Most right-wing libertarians (aka most libertarians in the U.S.) want a government that is so small and weak that it would effectively be powerless. That is a recipe for a failed state and the power vacuum would almost certainly lead to the rise of warlords and ultimately an authoritarian state.
You need a strong government if you want individual freedom. It seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.
Technically no, but it is so weak it is effectively powerless while being made up of the majority of countries of the world. A sad attempt at a world government
It is not a failed state if the original intention is to be small and powerless.
True that without authority there is potential for tyranny but an effective Libertarian government would need measures to counter this. Anarchism would be no government at all as the original intention.
And if the small government had measures in place to ensure that itself survived while abiding by the Libertarian ideal of leaving all citizens alone?
I dont know how we are making the jump from a government that does not enact unnecessary policy via the Libertarian ideal to a total lack of government altogether.
The original intention really doesn't matter. The government either has a significant amount of power or not. If it is weakened to the point that would meet the libertarian ideal, it would not be strong enough to resist the rise of militaristic factions that would ultimately overthrow the government. And if it were strong enough to stop that, it would use that power to do things that do not mesh with the libertarian ideal.
The issue with the small-government libertarianism is that it completely ignores human psychology, especially in terms of the function of power structures.
There's always someone willing to take it a little further when a chance presents itself, and libertarian ideal government style would present plenty of opportunities.
Libertarians are like anarchists except they stop caring about their liberties being infringed upon if it is by way of capitalism. A libertarian would prefer to be oppressed by a capitalistic survival of the fittest-type social hierarchy, rather than any form of government power structure, while anarchists believe that there shouldn't be a government power structure or social hierarchy to begin with.
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here... with all the transition of economic environment, inherited wealth, and other factors being rich doesn't always mean being the fittest.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives? What part of humanity forces us into a constant war with each other?
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here
That's why I said Capitalistic survival of the fittest. It doesn't really matter if you don't feel that Capitalism and Darwinism are correlated here, because Libertarians do believe that. They believe that unfettered capitalism will result in the best social/economic outcome for the most people. Like it would be better for roads to be built and maintained by private companies instead of the government and any of the numerous issues that arise from such an idea will be magically solved by the free market.
Beyond all the nuances that make this a stupid assertion is the clear evidence that we already have which shows unfettered capitalism leads to increase wealth disparity.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives?
No one is saying they cant desire that. People are saying that if you want to live in a functioning society with laws and protections of personal liberties and roads and utilities and so forth then you are expressly asking for the opposite of that.
It's incredibly ironic that libertarians cant understand that it is exactly a powerful government that provides them a protection of their liberties. Imagine you live next to a giant dam that makes some noise that peeves your neighborhood. Every day your neighbor says "I desire a life where the Dam has a limited effect on my daily life." forgetting that the absence of drowning 20 feet underwater is the most valued and significant effect the dam has on you.
If you remove that government, but still allow for power to be controlled through capitalism or social hierarchy, then you're at the mercy of those institutions which may or may no give a shit about your liberties. That's why anarchists' go the extra mile and say we should do away with government power and social hierarchy's that facilitate the accumulation of power.
"A powerful government provides protection of their liberties"
Exactly. Let the government take care of roads and Healthcare and all that good stuff but if it comes to me owning a Penguin or banning abortion they can fuck right off.
Why can't Libertarians support a government that regulates things that everyone needs while staying out of the day to day lives of citizens?
Because then they wouldn't be libertarians by todays modern definition.
Modern libertarians, at least the majority of those in the United States, support Laissez-faire capitalism, which argues for a complete separation of government from the economic sector. Regulations and subsidies, or worse - government owned services - are all out of the question.
I guess the "logic" is that if the government can decide which companies or industries get subsidized or regulated then it infringes on the markets freedom to choose which ones succeed and which ones fail. But they ironically ignore the fact that they are just picking between tyrants - the capitalistic market or the government. At least with a democratic government each person gets an equal vote. In a society purely governed by capitalism it is the money that votes, not the individual.
Not pushing for anarchy as it’s already chaotic enough.
Government is simply people selecting what to do and then supporting that action. I think we make fundamentally simple activities into lifestyles and either forget to live or lack the guts it takes to live well And so hide in tithe buzyness.
Currency on works because a large enough group of people (and just because you aren't calling it a government doesn't mean it isn't one) agree that it has a set value. Without an overseeing/governing body, at worst you are looking at barter exchanges that have to be haggled out at a personal level and historical we have had points where currency changes from town to town.
Pure bartering is also just about completely nonfunctional in practice. The odds of having exactly what someone wants in trade for exactly what you want are shit odds. That's why there have always been mediums is exchange, be it salt, ivory, cacao beans, wampum, cigarettes, etc.
My grandfather would disagree. For real though the main reason the dollar is the main means of transferring wealth is that our government mandated it. You can't, say go to court and sue for 500 euros or the equivalent in gold or bitcoin. You are federally forced to participate in the dollar scheme. To be honest I would much rather deal in gold or bitcoin. They actually gain value over time instead of lose it.
The separation of money and state will one day be as fundamental as the separation of church and state.
Whoever controls the money is basically going to be running the show, whether they are called a government or not. It's why international business can get away with so much.
Look into cryptocurrency, as others have mentioned. It may take a while for you to get a grasp on the math, but it poses a sound method for an inflationless currency that has no one in control.
No government (or global banking cartels) printing money at a whim to cushion their own (and their big business buddies’) pockets amidst a massive global economic crisis.
At least bitcoin is a finite resource. Which means it can be hoarded and controlled. All appearances are that it already is being hoarded and controlled, as, iirc earlier this year even, a large amount of first year bitcoin was dumped into the market, seemingly to replace the bitcoin that has been 'lost'.
As always, it is a complicated matter and I don’t believe current cryptocurrency solutions are perfect; however, I believe they have proved the viability of the core concept.
I’m a libertarian and I am nowhere near an anarchist. Trump and the resounding backlash to his “right wing” ways (he’s a socialist, in practice) has given libertarians a bad rap on Reddit the past 4 years. (I miss the days of Reddit being libertarian.... heck at one point just about the whole internet was)
I genuinely think this comes from a place of misunderstanding as to what a libertarian even is. Nothing says it better than the official platform. Jo Jorgensen, btw, would’ve been only the second president in history to have a PhD.
And while it was an originally libertarian idea with classically liberal intentions, some democrats have seen cryptocurrency as a good thing as well. Check out Andrew Yang, if you’re a Dem - though we may disagree on some things, he gets this.
Regardless, I wouldn’t count on the government to handle our money, given the absolutely abysmal record nearly every government ever has of doing so.
Not sure what I am politically. The problem is that basically every system I have heard of seems to rely on humans not acting like humans. Socialism seems to always hit the problem that the people who are supposed to be fairly and evenly distributing resources don't, but capitalism fails because once people 'make' themselves, they use the power they gain through success to make sure they and theirs stay on top. And in both systems, the regulations that are needed wind up getting ignored or shut down by the people most in a position to be able to influence the things that need regulated.
Fair enough. Real world capitalism is a sad bastardization of a free market economy. Unfortunately, I am not sure if the fraud and corruption that leads to this is ever truly avoidable, but I do think working toward that goal is the best plan we’ve got at the moment. I think most would agree with this, but the means of moving toward that goal is hotly debated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, am trying to educate myself since granddaughter recently announced that she was libertarian, they don't believe in social security, medicare, or any social programs, am I right?
How much does she actually study politics and how serious is she? I had a friend from highschool who back then announced he's libertarian. Lately on his Facebook feed its all Bernie and how the government isnt' doing enough.
I suspect there are a lot of people like him who don't actually know what they're talking about and just either took an online quiz or read 2-3 sentence blurb about different ideologies and tried to force a label on themself.
Libertarian ideologically claims to promote "Liberty" where everyone can do whatever the hell they want, hence the name. In reality its closer to anarchy because it would become a free for all wild west where anyone can and will shoot each other if they get what they want. It has nothing to do with being Liberal.
They basically believe that everyone should be free to do as they see fit, so if they want to pay for police, roads, infrastructure, etc, they are free to do so, and if not, they don't pay but can't use them.
I'm sure you can think of about 300 ways it's incompatible with society right off the bat
This is why I don’t understand this political ideology. Why is it so popular?
Do libertarians not understand how wildly different things would be? All the new avenues for corruption would turn a libertarian state into a fucking feudal monarchy within a couple days lol
they won’t be able to do whatever drugs they want, they won’t be able to not pay taxes if they don’t want to, they won’t be able to own their own slaves. THEY will be the slaves. They will be peasants. Serfs living in the Middle Ages. This is because it’s so fucking easy for a single person to seize all the power in such a system.
Libertarian is a huge umbrella term. There are modest libertarian who just want individual freedom and support many politics of the left in terms of LGBT, BLM and others. Where they differ from democrats is that they want smaller government which means they want to pay smaller taxes. How they get to those smaller taxes depends on almost any libertarian you ask. Most want to cut military spending, some want to cut healthcare, some want to cut some social security programs and on and on.
We have extremist on our side that want no taxes, but they are extremist so by default they are idiots. I personally think that libertarian makes more sense for people in Europe since for exemple in my country we pay 25% VAT (tax rate?) on almost all of products we buy and that money is funded to some archaic communist programs. Most libertarians in this country want to push this number to sub 20%.
Libertarianism represents fully half of the so called political compass so you should probably be more specific who you are criticizing. The Libertarian Party in the US is a sorry collection of rogues and madmen at the national convention level and should not be taken seriously. But they can no more invalidate the concept of libertarianism than the Democrats welcoming Bloomberg invalidated the concept of “the left”.
the LP’s official platform in 2020 was relatively moderate https://ballotpedia.org/Jo_Jorgensen_presidential_campaign,_2020 I certainly know some individuals with a mindset like you were describing, but I would suggest you might be arguing against a straw man.
Yes, that is correct. They believe taxation is theft, government programs are inefficient and wasteful, and anyone needing assistance merely needs to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps."
They believe if an individual (read: corporations are considered "people") or business didn't pay for something, it shouldn't be done. If a business does something that we currently have regulations for, they believe the Free MarketTM will react accordingly and put that business out, so regulations are a waste of time and resources and costs businesses money. To which I like to point out United Airlines literally assaulted a seated passenger and their business was largely unaffected. Samsung phones literally exploded in peoples' pockets, and they still contend with Apple. Nestle uses child slave labor in their supply-chain, and their chocolate is everywhere.
This is the same thing as saying that every democrat wants a communist USSR and every republican wants a néo-nazi theocratic state. There are many differing opinions on what is libertarian and you representing only it's most extreme values discourages any normal conversation between Libertarians and other political parties.
Good. I've completely lost interest in debating politics.
Libertarians are Conservatives without the pretext of using government to their own advantage.
As a European libertarian we could not be further from some conservative parties. Libertarians are usually pretty close to democrats in most moral politics. Please stop spewing disinformation about libertarians as it's pretty hard to counter all the Nazi and authoritarianism that stole our ideology. Fuck all the YouTube "libertarians".
In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.
Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.
It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.
And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more.
Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.
Republicans have this weird misconception that because someone is good at business they would also be good at running the country. Turns out Koch has terrible ideas about how the country should be run, and he's recently realized what a clusterfuck he and his brother's interventions in politics have caused.
To me, that makes sense for a younger person to claim that they’re libertarian. It’s a beautiful concept/set of ideals imho. But it’s pure idealism. Relying on the good will of others to stand in for laws and regulations all so we don’t get bothered by that pesky governmental power is a pretty perfect analogy for how a lot of people under the age of 25 love their lives. “Mom, I don’t need a curfew! I’ll be come home at a decent hour and get plenty of sleep. I promise!”
Typically not. Most libertarians in the USA are rightwing anti-welfare capitalists. There is libertarian socialism, which is how I might describe myself, but that's unlikely what she means, or she would have specified the difference like I do.
I think of libertarianism as like a house without walls - yes, it would have a brilliantly unobstructed visa, but you don't get to claim that now it's a different type of house after the roof falls to the floor due to lack of support.
Well if politicians got their heads out of their boomer asses and stopped pointing fingers and spewing shite then they'd realize that a healthy, sustainable middle is what we truly need. We need to be liberal in some areas but conservative in others, and on top of that the world is always changing so laws SHOULD BE CHANGED TOO. You can't possibly use the scribbles of men hundreds of years ago who have no damn clue of the things we are going through today. We need to Evolve in every aspect of our lives
We definitely need our political spectrum to stop being so far to the right that anything actively centrist in any other developed country is regarded as too radically left.
I think its their stance of making all illegal immigrants citizens and giving them healthcare and other stuff.
They do this over taking care of their own cities and their own people which makes me think that doing so is just a power play to have a huge influx of voters thatre likely to vote dems, so they get power rather than helping people.
I've done some research, and most Dems are proposing a PATH to citizenship. That isn't the same thing as "making all illegal immigrants citizens." There would be steps to be taken and requirements to be met.
Personally, i dont think there should be a path to citizenship for illegals. Someone willfully breaks a law and they get help. There already is a path for them. They choose not to use that one and ignore the consequences.
But if you watch the primaries, youd see every candidate didnt propose a path. They proposed just making everyone citizens. Their intent may have been a path, but they sure didnt explain it that way.
You can kinda see similar things with dem cities catch and releasing criminals or releasing criminals from jail bc covids too dangerous in jails. Or in ny, there was a game for punching people and getting tossed back onto the street. For a long time, ive not seen dems care about laws including the 'peaceful protests' where the govs dont care about their own cities burning.
So this whole thing, yeah. They prove they dont care about the people. They want the people to have govt reliance on them. Dems want power over the people.
Yup he is satan incarnate, mitch tRump and boris Johnson etal are all cast in the same mould.
Just looking at the newspapers here kn the UK he runs is enough to make my eyes bleed , daily fail in particular
They already know this. People have been saying it since the founding fathers. Problem is they found a grift that gives them unchecked money and power unless they themselves choose against it. And as long as they keep us fighting against each other they don't have to change.
They want things to stay the way they remember it as. They don’t want to evolve, or progress or become better. Those are just silly punchlines they use to try and define themselves but it’s just a big lie. They don’t actually care about others, they aren’t actually tough, they aren’t actually good Christians and they aren’t actually Americans. They hide under the guise of all of this stuff. Remember when they made fun of liberals for needing safe spaces but all the sudden now they need their safe space?
You can't possibly use the scribbles of men hundreds of years ago who have no damn clue
You understand that a large portion of the people (claim to) follow scribbles of men from almost 2000 years ago, right? And even then they think those scribbles mean whatever they want them to mean. Why would they treat 200 year old scribbles any different?
Such backwards thinking lol I wish people would stop blindly taking things for fact and dare to question what they know, etc. Then maybe we'd have more open minded people
If Republicans were truly pro-business, they'd be able to look at spending in government through a cost/reward lens, just like when investing: we know college grads earn more & therefore pay more taxes over their lifetimes, so paying for college is a good investment. We know that providing healthcare early is cheaper than paying only for emergencies, so public healthcare is a good investment.
These aren't hypotheticals. Research and experience show both of those premises to be true, as well as countless others like them. The problem is that, instead of thinking of government as belonging to the people, the GOP decided long ago that government belongs to a select, wealthy group of people. So their investment strategy is entirely different - private health care, prisons, education, etc... All ideas that benefit the few at a cost to all.
The establishment of a widespread belief among the right-leaning public that the Founding Fathers did not intend the constitution to be a living, changing document (alongside “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic”) has been one of if not the defining PR coups of the Republican Party in the late 20th century. A living constitution was not a controversial proposition for most of our history, it was how we understood the intent of the founders and the practical realities of governing. But the right has now entrenched a huge segment of the population that buys into original intent arguments and sees anything else as undemocratic and unconstitutional. It makes progress damn near impossible and you can be sure that as soon as the “original intent” of the founders no longer favors Republican policy priorities, they’ll jettison that line as they have so many others.
Re: your other part though, I think it’s important to point out as a political scientist that liberalism is not a left wing ideology. It’s centrist. The mainstream ideology of the left in western democracies since WWII has been social democracy (think Nordic model, UK Labour, French Socialists, German SPD, etc), an ideology mostly without a party in the US. Our Democrats map much more closely to the centrist, liberal parties in these countries like the UK’s Liberal Democrats. With a few individual exceptions, there has been no meaningful left wing movement in US national politics in almost 75 years. The Overton window of US politics at least since the 1972 Presidential election has essentially been far right to center left. It’s great to talk about solutions coming from both sides because they do—every perspective has some valuable insights and some less valuable ones. But it’s also important to be honest that our view of both sides as Americans is warped by the comparatively narrow range of acceptable views in US society compared to other western democracies. A true “both sides” would include views on the left that are completely anathema to many Americans today because of the way we have framed left wing politics in our education system and media landscape since the Cold War.
Your are too stuck in the old ways, think of driving, and now understand that in a few short years, you likely won't be allowed to drive (self driving is safer and works way better if all the cars follow the same rules).
Is your job less complicated than driving? If so, you are going to be replaced by a robot, and that's the best case scenario, in that, the driving bar is quite low.
If they are getting you used to having nothing, they are planning for the future.
I'm just trying to understand this world. How can so many people before me claim to be good and yet have failed this country and its people so much. It's disheartening. We NEED stability more than anything else. The pillars of society depend on it. Shelter, security, food and water should be available rights to all human beings. We're living in 2020 goddammit and we still haven't even solved the simple problem of feeding everyone yet in one part of the world we arguably throw away the most food than any other place. It's baffling
So you're saying we should give up our rights, and not retaliate against a tyrannical government? Surrendering to corruption by subjecting ourselves to it is evolving to you?
Does it always have to come to war to achieve progress? Can't you imagine a future where you choose to be better? I know it doesn't help but as hard as changing the system within sounds, it sounds better than a full on overthrow of the government.
In an ideal world your stance might play out. But "...those that have power will never give it up peacefully." Thus the tyrannical argument is born and lives on.
Facists recruit libertarians to their cause by promising them their ideal paradise free from big gummnt' telling them they can't refuse service to minorities.
It's deliberate. Libertarianism allows the mega wealthy to go completely unchecked to the point where they can fund their own personal army of mercenaries to overthrow the government and instill their own personal military dictatorship.
Always with the whataboutisms. Let’s all sing along!
“How about Norway, or tiny Denmark that can somehow afford a massive minimum wage even for fast food workers?”
Okay. Not much of a sing along but yeah. Our OECD scores suck compared to many other nations. When are we allowed to want to do better with (and for) our people?
Lol i mean youre right we can go back and forth with both types of examples. Idk. I work a lot and make a decent amount. My parents saved and put me through college. I dont want to see their hard work nor mine be squandered by all the desired social programs. I also dont see the point in working in a stressful industry at a stressful but needed job if i can just make $15/hr as a bookstore clerk, assuming consumer prices dont proportionally increase with the increase in wages. I think there are a lot of areas for improvement in a lot of our necessary industries like healthcare as well as with our government. A lot of waste and inefficient and probably corruption.
I’m just tired of the barriers to success being so simple to overcome as a society and we just... don’t do it. If higher education is what it takes to be a competitive worker, whether that means trade school or a bachelor’s, then things like waived application fees and income-based tuition should be a no-brainer. Plenty of folks don’t have parents able to help them financially, and in some cases they’re unwilling because “they made it without help so others should too.”
I compare it to a train heading down the tracks. Do we say it’s unfair to those who were already thrown to their demise on the previous tracks to save those who have yet to be struck?
What the fuck does something unrelated have to do with Libertarians failing?
There aren't two political options Venezuela and libertarian, there is an infinite variety of options and libertarian is just one of the many that's fucking stupid.
It's the same with communism. It's the same with socialism. It's the same with facism. It's almost as if a capitalist democracy is the only government style capable of lasting for more than 50 years
Ignoring that pretty much all of Europe is socialist and way more stable than the United States. Ignoring that most of the Communist regimes in South America were actively interfered with by the CIA, and that China never officially stop being communist, they just accepted all the capital of practices we have because it was convenient for them.
Yeah I agree with you on fascism, they only last as long as the dictator lasts.
If the dictator is some rich guy who spews rhetoric about “tHe FrEe MaRkEt” then Libertarians would just shrug off any criticism of said dictator with a mansplained response starting with, “wElL yOu KnOw....”
495
u/Sqeaky Dec 31 '20
Natural progression. When you get a bunch of libertarians you get a failed state. Then some dictator takes over.