2) Curiously he did not say the same, at least not in that article, about doing the same to large corporations, especially too big to fail ones. Make of that what you will. --Panzerfaust (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Philosophical problems (?)[edit]

"Strict libertarianism relies on the distinction between positive and negative liberties, a distinction which is not universally accepted by philosophers."

True, but find something which is universally accepted by philosophers...

"raising "property" to the same inviolable status as "life" causes some problems: a sweeping interpretation would denounce all taxation as illegitimate expropriation, making it impossible to finance even the most essential public services."

First, the impossibility of funding public services is not a "philosophical problem" (but a really concrete one). Second, libertarians are not interested in public services, since they would like to privatize anything, so this is not a problem at all in the libertarianism philosophy.

"For similar reasons, libertarianism is a circular argument. Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract," as if these legal ideas somehow had meaning in the absence of law. [but] rights must be recognized by the consensus of local society to exist."

Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract" as the foundations of what should be (their) ideal society. Doing so, they try to convince all the other people that "property" and "contract" are indeed so important, gaining the consensus to make them effective. This is not a circular argument.
Imagine a world where almost nobody thinks that public healthcare should be a right. Would the few supporters of public healthcare doing a circular argument, since they speak of the rights of being cured/healthy, although those are not recognized by that imaginary society?

"The market for real estate would be much less efficient without deeds registered at a government office that showed who owned what. Law called all of these things into being. The same holds true of contracts."

Again this is not a philosophical problem, if anything, is a technical problem. Furthermore, no explanation is given for why a private agency, or more private agencies, could not be able to efficiently handle deeds and contracts.

"Take fraud, for example. If a man is found to have lied to his health insurance company about a pre-existing condition, the police (in libertarian parlance, "Men with Guns") will use force against him. Libertarians call this "retaliatory force" and frame the acts by the sick man as initiating force which makes for a nice game of mental gymnastics."

The man tricked the insurance company, paying less of what his pre-existing condition imply, and putting the insurance company in an higher probability of having a loss. I do not see how considering a fraudulent behavior a kind of initiation of force would be such a mental gymnastic... This example "sick man VS insurance company" sounds a lot like an appeal to emotions.

McLaghing (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

You do make valid points, however this article generalized libertarians too much, and whoever wrote this appeared to have absolutely no knowledge of what libertarianism actually is. It was all one big disingenuous and intellectually dishonest rant, and it honestly reminded me in a way of conservapedia's article, which bashed the liberal aspects of it. All libertarian is is an umbrella term to describe various ideologies. The original writer seemed to be confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, the former of which is not even libertarian at all, but a provisional path to corporatism, which is basically rebranded statism controlled by businesses. The non-socialistic branches of libertarianism are pro-market, not pro-business (there is a big difference). While minarchism is a branch of libertarianism, they only make up a certain percentage of them. Libertarianism is really just a term to describe a bunch of thought schools that preach for a limited government, whether socialist or capitalist. They are a step below authoritative statism and pure anarchism, and some are for more government than others (i.e. classical liberals vs. minarchists & objectivists). We need to point out that, in order to eliminate the dishonest misconceptions that libertarianism is all crazy paleo crap. For instance, many classical liberals, such as myself and some others who are users here, believe that some taxes are necessary, such as free healthcare, some aspects of Welfare, and planned parenthood, but oppose others, such as those that go towards agencies like the DEA, NSA, the military, homeland security, etc. These centre-left branches, including beltwayers (like those at Reason and Cato) believe in repealing anti-discrimination laws due to the market's inevitable natural punishing of those businesses that do, but oppose trusts, monopolization, and are in favor of a reasonable amount of protectionism. Many libertarians are utilitarians, and not all of them agree with Ayn Rand's quackery. This article generalized things way too much. Darth Ravigious (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that this article is written with a really poor understanding of what libertarianism is. Also, I would like to point out a big problem with essentially all the articles on politics/philosophy on RationalWiki:
The rational criticism of any political philosophy can consist only of two things:
1) Logical, empirical or scientific arguments in favor of or against the truth of the statements that the political philosophy does on the reality. Example of these statements and the related political philosophies could be (roughly speaking): making all drugs legal will decrease the death related to drugs criminal activity (liberal left, libertarianism..), big punishments, like death penalty, will decrease the criminality (autoritharian, fascism...), the free-market always selects the best provider of goods/services (capitalism)... All these claims can be rationally tested (statistically, logically, by experiments, looking at the history...) to see if they agree with the reality or not.
2) A list of the effects that the political philosophy causes (or would cause) when implemented. If the political philosophy has been/is already implemented, then this can be done collecting data and statistics from historical records. If the political philosophy has never been implemented, then speculations on its implementation must be logical and in agreement with the current scientific knowledge.
Every other judgement of the political theory, can not be labelled as "rational criticism", but only has a really personal opinion. In particular, there is no rational argument in favor of or against the concept that ""property" and "life" have the same inviolable status", because that is just an opinion about the value of two things, an opinion which is subjective by definition. However, I see that on RationalWiki almost all the articles on political philosophies have these kind of judgements.

McLaghing (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Arguments against strict libertarianism (some clean up)[edit]

The section Arguments against strict libertarianism has a lot of flawed objection, mostly due to big misunderstandings of libertarianism.

I have tried to improve it.

Philosophical problems
Strict libertarianism relies on the distinction between positive and negative liberties, a distinction which is not universally accepted by philosophers.

Nothing is universally accepted by philosophers.

raising "property" to the same inviolable status as "life" causes some problems: a sweeping interpretation would denounce all taxation as illegitimate expropriation, making it impossible to finance even the most essential public services.

But this is not a problem for strictly libertarians, indeed, they oppose all taxation and, consequently, tax funded public services!

In fact, ignoring the existence of national sovereignty and international trade [...] The market for real estate would be much less efficient without deeds registered at a government office that showed who owned what. Law called all of these things into being. The same holds true of contracts.

This point repeat the previous, and the last quoted part is an argument to consequences. — Unsigned, by: McLaghing / talk / contribs 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What is going on here?[edit]

This article is an outstanding example of Poe's Law. I legitimately can't tell if this is just genuinely bad criticism or if the page has been hijacked and turned into a parody of said criticism. There is plenty of academic literature on this topic. But the core ideas of libertarian and the core critiques aren't being discussed. And what is being discussed is genuinely ignorant.

I can type up a long-form discussion of this to add to / fix this page. But I'm not going to waste my time unless people are actually going to incorporate it. I've wasted too much time trying to fix genuinely shitty articles on other wiki sites only to have internal political bullshit prevent improvements. (Even on things as innocent as a page on Athenian Democracy failing to cite any of the standard academic works on the topic.)

Let's set aside that the page doesn't even give a remotely accurate presentation of libertarianism because it combines a bunch of contradictory positions that are either from distinct arguments that happen to reach similar conclusions or that are merely "bro science" instead of serious thought.

The responses / criticism section is totally fucked. The long and short of it is that libertarianism has an implied a philosophical dilemma. All of the arguments on this page accept the "wrong" side, the one that libertarians claim that everyone agrees on. If you go down that path you will lose. Once you accept the premises, the conclusions follow. But you can just take the other horn of the dilemma (like many academics in fact do) and then you are totally fine.

For example if you are doing economic political science, everyone who isn't a libertarian is just going to say that the demand for social violence is inelastic. Therefore having an inefficient monopoly on the use of force will result in lower levels of social violence than anarcho-capitalism (and that this is good for some some specified moral reason that a libertarian would accept as valid). You then take it a step further and say that even the night-watchman thing is not desirable for the same reasons -- the market does in fact serve the public more efficiently than the state. But that this will also not be acceptable given the moral presuppositions the libertarian himself makes.

This is the standard blue-print for an academic refutation. Trying to accept the premises while denying the conclusion isn't going to work because you'd have to find some hidden assumption that leads to a logical fallacy. None of the actual arguments do this. Instead your refutations are just introducing presuppositions that are directly contradictory to the assumed ones. But that's a complete violation of logic; once you do that, you can prove literally anything. So you've refuted nothing. (And if you adopt a more stringent logic than classical as advocated by many philosophers, then you can't even fake it.)

So, should I do a serious rewrite? Or is that a waste of my time? — Unsigned, by: 70.183.119.193 / talk

Are you wasting your time? Perhaps, as that would depend on what you assert Libertarianism to be. I'd like a link to these sites where you have attempted to put furth your views and had them shot down, so I may examine the arguments from both sides. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The only argument you actually make with any clarity about the content of the article, my bunch-of-numbers friend, is the one you call an example. Only it's really really really begging the question(in the fallacious sense, not colloquial meaning), because only someone who is completely off their rocker overdosing on libertarian ideology assumes violence can be interpreted with fucking supply and demand curves. Anything following that interpretation is going to be fucking nuts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
So, ikanreed, "fractal wrongness" it is. I gave an example of how a professor of economic political science would refute libertarianism. He's point out that there's an incorrect implied assumption. Your response was to attack the entire academic field in question, simultaneously defending libertarians against the attack and accusing an entire academic field of being overdosed on libertarian ideology. At this point I'm not convinced that you understand how arguments work.
☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise, I think you misread my post. I've given up on edits to wikis because of past political aggravations over incredibly trivial edits. I haven't edited wikipedia in over a decade because of the juvenile bullshit that happens when people get their feelings hurt when they can't cope with reality not giving a damned about their wishes. Edits like, "citation needed" or "deleting this section because it is literally has nothing to do with the article" should not involve me in months of controversy. Given that history (on wikipedia) I'm not wasting my time and energy fixing an article this fucked up unless people here actually care. Given the response from ikanreed, it seems like "throw a tantrum" is the modus operendi here. If the point is to have a feel-good emotional outburst instead of an intellectually rigorous article, there's no point in hand-holding some entitled brat through PhD level material that's just going to be ignored anyway.

To the extent that it matters libertarian arguments are typically grouped by the originating field, but there's an underlying typology and a few common threads. So you can deal with entire categories of arguments by showing that they are the same thing and are flawed in the same way.

E.g. You frequently see economists make claims to the effect of "I don't care about moral theory, I'm just discussing economic consequences." That's utter bullshit. Normative judgements contain implied moral claims. So this economist is just skipping over the piece that turns his opinion into an argument -- establishing his weighing of consequences as the morally relevant one. And any claim of this sort can easily be torn apart with 1st year PhD economics. (The tacit assumption here is a crappy one; no one in the field would take it seriously, but plenty of people on the internet who don't know better will.)

This is a general phenomena, if it seems like the premises are unobjectionable and inevitably lead to a conclusion you disagree with, then there's probably an unstated assumption lurking about. People like Ben Shapiro do this crap all the time to cause their opponents to flip out, get distracted by a tangent, or simply look like fools. But if you calmly and rationally expose the full set of assumptions, then the flaws will be obvious.

That's the problem with this article in a nutshell. It devolves into a rhetorical pissing contest instead of just showing that the claims require an assumption that isn't generally accepted. But since it seems like people are going to lose their shit if I take the time to do this for all of the possible argument combinations, I don't see the point in putting in the work to actually fix this.

Frankly, I don't have the energy to deal with variations of, "economic political science hurts my feelings". Again, the universe does not give a damn. No amount of being upset at gravitational physics is going to let you fly. — Unsigned, by: 70.183.119.193 / talk

IEEE nitpick[edit]

"International organisations enforcing universal standards on machinery and telecommunication (such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) would not exist anymore."—from edit by @Hex4

I think there are better examples to use here than IEEE, if one should be used at all.

IEEE is primarily a professional organization/association; so although IEEE has a branch for developing standards (including some very widely used ones), that is not their sole reason for existing. For IEEE to not exist at all, it would probably have to be argued that professional organizations for many other professions wouldn't exist either.

Also, from my understanding, standards bodies are generally only responsible for making standards, and intentionally leave the adoption/enforcement of standards up to someone else, such as a government regulatory agency.

Maybe the point that wanted to be made was that, if there is no incentive for adoption of or compliance with standards, then what would not exist are the standards themselves; the standards bodies wouldn't be what to worry about.

(Yes, standards are created somewhat in the hope that "market competition" means society will get to choose from competing yet compatible/interoperable, high-quality, low-cost solutions, rather than from nonstandard solutions. But this section seems narrowly written from the view of the tech-savvy consumer, who probably believes that the post-standards dystopia is already a reality since tens or maybe hundreds of millions of consumers use monopolized services like iMessage and FaceTime.)

Chrstphrchvz (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)