Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

What's wrong with Libertarianism?

Scroll to see replies

You don't need to be a "libertarian" as such to believe that. You could be a socialist and think that for example.

The economic side of things is a massive part of most political ideologies. The whole socialism or capitalism debate is intrinsically economic. A capitalist believes in private property and ownership of capital that controls the means of production where as a socialist believes means of production should be held in common. A left libertarian answer to your query of the critique of modern right wing libertarian economics is that there should not be "bosses" in the capitalist sense. No one should own capital and private property should not exist. The people who work and produce the wealth should have democratic control over the wealth they produce and how it gets distributed. "Those who work in mills should own the mills"

If you haven;t really thought about the economic side of society you can;t really be calling yourself a libertarian because you don't know what you are yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

username1230881

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 understand and support elements of it, primarily in regard to social policy - the government should not have restrictions on abortion, civil rights etc., and I'm in favour of immigration.

However, there are many elements that I disagree with, as some things do need restricting - this is more of a US issue than a UK one, but having no gun control whatsoever can be very dangerous. In the UK, essentially no-one has guns. We haven't had a mass shooting in a long time. In the US, there are often several a week.

But my biggest issue is that sometimes the government does need to be involved. A welfare state, like it or not, is necessary - otherwise the poor will remain poor, and unable to have social mobility, the homeless will remain homeless, etc. Charity can't be relied upon. A health insurance model may well lead to lower costs for the upper/middle classes, but a single mother, never mind the homeless, simply wouldn't have healthcare. And the US has shown that a private healthcare system leads to profit, not customer satisfaction, being the main motivation. In theory, yes, competition would lead to more efficient services. But just look at drug costs in the US, and there was a notable case recently of a drug price being significantly hiked up, for profit - so hundreds of people, reliant upon the drug for their lives, could not afford it. Competition is great is many areas, such as technology, but for basic necessities like healthcare, the government needs to be involved.

Without taxes, the gap between the richest and the poorest would only increase - the rich would get richer, inheriting more wealth without any income or inheritance tax, while the poor would struggle to improve their lives. Without a government-enforce minimum wage, there's nothing to stop companies paying them basically nothing - but they might have nowhere else to work.

My final issue is in regard to law and order. In a truly libertarian society, even the courts would be privatised, so let's say a working class person signs a contract with a company to, say, fix their roof. The company just takes their money and runs. In our current society, it wouldn't be too difficult for that company to be taken to court. But when everything is privatised, and nothing is paid through taxes, the person would likely be unable to do anything. Big company would win against little person, and while fixing a roof is quite trivial, imagine this was about civil liberties being infringed.

Essentially - aspects of it are great, particularly the social liberalism. But while I understand not wanting big government, true libertarianism would benefit the rich, and harm the poor.

Reply 22

Davij038

Libertarianism believes that human beings are naturally rational beings. They're not. The reason this is so is largely the environment we come from.

Libertarians will counter that those in authority aren't rational either- which can well be the case.

Yet- in any society there will be people who either through natural talents or through allocation of resources will exploit people for their own ends. Essentially the libertarian exchanges one set of elites for another in terms of the corporation.

Government is better because A) there is some level of democratic process and B) must appeal to everyone the way that a corporation can't

For instance, in the libertarian night watchman state, pensions are held by private companies. Now if one happens to go bust, what would happen to those thousands of pensioners? The only real answer they can give is charitable donations. Good luck with that.

Reply 23

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by anarchism101

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.

"You might object that what I’ve said may apply to the minarchist majority of libertarians, but not to the self-styled anarchists among them. Not so. To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who’d abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else. But this incestuous family squabble is no affair of mine. Both camps call for partial or complete privatization of state functions but neither questions the functions themselves. They don’t denounce what the state does, they just object to who’s doing it."

Agree entirely. Sums up libertarianism perfectly. At least the state in a liberal democracy has some kind of democratic accountability that can be used to some positive end in increasing personal freedom for everyone. Where as if you just give all power to the capitalist class they will have even more power to do what they like over the lower classes.

@similarBlank

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

username878267

Original post by similarBlank

That's exactly how conservatism and liberalism is.

Now, I don't pay much attention to the economic side of Libertarianism, I don't know a lot about that. But, I'm talking about the social side of the ideology. It wants to get rid of political correctness and have true freedom of speech, that's why I'm a Libertarian, I don't care about markets.

However, I'm willing to talk about this economic policy. I don't understand how your freedom of action is hindered at every turn by bosses, owners, and other toll collectors? Please explain. Don't bosses tell you what to do anyone? Don't toll collectors collect your tolls anyway? How is this any different than it is now?

Also, in response to people who say I can't be Libertarian if don't surrport mass immigration: a lot of people see Authoritarianism and Libertarianism to be opposite ideologies, however I think they fit together nicely. My Libertarian view is that the government should stay out of our lives for the most part, but is more Authoritarian in the parts it is in, I.e. Emergency services, healthcare, justice system, etc. Libertarianism isn't Anarchism, we believe in having a government and having a strong one, just that it shouldn't interfere as much as it does now. People should be able to say what they like and do what they want with less laws and impositions on us.

Someone said 'homeless people can buy houses but they haven't got any money to do so with Libertarianism'. How is that any different than it is today? Homeless people, under the system we have, can buy houses but don't have enough money to do so, that isn't anything different to do with Libertarianism. In my vision of Libertarianism, homeless people would be helped a lot more than they are now. Whether that's to do with the Libertarianism or not, I don't know, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

You're not a libertarian. You're socially liberal. If you want to help homeless, you do believe in state intervention. That's very I libertarian.
Libertarianism is hugely economic - it's the idea that you just let everything be, have no restrictions, allow free movement of people and basically stay out the markets way.

Reply 25

Betelgeuse-

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.

That wasnt my question.

Its not really markets at work when you have different taxes and higher welfare states across different borders

Reply 26

Trumpo Trumpu

Original post by Bornblue

What about me I am an authoritian on home and foreign affairs but pretty much liberal on everything else. As for economics Libertarians believe in free market dictating everything, I do not mind having free trade deals with european countries but i do not want 1.5 million migrants in England every parliament thus I am voting out. It depends where you are on the political compass I would say everyone up to progressives would back the EU, any further right they want out except BNP, who have always been against the EU. I would rather manipulate the market and bend it to Englands benefit, if it meant stopping a recession. You have to put your own people first. I would define you as a left wing liberal maybe a Green.

Reply 27

username878267

Original post by Trumpo Trumpu

I'd describe myelf as a centre-left social democrat economically but very liberal socially.
The party leader who probably best represents my views is Tim Farron, but in terms of party it's the soft left of Labour.

Reply 28

Trumpo Trumpu

Original post by Bornblue

I'm on Labour's right- pretty much a closet tory, but I can not vote Conservatives I think some of the ideas they have are horrible

Reply 29

Trumpo Trumpu

Original post by Bornblue

Fair enough. Let's just hope Corbyn goes and we can have a genuine hope of forming the next government.

Put it this way, I'd still go Corbyn over a tory, but I would prefer it if a seat became Available and for David Miliband to come back and lead the party for 2020. Burnham has not got the likeability to become a potential leader, very slimey and can not connect with the public like Blair did. Kendall is a posibility but I think she would lose first election and win second time round. I would also be content with Hillary Benn who i think is a great speaker, I would also like Dan Jarvis to be a future leader- the public would take to him.

Reply 30

chelseafan

lol libertarians

"give me muh freedoms"

Reply 31

username878267

Original post by Buymoria

Firstly it is important to note that free and open immigration to jobs is very different to free and open immigration to a welfare state. While there is a welfare state you can't have free immigration - one has to give way.

Secondly with regards to 'trickle-down' economics, I have to quote Schumpeter in saying 'we argue for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them' and say that the there is no such theory - in fact the phrase 'trickle down theory' was first used by FDR's speech writer Samuel Rosenman in reference to tax reductions under Warren G Harding and Coolidge which actually increased output, employment, incomes and taxation revenue as money was previously put in tax-exempt municipal bonds rather than invested in the private economy (Laffer Curve). If you can name a few proponents of 'trickle-down' economics please do.

(Also the phrase 'unrestrained with no oversight' has troubling implications for what it looks like you're suggesting is preferable)

Trickle down economics is a myth. In America something like 80% of the money that is meant to 'trickle down', leaves the economy. Rich people have a propensity to both save and spend money abroad so money leaves the economy, rather than 'trickles down'.

I believe in the market, yes, but one with strong oversight to prevent the evils of it essentially.

Reply 32

Trumpo Trumpu

Original post by Bornblue

I think David Miliband is history politically. Don't think he wants to come back and nor do I think he should be leader. Making him leader imo would be to desperately cling on to the late 90s when in reality we need to be moving forward.

Burnham looks like he's off to be Manchester Mayor for now and after two unsuccesful bids for leadership, I'd be surprised if he goes for it again.
Kendall same.

I'd be happy with either Hilary or Dan. Hilary oozes Prime Ministerialness but Dan Jarvis is up and coming.

David Miliband will create a centre right Labour Party movement - New Labour all over again would tear the tories to a new one. Arguably Benn could do the same and Jarvis with is Military experiences will get public support

Reply 33

similarBlank

This is all very interesting conversation, thank you all for contributing. :smile:

If I had to describe myself fully politically, I'd probably say I'm a Nationalist Socialist Libertarian. Socialist being my economic policies and Libertarian being my social policies.

While, I see your points about economic policies being a large part of your ideology, and thus how can I say I'm a Libertarian if I don't even look into it, I pretty certain I'm not the only person to call themselves Libertarian and not care about their economic policies.

I highly doubt a conversation has gone "What ideology are you?" "Libertarian." "Oh, why?" "I like their economic policies." From what I've seen, most Libetarians call themselves Libetarians not for the economy but to protect near-pure Liberty.

And this can swing both ways; in America, Kurt Russell is a Libertarian and wants to protect his right to own a gun, whereas Clint Eastwood is also a Libertarian but thinks there should be stricter gun control.

Furthermore, Tony Benn was a Libertarian and was against the EU and mass immigration.

Just a thought anyway. From what I gather you all seem to politically describe yourselves based on your economic policies, whereas, it seems, I describe myself based on social, hence where I think the confusion has come from. :tongue:

Economically, I agree I'm not Libertarian but socially I consider myself one.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 34

username878267

Original post by Buymoria

I sometimes worry about fixation over propensity to save because if the money supply is reduced then the purchasing power of money increases (the value of total money is not directly affected by the total supply) or if the money is placed in banks it's then loaned out, then invested, increasing job creation.
(Also if money is spent abroad it is still 'trickling-down' just not in the domestic economy, and is only done because those in a foreign country can produce better products for a cheaper price)

With the last point I'd assume you're referencing either monopoly power restricting supply and so reducing welfare or how capitalism tends to cause wealth disparities. I'd say that monopolies can only remain the single supplier to a market if they're supplying a superior service (Google vs Bing) or if the government steps in to preserve their power through regulations (eg Walsh Healey Act) or restricting potential competition (eg US 500% steel tariffs) and it is important that we do not cripple those that have risen to the top based on merit in order to bring about parity.

But money doesn't trickle down. It leaves the economy and if it goes abroad the people in this country do not benefit.

What annoys me is the fakeness of it all. If you're wealthy and want more money then fine, but don't pretend that you want more for the food of society because it will 'trickle down'- it just won't.

As to the latter point. In 2008 millions of people nearly lost all their savings. Capitalism unrestrained lost $2 trillion from the world's economy.

You need the market, you also need regulation to ensure it doesn't act so recklessly.

Reply 35

username878267

Original post by Buymoria

As a general point if it's being sent abroad electronically there's a tell that tax rates are too high for future investment and tax rate reductions would make the future prospects of investment more favourable leading to more current investment, more job created and as such greater wealth creation.

When you say they 'want more money', how do they get this money? Do the government just give it to them? ('tax cuts for the rich') Or do they earn it and don't want as much taken away in the name of redistributive justice?
This 'trickle-down' theory is constantly attacked from the New York Times to the Washington post to Paul Krugman with Barack Obama attacking the idea in 2008 that 'says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else' but this theory doesn't exist. In truth, implicit in criticism of not crippling the successful is the idea that life is a zero sum game and if one person benefits another must lose out, and shows a lack of interest in the factors that lead to the creation of wealth and prosperity.

I'd say the financial crash wasn't caused by unrestrained capitalism but rather the opposite, a lack of moral hazard due to government interference and the 'bail out culture' and it must be remembered that putting your money in a bank is still an investment and all investments come with risks.

Trickle down economics simply doesn't work. The money leaves the economy. It's so wealthy people can ask for nice tax breaks and not feel bad about it by pretending somehow it's going to benefit society. It won't and doesn't.

The crash was entirely caused by lack of regulation. Banks were giving mortgages to people with no income. They were purposely racking up debts over 100 times worth their wealth. They were let off the leash and crashed the worlds economy. You need regulation.

Reply 36

Sinatrafan

Original post by Bornblue

I'm afraid you've totally missed the point. There is first a general over arching problem of us using fractional reserve banking and banks therefore being very poorly capitalised by design and having very little resilience to market turmoil.

The main problem in 2008 was loss of the free market in the decades prior and nothing to do with regulation. A precedent was set in the 1980s when failing banks (mainly Continental Illinois) were bailed out in the US, this is where the term "too big to fail" was coined. It then happened again in the early naughties in the US with the bailing out of Fannie and Freddie.

The banks and insurance firms were reckless because they knew the government would bail them out as multiple precedents had been set. They therefore could operate in a reckless fashion in the knowledge that their actions were effectively risk free as they were underwritten in an unlimited fashion by the government.

If the free market had been allowed to operate the bad institutions would have gone under and the remaining intuitions would have been more careful and prudent.

The same happened in 2008, once again the government intervened and stopped the free market purging the economy of bad businesses. All it did was allow bad businesses to survive, flourish and once again not learn their lesson. A free market only works when it is free.

On the topic of regulation I admit it can be useful (e.g. child labour laws, monopoly laws) but over regulation is death to small and medium size business. Small and medium sized businesses are the engine of any economy and they haven't the capacity to hire 200 lawyers like big businesses can in order to make sense of the volumes of regulation they must operate by.

As soon as the business cycle occurs people cry more regulation, they cry Keynesianism, they cry government intervention, they cry more central planning. They fundamentally don't realise that these are entirely responsible for the problems in modern economies and create the problems in the first place.

Central bank and government intervention was at the heart of the last crash and is going to be the cause of the next one. Loose monetary policy once again blowing up bubbles that are going to burst. We don't have a stock market bubble like in 1999, we don't have a housing market bubble like in 2007. We now have a stock market bubble, housing market bubble and a bond market bubble; all of which are ripe to pop.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 37

anarchism101

Original post by Sinatrafan

I feel this gets to the heart of the point in many ways. To get an idea of where we're going, what would you propose instead of FRB and other aspects of modern financial systems?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 38

Sinatrafan

Original post by anarchism101

The coming crash is going to be massive, make no mistake about it. There are bubbles in every sector that are going to burst, but the real fear is in a dollar collapse. People are concerned about the amount of US debt, the amount of dollars in circulation and the concern that the US are going to have to inflate their debt away. Since 2008 there has been enormous expansion of the money supply and thankfully very little has transferred into actual inflation as a result.
But I believe inflation is coming and with them unable to raise interest rates to stop it (due to the poor economic growth raising rates will trash GDP) it will run away. We're likely to see a repeat of stagflation from the 1970s.

Look at global trends. The Chinese haven't bought any US bonds since 2010 and are selling their US bond holdings in massive amounts. They are buying enormous quantities of gold (their holdings could be as much as 6,000 tonnes); Russia and India are doing the same. Nations such as Germany are repatriating their gold from the US and moving it back to Germany. As of last month the Chinese are now also fixing the price of gold to the yuan twice each day.

It's clear that everyone is hedging themselves against a dollar collapse by reducing their exposure to dollars (no longer buying and selling US treasuries) and getting into gold.

My prediction is that when confidence begins to decline in the dollar, the Chinese will partially gold back the yuan. People will flood into the yuan because it will be sounder money than the fiat dollar. The aim of the Chinese is to make the yuan the new reserve currency of the world.

The other option if the dollar begins being in jeopardy is for the IMF to step in and use their standard drawing rights (SDR) to try and prop up the dollar. The SDR is in effect another fiat currency made up of a combination of 5 other fiat currencies (yen, dollar, pound, euro, yuan). But the IMF does have 3,000 tonnes of gold which it could use to partially back the SDR and give it some credability.

Whilst a very unfashionable concept I would like to see a return to sound commodity (e.g. gold) backed money.

Every fiat currency throughout history has met the same inflationary death and confidence has always had to be restored with a gold standard. I don't see why anything should be different this time around. People eventually realise that fiat money has no intrinsic value aside from people's belief in it.

Sound money stops massive expansion of the monetary supply, is wonderful in terms of controlling inflation and fundamentally gives confidence to money. Politicians hate it because they can't run enormous national debts and inflate the money supply. But in terms of price stability for the consumer, it is excellent.

We just have to admit that Keynesianism has failed. It has made every nation on earth enormously indebted, has made every currency in the world worthless and has brought us to the scenario where even with zero/negative interest rates and QE we barely have any growth.

In terms of the banks sound money will certainly help but you fundamentally just need to tell them that if they go bankrupt due to being under capitalised that they will go under and not be bailed out. Then watch their reserve levels grow.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 39

Rakas21

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 like the idea of libertarianism and certainly have a libertarian streak in me however i certainly don't ally with libertarianism overall essentially because i consider libertarianism too idealistic and not realistic, even potentially naive. Libertarians have too much faith in the rationality of people to conduct their own affairs and on issues like health (we now have one of the most obese populations in the world) and foreign policy that's down right dangerous. Hell, the idea that the Middle East should be left to it by the west or even the UK is absurd given what we've seen.