Libertarianism is a Barbarism

B_bxmuscle

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
53
Location
NYC
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
BX, libertarianism is multifaceted. You seem to be sayng that fiscal libertarianism has gone too far, hence you condemn it as barbaric. But where do you stand on the Human Rights side of libertarianism? Surely not barbaric.

All serious ideologies have appeal. I'm not a conservative, but see the appeal of Edmund Burke's defense of established institutions and practices as "organic."

I'm not a Communist, but use Rosa Luxemburg's 1916 deep critique of the causes of World War I and predictions of its likely consequences as the most brilliant understanding of the subject when I teach on it (as opposed that that fool, Woodrow Wilson and his "war to end all wars).

And of course the Libertarian appeal to personal autonomy and the importance of individual rights is attractive. But I keep going back to asking: WHAT WAS THE REAL WORLD REALLY LIKE WHEN MODERN CAPITALISM WAS LARGELY UNREGULATED? And all I get is more of these abstractions about human rights, etc. My answer is that it was a very ugly, violent place. As long as we ignore that reality, the debate works to the advantage of ideologues.

BTW, it was Herbert Spencer, that great progenitor of what we now call Libertarianism who coined the term "survival of the fittest" around 1850, before Darwin's theory was published, to describe the ideal society of unregulated capitalism and genuinely free individuals, in which the consequences fell where they may. This is who these people are and always have been. We forget it at our peril.
 
Last edited:

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
535
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
All serious ideologies have appeal. I'm not a conservative, but see the appeal of Edmund Burke's defense of established institutions and practices as "organic."

I'm not a Communist, but use Rosa Luxemburg's 1916 deep critique of the causes of World War I and predictions of its likely consequences as the most brilliant understanding of the subject when I teach on it (as opposed that that fool, Woodrow Wilson and his "war to end all wars).

And of course the Libertarian appeal to personal autonomy and the importance of individual rights is attractive. But I keep going back to asking: WHAT WAS THE REAL WORLD REALLY LIKE WHEN MODERN CAPITALISM WAS LARGELY UNREGULATED? And all I get is more of these abstractions about human rights, etc. My answer is that it was a very ugly, violent place. As long as we ignore that reality, the debate works to the advantage of ideologues.

BTW, it was Herbert Spencer, that great progenitor of what we now call Libertarianism who coined the term "survival of the fittest" around 1850, before Darwin's theory was published, to describe the ideal society of unregulated capitalism and genuinely free individuals, in which the consequences fell where they may. This is who these people are and always have been. We forget it at our peril.

Maybe to put it in more simple terms, I think that a libertarian pov completely disregards morals. The purest form of libertarian model would say that the state should not have values other than the freedom of each person to pursue their own happiness (in the sense of the Jeffersonian definition) to the point of not impinging on another's rights. It certainly does not value communal responsibilities. In libertarian circles I am NOT my brother's keeper. That's its main flaw.
 

karoo

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
The main principle of libertarianism is non-agression, that government is the sole legitimate initiator of force, and that no-one may use force, threat of force, or fraud against another. A person may work for, or choose not work for, or do business with or boycott any company they wish; but behind any law, there is the threat of force. Therefore the power of government must be tightly constrained. No citizen can boycott the government. If you avoid your taxes, or even ignore a traffic ticket, and push your disobedience to it's ultimate conclusion, armed people will show up at your door.

Now we're at the point in this country where we can have our property 'forfeited' or our persons incarcerated without due process, where no aspect of our lives is safe from surveillance, and where an elite corporatocracy, enabled by their cronies in government, can commit financial crimes that can bring down entire nations' economies. Those who call this cronyism 'laissez faire' or free market capitalism are either ignorant or intentionally building up a 'straw man'.
 

karoo

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
If you want to see barbarism, wait until we experience the fascist state we are rapidly becoming.
 

karoo

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Only free individuals of good will can voluntarily be their brothers' and sisters' keepers. Communalism compelled by force of law (and therefore the gun) is only coercion. Progressives seem to want to advance their goodwill by invoking the force of government on their neighbors.

My wife and I have worked for the federal government and government contractors. The waste and bureaucratic ineptitude was so disgusting that we sought private sector employment and self-employment at great financial sacrifice, but we are much happier and have a clear conscience.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If you are on the far left or the far right, you know what you've done... you've gone too far. :D
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
In libertarian circles I am NOT my brother's keeper. That's its main flaw.

I think this is patently false. In Libertarian circles, you are free to be your brother's keeper.

In current U.S. Government, you are forced to be.

Just because Libertarians think the government shouldn't be doing something, doesn't mean they think it shouldn't be done at all.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
If child labour is barbaric in 1840 then presumably slavery is even more barbaric at the same time particularly in a country which has declared universal human rights.
Child labor was nothing but an off shoot of the notion that capitalism should be allowed to exploit any resource it felt was exploitable.

In that sense, it is not much different than Slavery. And, Frankly, the fact that Britain outlawed slavery ( at home) yet still supported it in the island colonies of the west indies doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was a feature of the american plantation economy BECAUSE of British influence... not despite it.


The non sequitur, if you wish, is that libertarianism, the very concept of these freedoms and rights, is somehow barbaric.

That libertarians have spun the word "liberty" into their moniker has no bearing and no relevance to any actual "liberties".

In fact, Libertarianism is the belief in the rule of PROPERTY. That individual Ownership trumps the collective rights of those who do not own.

This is anathema to the concept of Liberty... as it allows those who own property more rights and power than those who do not.
True "liberty" is founded in the basic idea that Your freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

This Idea, of the rights of the individual, is the founding idea of the scottish enlightenment... NOT the rights of property owners to do as they please without regard to how it affects others.

The True concept of Liberty- that personal freedoms are naturally delimited by conflict with other person's freedoms... Is the inherent implication and validation of popular GOVERNANCE.

The State derives its entire power and necessary being from the implicit need to ensure that a Community of free individuals acts responsibly in regards to one another's rights and freedoms.

This is why the framers had the Constitution state that government existed to Promote the General Welfare and Regulate Commerce. The reason it has these powers? To ensure domestic tranquilly and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This is clearly the recognition that WITHOUT regulation, Without a central government OF the People's representatives, that these blessings of Liberty would be utterly lost.

THUS, the fact that you own a plot of land in which there is copper does NOT give you a license to mine as you please if rainwater falling on your copper mine runs off and poisons my farmland.

And, regulation would not allow banks to become so large that unscrupulous and/or illegal practices by its officers could imperil the entire national economy.


Libertarianism is the idea that the individual should not be ruled. ANd the idea that if I have property, no one can tell what I may or may not do with it.

This is stupid on its face. In particular because there is only so much land on earth, that humanity, itself, relies on that land for its very existence, and the fact that you, the individual, are evanescent. You WILL Die, and the land remain, to provide for the generations yet to come...
ergo, you can not really OWN it, independent of those who came before and will come after it, but are merely its temporary Steward.
Thus, your rights to what you may or may not do with any parcel of land must be constrained by its overall effect on the land, in perpetuity, and your community, in the present.


Libertarianism is thus exposed as nothing more than an appealing name for the concept of "every-man-for-himself"

And that, Drifter, IS the very definition of barbarism.

Governance and Regulation is necessary.
It is the defining characteristic of civilization... thus everything Libertarians oppose are the very human endeavors that separate Civilization from barbarism.
 
Last edited:

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
60
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
Child labor was nothing but an off shoot of the notion that capitalism should be allowed to exploit any resource it felt was exploitable.

In that sense, it is not much different than Slavery. And, Frankly, the fact that Britain outlawed slavery ( at home) yet still supported it in the island colonies of the west indies doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was a feature of the american plantation economy BECAUSE of British influence... not despite it.




That libertarians have spun the word "liberty" into their moniker has no bearing and no relevance to any actual "liberties".

In fact, Libertarianism is the belief in the rule of PROPERTY. That individual Ownership trumps the collective rights of those who do not own.

This is anathema to the concept of Liberty... as it allows those who own property more rights and power than those who do not.
True "liberty" is founded in the basic idea that Your freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

This Idea, of the rights of the individual, is the founding idea of the scottish enlightenment... NOT the rights of property owners to do as they please without regard to how it affects others.

The True concept of Liberty- that personal freedoms are naturally delimited by conflict with other person's freedoms... Is the inherent implication and validation of popular GOVERNANCE.

The State derives its entire power and necessary being from the implicit need to ensure that a Community of free individuals acts responsibly in regards to one another's rights and freedoms.

This is why the framers had the Constitution state that government existed to Promote the General Welfare and Regulate Commerce. The reason it has these powers? To ensure domestic tranquilly and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This is clearly the recognition that WITHOUT regulation, Without a central government OF the People's representatives, that these blessings of Liberty would be utterly lost.

THUS, the fact that you own a plot of land in which there is copper does NOT give you a license to mine as you please if rainwater falling on your copper mine runs off and poisons my farmland.

And, regulation would not allow banks to become so large that unscrupulous and/or illegal practices by its officers could imperil the entire national economy.


Libertarianism is the idea that the individual should not be ruled. ANd the idea that if I have property, no one can tell what I may or may not do with it.

This is stupid on its face. In particular because there is only so much land on earth, that humanity, itself, relies on that land for its very existence, and the fact that you, the individual, are evanescent. You WILL Die, and the land remain, to provide for the generations yet to come...
ergo, you can not really OWN it, independent of those who came before and will come after it, but are merely its temporary Steward.
Thus, your rights to what you may or may not do with any parcel of land must be constrained by its overall effect on the land, in perpetuity, and your community, in the present.


Libertarianism is thus exposed as nothing more than an appealing name for the concept of "every-man-for-himself"

And that, Drifter, IS the very definition of barbarism.

Governance and Regulation is necessary.
It is the defining characteristic of civilization... thus everything Libertarians oppose are the very human endeavors that separate Civilization from barbarism.
Fuck. I keep agreeing with you.
 

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Child labor was nothing but an off shoot of the notion that capitalism should be allowed to exploit any resource it felt was exploitable.

In that sense, it is not much different than Slavery. And, Frankly, the fact that Britain outlawed slavery ( at home) yet still supported it in the island colonies of the west indies doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was a feature of the american plantation economy BECAUSE of British influence... not despite it.




That libertarians have spun the word "liberty" into their moniker has no bearing and no relevance to any actual "liberties".

In fact, Libertarianism is the belief in the rule of PROPERTY. That individual Ownership trumps the collective rights of those who do not own.

This is anathema to the concept of Liberty... as it allows those who own property more rights and power than those who do not.
True "liberty" is founded in the basic idea that Your freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

This Idea, of the rights of the individual, is the founding idea of the scottish enlightenment... NOT the rights of property owners to do as they please without regard to how it affects others.

The True concept of Liberty- that personal freedoms are naturally delimited by conflict with other person's freedoms... Is the inherent implication and validation of popular GOVERNANCE.

The State derives its entire power and necessary being from the implicit need to ensure that a Community of free individuals acts responsibly in regards to one another's rights and freedoms.

This is why the framers had the Constitution state that government existed to Promote the General Welfare and Regulate Commerce. The reason it has these powers? To ensure domestic tranquilly and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This is clearly the recognition that WITHOUT regulation, Without a central government OF the People's representatives, that these blessings of Liberty would be utterly lost.

THUS, the fact that you own a plot of land in which there is copper does NOT give you a license to mine as you please if rainwater falling on your copper mine runs off and poisons my farmland.

And, regulation would not allow banks to become so large that unscrupulous and/or illegal practices by its officers could imperil the entire national economy.


Libertarianism is the idea that the individual should not be ruled. ANd the idea that if I have property, no one can tell what I may or may not do with it.

This is stupid on its face. In particular because there is only so much land on earth, that humanity, itself, relies on that land for its very existence, and the fact that you, the individual, are evanescent. You WILL Die, and the land remain, to provide for the generations yet to come...
ergo, you can not really OWN it, independent of those who came before and will come after it, but are merely its temporary Steward.
Thus, your rights to what you may or may not do with any parcel of land must be constrained by its overall effect on the land, in perpetuity, and your community, in the present.


Libertarianism is thus exposed as nothing more than an appealing name for the concept of "every-man-for-himself"

And that, Drifter, IS the very definition of barbarism.

Governance and Regulation is necessary.
It is the defining characteristic of civilization... thus everything Libertarians oppose are the very human endeavors that separate Civilization from barbarism.

+1 Phil
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Child labor was nothing but an off shoot of the notion that capitalism should be allowed to exploit any resource it felt was exploitable.

In that sense, it is not much different than Slavery. And, Frankly, the fact that Britain outlawed slavery ( at home) yet still supported it in the island colonies of the west indies doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was a feature of the american plantation economy BECAUSE of British influence... not despite it.




That libertarians have spun the word "liberty" into their moniker has no bearing and no relevance to any actual "liberties".

In fact, Libertarianism is the belief in the rule of PROPERTY. That individual Ownership trumps the collective rights of those who do not own.

This is anathema to the concept of Liberty... as it allows those who own property more rights and power than those who do not.
True "liberty" is founded in the basic idea that Your freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

This Idea, of the rights of the individual, is the founding idea of the scottish enlightenment... NOT the rights of property owners to do as they please without regard to how it affects others.

The True concept of Liberty- that personal freedoms are naturally delimited by conflict with other person's freedoms... Is the inherent implication and validation of popular GOVERNANCE.

The State derives its entire power and necessary being from the implicit need to ensure that a Community of free individuals acts responsibly in regards to one another's rights and freedoms.

This is why the framers had the Constitution state that government existed to Promote the General Welfare and Regulate Commerce. The reason it has these powers? To ensure domestic tranquilly and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This is clearly the recognition that WITHOUT regulation, Without a central government OF the People's representatives, that these blessings of Liberty would be utterly lost.

THUS, the fact that you own a plot of land in which there is copper does NOT give you a license to mine as you please if rainwater falling on your copper mine runs off and poisons my farmland.

And, regulation would not allow banks to become so large that unscrupulous and/or illegal practices by its officers could imperil the entire national economy.


Libertarianism is the idea that the individual should not be ruled. ANd the idea that if I have property, no one can tell what I may or may not do with it.

This is stupid on its face. In particular because there is only so much land on earth, that humanity, itself, relies on that land for its very existence, and the fact that you, the individual, are evanescent. You WILL Die, and the land remain, to provide for the generations yet to come...
ergo, you can not really OWN it, independent of those who came before and will come after it, but are merely its temporary Steward.
Thus, your rights to what you may or may not do with any parcel of land must be constrained by its overall effect on the land, in perpetuity, and your community, in the present.


Libertarianism is thus exposed as nothing more than an appealing name for the concept of "every-man-for-himself"

And that, Drifter, IS the very definition of barbarism.

Governance and Regulation is necessary.
It is the defining characteristic of civilization... thus everything Libertarians oppose are the very human endeavors that separate Civilization from barbarism.

What you just espoused as Libertarianism is more akin to Anarchy. Libertarians aren't opposed to government at all, but a more limited form of government. It is acknowledged that one must have governance to ensure liberty.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
What you just espoused as Libertarianism is more akin to Anarchy. Libertarians aren't opposed to government at all, but a more limited form of government. It is acknowledged that one must have governance to ensure liberty.

Libertarianism is to anarchism as Lite Beer is to Lager. Simply a matter of degree.

Ron Paul wants government minimized.

To what level? They have no say in commerce. No say in property.
Their only acceptable role is running a military that they want to stay out of foreign affairs.... and in ensuring that every dollar in circulation is backed by a commodity that there is not enough of to actually back the money in circulation.


Their theories of "market" are all tied to social darwinism... the idea that the fittest will survive... without regard to the COST of that competition in human suffering or lives.


Basically, the Libertarian idea of government does Anarchy one better in that the Libertarian sees the sole role of government being to PRESERVE a condition of "every man for himself"... regardless of the people's tendency to form coalitions to regulate the excesses of their fellow citizens.

In Libertarian land, no local government would be allowed to have such a thing as, say, building codes, or planning commissions to ensure your neighbor did NOT erect a chromium disposal facility next to your children's pre-school.

Both Anarchists and Libertarians have the same ignorant and idealistic notions about human nature being 'self regulating'-
Sound familiar? Alan Greenspan, ( a former boyfriend of Ayn Rand ) whose economic policies helped lead us over the cliff actually had to apologize before congress for making the "mistake" of assuming business and finance would effectively self regulate.

Here's the crux... If people will KILL other people, with a gun, over $200 in a cash register.... What would they be willing to do to get the $200 MILLION dollars on the board room table?

Answer... ANYTHING... to ANYBODY.

And if we need police to keep in check those robbing convenience stores...
What do we need in place to check the CEOs and Execs who stand to make billions of dollars by robbing a hundred thousand people of their retirement savings?

Capitalism is Self Interest.
But we live in a society that survives thru Group Interest.

Anarchists and Libertarians both ascribe to an concept of social darwinism that they are too stupid and ill-educated to even comprehend.

Human Beings are a social animal that has been able to dominate the world, not thru self interest, but thru our ability to form societies.

Societies, even for baboons, are not every man for himself... they are the repression of that drive to the common good. They are Group Consensus.

The larger the group, the more important and sophisticated the need for Consensus rule over individual interest.

Anarchists wrongly think it would work. Libertarians think that anarchy would not work, but that Libertinism will.
And everyone else is capable of seeing that they are both ideas for idiots who have no real appreciation of what makes humanity great, and what makes it evil.

United We Stand... Divided We Fall

That is NOT an argument for individualism.
Its an argument for real survival based in cooperative self governance.

The US is ruled by a government of officials WE the People ELECT.

That is as close to "self regulating" as the world's greatest power can possibly get.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
You also define property a bit narrowly. Land is only one form of property. Time can be construed as property, possessions other than land, monies, and your own body.

Sure... but that is not what Libertarians are really concerned about. They are only really concerned with land and money.

In Fact, their notions that the government can not tell you what to do with your own body are their primary means to attract young and naive people to their ranks... Who doesn't like the idea that Pot should be legal? ( this is a false dilemma- there is no reason elected government can not legalize Pot And STILL regulate corporations.)

And they love to conflate ownership of, say, a CAR to ownership of anything else ( hint hint- LAND & MONEY ) Their idea being that the government has no more claim to dictate what you can do with your land or money than what you can do with your car.
Get it?... by establishing what everyone agrees to as the nature of something discrete and Impermanent, like a Gizmo you bought at the store, they want to convince you that Land and Money ( wealth) are no different.

But they are different... EVERY gizmo you can buy is temporary. Your car will LOSE value, your gizmo will break down... even your HOUSE depreciates and requires constant investment to maintain its value...

But not the land on which it sits, and not the millions of dollars you can accrue.

Beyond a certain point, Money ACCRUES more money- just ask Mitt Romney- who has no paying job.
It does not make this money out of thin air... it makes this money by TAKING money from other people. ( investments take profits out of companies, or interest from loans )

That makes Money entirely UNLIKE any real property you can actually own.
And like land, it is a limited resource. There is no one making more land. and the real Money supply only grows when productivity grows. (i.e. products produced by actual labor- y'know, that thing Mitt Romney does NOT have to do...)

The way capitalism works is that CAPITAL rules. It OWNS.
It pays workers to work, giving them only a PORTION of the income from business. Workers who then go out and buy goods and services, and only a portion of THAT money goes to workers, who then go out and buy.

At every iteration, every cycle, a portion of money is transferred UP the ladder of ownership. The money from the poor subsidizes the higher salaries of the middle class, and that from the middle class subsidizes the upper middle class, and their's subsidizes the ultra rich.

You see? Its is a CIRCULATION... like rain falling from the sky, it runs in one direction, gathering into ever larger streams, then reivers and thence into the ocean.

It is the FLOW of money that creates work... So money is not the same as owning a cell phone. It is the medium of exchange.


The natural tendency of money in capitalism is to flow to the top 1% or fewer. ALL mathematical models of pure capitalism show that ALL the money will collect in the hands of just a few people and leave everyone else destitute. ( this is what happened in the era of JP Morgan and the other Robber Barons)
The uber wealthy do not have to use that money to pay people to produce... they, Like Mitt, can just sit on their asses and let their money Gather more money than they actually spend.
Without taxation, without inheritance taxes, there is no real incentive for them to give any of their growing piles of cash to poor people to do work... at least , not nearly in proportion to the money they hold onto.

because the simplest way to stay rich is to KEEP all the money you can.

But water in the ocean is undrinkable. It does no work.
Just as with the water cycle, there has to be a force to lift money out of the oceans of the 1% and distribute it as Rain on the highlands of poverty.
So that it can flow and do work.

Corporate taxation is NOT just so the government can make revenue. Corporate taxation is ALL about the LOOPHOLE. Properly contrived loopholes FORCE corporations to re-invest in greater productivity.
The idea is, you don't want to pay 50% ( Eisenhower's corporate tax rate? ) then you take as much of your profits as your stockholders will allow and you invest in growth... new jobs, new products, new markets.

Inheritance taxes are also aimed at minimizing the rate at which all money accrues to the 1%. Great, you made out... you died with 20 billion dollars.
Should your heirs get ALL 20 billion, so they can sit on their asses and watch it grow? Or, hey, isn't HALF enough? 10 Billion? That's a pretty good start, eh?

So- YES government is there to re-distribute wealth. It takes some money form all those who have ANY wealth, (including the middle class ) and moves it around.
In the 1930, 40s 50s and 60s a big chunk of that money went to the poorest workers... the blue collar folks who were building the damns, aqueducts, roads, bridges, electric grid and interstates that formed the backbone of our modern infrastructure.
And that money flowed thru the economic strata doing work and created the entire middle class and the American Dream of home ownership.

BUT, since Reagan, the idea has been to re-distribute that wealth to the top 1%... and let it trickle down...
but to go back to our analogy, that is like pumping water out of the ocean, and the lakes and the rivers and the streams ... and spraying it all into the ocean...

Do you understand, now, why poverty has grown and the middle class wages have stagnated?
Why the past 30 years has seen our infrastructure crumbling as government taxation on the uber rich has been cut time and again?


Money is not like your car, or smoking pot. Money is the Blood in the arteries of our body politic.

And land is not yours to despoil as you please... we have children we are giving birth to who will have to eek their living from that land someday. whether they own it, or are tenants to some wealthy over-class.


Absolutely agitate for greater personal freedom... vote only for those who will represent your views in that regard in congress.

But DO not make the mistake of thinking that all things you can own are equivalent, because the men who HAVE all the money and OWN most of the land? They are not so stupid as to be making that mistake.


Consider the mortgage disaster... They knew full well that they were pushing government to allow them to make loans to people who- eventually- would not be able to pay.
Why did they not worry about this blowing up n their faces?

Because Money and land are not like other things you can own.

here's how their conversations around the board table went...
Lose enough money and the Government will be forced to give you a transfusion- because its the blood in the nations veins.

And hey- Worst case scenario? We got several years of Cash... and then we got to foreclose on all the Land and sell it over again....

Either way, they OWN the things that matter.

Let the rubes smoke their pot and fiddle with their iPhones... just as long as they don't wise up.
 
Last edited:

billybones

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Posts
3,510
Media
0
Likes
3,148
Points
333
Gender
Male
That libertarians have spun the word "liberty" into their moniker has no bearing and no relevance to any actual "liberties".

In fact, Libertarianism is the belief in the rule of PROPERTY. That individual Ownership trumps the collective rights of those who do not own.

This is anathema to the concept of Liberty... as it allows those who own property more rights and power than those who do not.
True "liberty" is founded in the basic idea that Your freedom to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

This Idea, of the rights of the individual, is the founding idea of the scottish enlightenment... NOT the rights of property owners to do as they please without regard to how it affects others.

The True concept of Liberty- that personal freedoms are naturally delimited by conflict with other person's freedoms... Is the inherent implication and validation of popular GOVERNANCE.

The State derives its entire power and necessary being from the implicit need to ensure that a Community of free individuals acts responsibly in regards to one another's rights and freedoms.

This is why the framers had the Constitution state that government existed to Promote the General Welfare and Regulate Commerce. The reason it has these powers? To ensure domestic tranquilly and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This is clearly the recognition that WITHOUT regulation, Without a central government OF the People's representatives, that these blessings of Liberty would be utterly lost.

THUS, the fact that you own a plot of land in which there is copper does NOT give you a license to mine as you please if rainwater falling on your copper mine runs off and poisons my farmland.

And, regulation would not allow banks to become so large that unscrupulous and/or illegal practices by its officers could imperil the entire national economy.


Libertarianism is the idea that the individual should not be ruled. ANd the idea that if I have property, no one can tell what I may or may not do with it.

This is stupid on its face. In particular because there is only so much land on earth, that humanity, itself, relies on that land for its very existence, and the fact that you, the individual, are evanescent. You WILL Die, and the land remain, to provide for the generations yet to come...
ergo, you can not really OWN it, independent of those who came before and will come after it, but are merely its temporary Steward.
Thus, your rights to what you may or may not do with any parcel of land must be constrained by its overall effect on the land, in perpetuity, and your community, in the present.


Libertarianism is thus exposed as nothing more than an appealing name for the concept of "every-man-for-himself"

And that, Drifter, IS the very definition of barbarism.

Governance and Regulation is necessary.
It is the defining characteristic of civilization... thus everything Libertarians oppose are the very human endeavors that separate Civilization from barbarism.

This is exactly right. Very plainly and damningly put forth. The 'every man for himself" mantra is one that makes perfect sense, but goes out the window when the person prefessing it is the one who has suddenly suffered the ill of it.

My friends who are cops, sadly, seem to be the ones who understand this the LEAST of everyone I have encountered with this debate. Up until this post, the entire thread showed exactly the problem with this line of thinking. Hands off my medicare! I'm a Ron Paul republican! The post office isn't turning a profit! We need more military spending! Obama is a socialist! I'm glad someone was finally able to comprehend the question being asked by the member who started this thread.
 

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
535
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I think this is patently false. In Libertarian circles, you are free to be your brother's keeper.

In current U.S. Government, you are forced to be.

Just because Libertarians think the government shouldn't be doing something, doesn't mean they think it shouldn't be done at all.


In a truly egalitarian and compassionate culture people would help and support each other. But it most societies this is left up to the charity system which is incomplete and usually run by religious organizations. The real question then is: do we as human beings have some moral (not religious) obligation to help others or should we simply let them wallow in their own poverty and helplessness?
 

billybones

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Posts
3,510
Media
0
Likes
3,148
Points
333
Gender
Male
In a truly egalitarian and compassionate culture people would help and support each other. But it most societies this is left up to the charity system which is incomplete and usually run by religious organizations. The real question then is: do we as human beings have some moral (not religious) obligation to help others or should we simply let them wallow in their own poverty and helplessness?

Huey Long is a hero of mine in respect to the question of charity v responsability.

"How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let 1 man take off the table what's intended for 9/10s of the people?"

Charity is a dicey term in regards to what is needed by others. The idea that so many are poor because they're waiting on the government or a warm feeling in the heart of their neighbor to provide them with a means to feed themselves or educate their children is another notion that is terribly misrepresented by the idea of libertarian charity. The notion of charity is little more than pity to the man that walked up to that table and took 9/10 of the food that was meant for everyone. The sad reality of how easy it is to convince the 9/10 of the people that their "liberties" are some how infringed upon by questioning the greed of that one man and his actions is the true measure of the sick state of modern politics in America.
 

Upperdown

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Posts
198
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Internet History Sourcebooks "The Defense of Laissez-Faire", 1840

French philosopher Bernard Levy famously called 20th century Communism "Barbarism with a Human Face" back in 1977. That's inspired me to critique what we now call Libertarianism as an old barbarism disguised under a new name.

It was called "Social Darwinism" for most of the 20th century thanks to Richard Hofstadter’s “Social Darwinism in American Thought” (1944). Francois Quesnay coined the term “laissez-faire” to describe it in the mid-18th century, but that name was popularized by J-B Say during his popularization of Adam Smith in France after the French Revolution (he’s also sometimes credited with “Say’s Law” aka “the Law of Markets”). “Libertarianism” came into vogue by the 1970s in the U.S. to reclaim these ideas from the label of “Social Darwinism.”

Like most modern barbarisms, Libertarianism has ideological appeal. What most of its defenders or critics don’t address is the real world, real life experiences that these ideas produced. The link above is to an 1840 UK newspaper that was vigorously opposing proposed legislation to regulate (not even end!) child labor in the textile industry, which employed large number of children as young as 8 or 9 for specific tasks in which industrial accidents were routine. It has all the same old arguments that Libertarians/Social Darwinists use to this day to promote their particular barbarism of unfettered capitalism: Freedom! Liberty! Parental and Personal Responsibility! Government ALWAYS causes more problems than it solves when it tries interferes! Legislation should REMOVE interference, not add to it. See it for yourself.

The Social Darwinists/Libertarians haven’t come up with one new idea since. It was wrong then and wrong now. Civilized people should not fall into the trap of debating barbarisms of any form purely on the ground of abstract theory. As the British say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!! We know of Stalin’s camps, let’s look at what these other types of barbarians have wrought.
I read this and felt the need to comment: You are completely ill-informed and ignorant on the matter which you speak.
I intend no insult.

How do I know you're ill-informed and ignorant: the terms you throw around are relative yet you present them as objective. Example: barbarisms. This word is functionally meaningless and practically useless. You do betray in the use of the word a sense of superiority, elitism, and condescension. Further, your understanding of cause and effect, history, and alternatives is severely lacking.

When sniffing out partisans it is always useful to begin looking for opinions presented as facts. First among which is your claim '“Libertarianism” came into vogue by the 1970s in the U.S. to reclaim these ideas from the label of “Social Darwinism.”' The name 'Libertarian' was in existence long before the 1970's, and libertarian ideas were "in vogue" long before the 1970's; leaving you with a gap of credibility. In fact, popular libertarian thought can be traced to the 18th century, before Darwin existed. Making, at the very least, Hofstadter's phrase inaccurate. In fact, no Libertarian I have ever known or heard of was advocating for using the term "Libertarian" as a way of moving away from the term Social Darwinist; a simple minded insult from Socialist propaganda. Keeping in mind that Hofstadter was a political propagandist and has been mostly discarded by all but those clinging to leftist/communist ideology.

A primer on child labor:
Child labor (as you describe it) has been a norm throughout history only ending in some countries/areas in the most recent century. In many countries today the idea that a person younger than 12 can't work because it's wrong would draw hardy laughs. Why? Not every country is as prosperous as the West and families and villages need the production of that child labor. Many other societies (and this goes back to your elitism and ignorance) do not believe children (of the age specified) should "play" and "be children." Modern day India is a prime example:

After about four or five years of indulgence, children typically experience greater demands from family members. In villages, children learn the rudiments of agricultural labor, and young children often help with weeding, harvesting, threshing, and the like. Girls learn domestic chores, and boys are encouraged to take cattle for grazing, learn plowing, and begin to drive bullock carts and ride bicycles. City children also learn household duties, and children of poor families often work as servants in the homes of the prosperous. Some even pick through garbage piles to find shreds of food and fuel. - India - Life Passages citing the Library of Congress.

Your claim of libertarians being responsible for child labor couldn't possibly be true for child labor in India. In like form your premise that a nation in the midst of modernization a century and a half ago was using child labor because libertarians had somehow eroded protections afforded to them prior would be baseless. Child labor in the UK was as common place in the 1740's as it was in the 1840's, having nothing to do with political philosophy and everything to do with practicality, societal norms, and tradition. Had Libertarian thought "wrought" the children working in factories in the UK? Simply, no. Did a free-market oriented publication defend child labor on the grounds of humanity, yes. And they were right.

Further there would be a divergence from your claimed premise of the libertarians and what was happening in the UK. Libertarians, at the most fundamental level, believe that you cannot coerce another into action. Meaning that the forces playing on those children to seek employment in dangerous factories was their own. Of course in 1840's London there were some realities to content with: many parents were sending their children to the factories (as you see happening in India and China today) because they could earn a significant wage. Those children didn't choose to work there, they were forced by their parents or desire for food and shelter (wage). That sounds atrocious if you have no understanding of the alternatives: unemployment or agricultural life. While romanticized in modern American society, agricultural life was vicious, unrewarding, and difficult to the point of severely shortening one's life. Unemployment could be terminal within weeks or months. Several modern studies (Kaushik Basu and Pham Hoang Van's (1998),Doepke and Zilibotti 2009) have tracked the results of campaigns to boycott certain child labor products. Obviously altruism, again, covered the eyes of the well-meaning. These children were laid off as a result of the boycott. As you can imagine those children promptly went back to school, safe homes, playing in fields and loving families. Well, that would have been the intention but the reality was that many walked out of the factory with nowhere to go. Most turned to prostitution, begging, crime, unregulated jobs, and scavenging through trash piles. Leaving us with another instance of 'unintended consequences.' While those boycotting the child labor had meant to save the children from arduous labor in the factories their fix ended up being worse than the original problem. Ironically, if you wanted to stop child labor you would pay MORE for their products. This would make the child more in demand, meaning they could demand a higher wage or better conditions.

There is so much more, but I have become bored.