What&#x27;s wrong with Libertarianism?

Original post by Trumpo Trumpu

Its some of the concepts are worrying, most libertarians/lib dems believe in unlimited immigration. They also seem to want to pay £33 million a day to the EU- but i can see you have your own view point on that. I think Liberals are seen as soft we need a Authoritarian government. Are you on the left or the right?

Ah, now I think you're thinking of Liberals and Libertarians as the same thing. I consider Libertarianism to be a seperate ideology from Liberalism (As I think it is in America) and, like you, don't believe in unlimited immigration or paying the EU £33 million. In Britain the terms seem to be rather mixed, unfortuently, but I think there's actually quite a distinction between them. Whereas the Lib Dems, Greens and Labour are full on Liberal, the Conservatives, now a days, seem to be a mix of Liberalism and conservatism and UKIP is more like a mix of Libertarianism and conservatism. I don't think we have a full on Libertarian party in Britain at the moment. Whereas in America they have the Democrats which are, I think, a mix of Liberal and Conservatism, the Republicans, which are conservative and the biggest (though, still, perhaps, not major) third party in America the Libertarian Party, which is full on Libertarian.

To clarify, I beleive an easy way of comparing them is to say Liberalism focuses on Equality whereas Libertarianism focuses on Liberty.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 3

mojojojo101

I am generally sympathetic to the idea behind Libertarianism, that government should remain as limited as possible. However I don't really see why we then cant then make the fairly small jump from there to the Anarchist position.

Reply 4

M14B

18

Libertarian?

Spoiler

Reply 5

Pulse.

18

I see why libertarianism is appealing but its typically the largest states with strong institutional breadth and grounding that are the most successful in the world today.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

Original post by similarBlank

Ah, now I think you're thinking of Liberals and Libertarians as the same thing. I consider Libertarianism to be a seperate ideology from Liberalism (As I think it is in America) and, like you, don't believe in unlimited immigration or paying the EU £33 million. In Britain the terms seem to be rather mixed, unfortuently, but I think there's actually quite a distinction between them. Whereas the Lib Dems, Greens and Labour are full on Liberal, the Conservatives, now a days, seem to be a mix of Liberalism and conservatism and UKIP is more like a mix of Libertarianism and conservatism. I don't think we have a full on Libertarian party in Britain at the moment. Whereas in America they have the Democrats which are, I think, a mix of Liberal and Conservatism, the Republicans, which are conservative and the biggest (though, still, perhaps, not major) third party in America the Libertarian Party, which is full on Libertarian.

To clarify, I beleive an easy way of comparing them is to say Liberalism focuses on Equality whereas Libertarianism focuses on Liberty.

if you oppose free movement of people you're non libertarian. Part of libertarianism is laissez faire- you let everything be. You allow unrestricted free movement of people as to do otherwise would be to interfere with market forces whic you libertarians so love.
You cannot be anti immigration and libertarian.

I like some of libertarians social policies of letting people do what they want with regards to gay marriage, abortions, drugs etc.

I despise their economic views- the idea that the market can work perfectly unrestrained with no oversight and no intervention is a pure fallacy.
I also despise the libertarian and right wing fallacy of the trickle down effect which simply does not work.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

alcibiade

11

Original post by similarBlank

I'm a Libertarian and am curious why more people aren't.

So, what do y'all think about Libertarianism and why aren't you one or why are you one?

I respect it as a coherent political philosophy. What I think it neglects is community, a sense that society as a whole can be more than the sum of individuals' desires and choices.

I would like to balance individual rights with the needs of the community. For example, I don't care where someone chooses to put it, but I would want government involved significantly in the treatment of STDs, particularly deadly ones. The same goes for severe drug abuse. My libertarian friends argue that simply eliminating the laws against drugs would solve the problem, eliminating the need for gvt intervention. I think drug abuse should be decriminalized, but that treatment programs should be offered.

Reply 8

anarchism101

It fundamentally misunderstands the state, capitalism, and the relationship between them. As such, it perceives itself in opposition to the state (even if it doesn't seek its abolition) yet depends on it.

Also, it stole the term from anarchists who used to use it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 9

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Bornblue

You cannot be anti immigration and libertarian.

You just made this up to be honest. I mean, you can define it that way if you want, but there's nothing incoherent about wanting individual liberty within the state, whilst maintaining that borders are necessary.

Whether the market 'works perfectly' also depends entirely on what aims you have. There would be nothing incoherent in the view that economic freedom is a good in itself, and that simply in upholding it the market is 'working'. Compare here. You may disagree with that view, but there's nothing fallacious about it.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 10

Betelgeuse-

19

Original post by Bornblue

if you oppose free movement of people you're non libertarian. Part of libertarianism is laissez faire- you let everything be. You allow unrestricted free movement of people as to do otherwise would be to interfere with market forces whic you libertarians so love.
You cannot be anti immigration and libertarian.

I like some of libertarians social policies of letting people do what they want with regards to gay marriage, abortions, drugs etc.

I despise their economic views- the idea that the market can work perfectly unrestrained with no oversight and no intervention is a pure fallacy.
I also despise the libertarian and right wing fallacy of the trickle down effect which simply does not work.

I suspect Libertaranism doesnt support the free movement of people when you have a giant money sploshing welfare state non?

Reply 11

Original post by TimmonaPortella

You just made this up to be honest. I mean, you can define it that way if you want, but there's nothing incoherent about wanting individual liberty within the state, whilst maintaining that borders are necessary.

Whether the market 'works perfectly' also depends entirely on what aims you have. There would be nothing incoherent in the view that economic freedom is a good in itself, and that simply in upholding it the market is 'working'. Compare here. You may disagree with that view, but there's nothing fallacious about it.

I disagree. Libertarianism is all about non interference especially with the market. It falls under economic freedom. Besides its good for businesses, one of the key philosophies of libertarianism. You cannot by libertarian and anti-immigration, the two positions are contradictory. It's like being socialist and opposed to any stats interference in the market...

I thinks it's fallacious though to assume the market will be okay with no interference at all, just as it is to say that we could survive with no market at all.

The 2008 crash is a good example of what libertarianism can do. Next to no interference or regulation.
Economic 'Freedom' in and of itself is neither here nor there. And for this point I quote the fonder of social conservatism Edmund Burke - 'what use is an abstract right to medicine?'. I'd rather be guaranteed actual medicine.

All those 40 million Americans who prior to Obama Care were 'free' but what use is that when you cannot afford healthcare? What's the point in having the right to a fair trial if you have no food or what's the point in having freedom of expression if you're homeless etc? Political freedoms are of course necessary (which is why I agree with the civil and political freedoms it offers) but they are of little use without the substantive quality of life needed for a dignified existence.

'freedom' in and of itself is not inherently a good thing.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 12

Original post by Betelgeuse-

I suspect Libertaranism doesnt support the free movement of people when you have a giant money sploshing welfare state non?

Immigrants don't come for benefits, they come for work. Depressed wages are not w problem for libertarians because 'freedom' or something. The market is always best.

Reply 13

CherishFreedom

6

I think there are lessons to be learnt on libertarianism. It is a a highly scientific theory and promotes non-interventionism in market economies, and it is true that the market is most efficient when government intervention is removed. In effect it allows a 'survival of the fittest' mechanism in the economy.

An advantage to this policy is that it prevents anomalies in the market and ensuring the best businesses win the competition. The same applies in labour terms.

However one must acknowledge that in a realistic World there are socio-economic implications that we must consider if we decide to just let the market default. Some of its by-product such as poverty, accumulation (hence potential abuse) of power and monopoly can arise from both the winning and losing ends of this market system. It is against Western principle to allow 'the strong to intimidate the weak'. It is common consensus that we are not a society that allows the weak to simply be 'eliminated' from the competition as the system would otherwise allow.

I personally prefer a mixed approach of reasonable freedom for businesses to compete, as long as it does not create barriers of entry by abusing its financial position. I also think a 'safety net' welfare system is needed, but must be applied along with a good public education of work ethic and personal responsibility. Right to education is a must and further education should be affordable even when loans are available.

Overall, the main point to consider is that market exists to serve human developments, not the other way round. A good balance would be one in which incentive does not diminish from both sides, whether the incentive to compete for businesses, or the incentive to work for those on welfare.

Reply 14

ChaoticButterfly

20

From rational wiki...

"What, exactly, is the goal? The selling point of libertarianism is its offer of expanded individual liberties to do as you please. The offer is illusory if it in fact means that your freedom of action is hindered at every turn by bosses, owners, and other toll collectors. They all can demand money, or that you contract away your libertarian freedoms, for the privilege of stepping on their lawns. These new gatekeepers of "liberty" can still do stuff like fire you for testing positive for now-legal drugs. If maximizing individual freedom is what you're after, or even securing maximal protection for enumerated freedoms, you should realize that your boss is a bigger threat to your freedom of speech, or freedom to practice your religious faith, than the local police or your local government, don't you? Libertarianism is too selective in the freedoms it chooses to protect, and the people it protects you from."

Reply 15

Trumpo Trumpu

1

Original post by Bornblue

Immigrants don't come for benefits, they come for work. Depressed wages are not w problem for libertarians because 'freedom' or something. The market is always best.

Yes immigrants come with there very low wage demands (google prinarks Uk sweatshop) where migrants was paid 3 pounds a hour which undercuts our unemployed

Reply 16

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

From rational wiki...

"What, exactly, is the goal? The selling point of libertarianism is its offer of expanded individual liberties to do as you please. The offer is illusory if it in fact means that your freedom of action is hindered at every turn by bosses, owners, and other toll collectors. They all can demand money, or that you contract away your libertarian freedoms, for the privilege of stepping on their lawns. These new gatekeepers of "liberty" can still do stuff like fire you for testing positive for now-legal drugs. If maximizing individual freedom is what you're after, or even securing maximal protection for enumerated freedoms, you should realize that your boss is a bigger threat to your freedom of speech, or freedom to practice your religious faith, than the local police or your local government, don't you? Libertarianism is too selective in the freedoms it chooses to protect, and the people it protects you from."

Good summation. It's not really freedom at all.
But even if you accept their view that it is 'freedom' then so what? What use is an a start right to things which socio and economic positions make impossible in reality?

All of our homeless people have freedom to buy a house- what use is that if they have not money to buy one?

Reply 17

Original post by Trumpo Trumpu

Yes immigrants come with there very low wage demands (google prinarks Uk sweatshop) where migrants was paid 3 pounds a hour which undercuts our unemployed

Which libertarians love. Because it's good for the market.

Reply 18

anarchism101

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

From rational wiki...

"What, exactly, is the goal? The selling point of libertarianism is its offer of expanded individual liberties to do as you please. The offer is illusory if it in fact means that your freedom of action is hindered at every turn by bosses, owners, and other toll collectors. They all can demand money, or that you contract away your libertarian freedoms, for the privilege of stepping on their lawns. These new gatekeepers of "liberty" can still do stuff like fire you for testing positive for now-legal drugs. If maximizing individual freedom is what you're after, or even securing maximal protection for enumerated freedoms, you should realize that your boss is a bigger threat to your freedom of speech, or freedom to practice your religious faith, than the local police or your local government, don't you? Libertarianism is too selective in the freedoms it chooses to protect, and the people it protects you from."

You might like this: http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/libertarian.html

"Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade." - Bob Black.

Reply 19

similarBlank

OP