Rejecting Libertarianism

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I trust you won't be terribly offended if I jump off long before you get back to the Middle Ages, and you her me laughing at you as you go.

There is something to what you say about humanity devolving since the Enlightenment. As to any theory that the Enlightenment was a product of devolution, not so much...

Why? We don't have to regress in the amazing development that we've had since the middle ages, say medicine and tech. I contend that we would actually advance very much past where we are today...it's possible that we are holding back our potential, no?

I don't mean devolution as in us turning into monkeys. More like humans looking towards the City of Man instead of the City of God.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

As always, you guys prove to be so highly valuable for discussion. Thank you. I truly enjoy just floating ideas on here and having an actual discussion about it.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't mean devolution as in us turning into monkeys. More like humans looking towards the City of Man instead of the City of God.

And is libertarianism incompatible with God? Really?

Put your faith in God, not in man.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

God leaves us to our own devices, and will judge us in His good time. Why, then, should we subject ourselves to each others' laws, when the overwhelming majority of those are designed to ensure that those who pay the most bribes win? And have been since Adam and Eve first proved that even in Paradise we aren't going to obey the rules anyway.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Pre industrial society has its fair bit of merit. Why is population boom a good thing? Have you seen the cities?

The cities aren't in ruins because of overpopulation; the most blighted of the cities have seen dramatic declines in population.

e.g. Detroit's current population is less than half of what it was in 1950

The cities are in ruins because of decades of extremely destructive government policy, e.g.. as relates to welfare and drug prohibition.

Look at the wealth gap that the left talks about so much. Why is that okay?

A. In the OP, you were complaining about egalitarianism. Now you're complaining about inequality. Huh?

B. It's not okay, not because inequality is bad, but because in this particular case the inequality is the result of massive theft (e.g. via inflation).

Industrialization gave birth to marxism. It's not so good in my opinion.

Communism arose in medieval Europe, as a Christian heresy.

The egalitarian impulse is a basic part of human nature. It has always existed and will always exist.

The reason for the growth of socialism in the last two centuries is democracy.

Society becoming wealthier has nothing to do with it.

If anything, it undermines the appeal of socialism.

It's not a coincidence that radical socialist movements get the most traction in times/places where there is extreme privation.

e.g. 1917 Russia, 1940s China, 1930s US

Usury, can you say central banking? I shouldn't even need to explain this.

Obviously, libertarians are opposed to central banking.

Capitalism today is not the capitalism I favor.

What exists today is not a free market economy; the existing system is not what libertarians are advocating.

So, I'm not sure why you're pointing at problems in the current system as if they reflect poorly on libertarianism.

Islamic Economics is very much so marxist, get real.

No, it's not.

There's a Marxist strand of Islamic thought, just as there's a Marxist strand of Catholic thought (liberation theology).

Both are new, and very different from the older tradition.

Traditional economic thought in Catholicism and Islam is pretty similar: fairly pro-market, with some idiosyncrasies based on morality.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing Catholic economics by comparing it to Islamic economics.

Both are false, but both are less bad than mainstream schools of thought dominant today.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, I contend monarchy as well would be okay. As would aristocracy or Republic *not...not what we have today* as Plato talks about. If you enjoy monarchy, I suggest reading Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, it's a free pdf download on Mises.

Take a look at my sig line.

To the apartments. It depends, what does the social contract say? If your town says no guns, and they insist on bringing in guns, you have no right to breach the terms of the social contract. Otherwise, sure, bring him in. This puts the future of society in charge of you, the property oener, instead of just letting the state bus people in.

Are we talking about the imaginary contract that is used as a justification for whatever the state does?

Or are we talking about an actual contract: as in, this is a proprietary town, and the residents are tenants?

If the latter, I'd have no objection.

As I've said with economic issues. I am simply recognizing the issues that distributism points out....though I don't know a good non statist way to solve it yet. Like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, I hold that I'm an Austrian, but I would like to explore the question a bit. I hate neo-fascist globalism. Even Hayek and Mises agreed that free enterprise should be local. Let me ask you this...if there is no difference between 100,000 and 100 options...why is there a difference between 100 and 1? Competition is getting pushed out in all cases.

There's never a shortage of competition in a free market economy.

Monopolies simply do not work.

....unless the government is sponsoring them, which is invariably the case whenever you find a monopoly.

I contend that we have devolved since the Enlightenment. I want to pivot and go back, closer and closer to the society of Adam and Eve.

Not so sure about Adam and Eve...

I'll take Louis and Marie-Antoinette.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

And is libertarianism incompatible with God? Really?

Put your faith in God, not in man.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

God leaves us to our own devices, and will judge us in His good time. Why, then, should we subject ourselves to each others' laws, when the overwhelming majority of those are designed to ensure that those who pay the most bribes win? And have been since Adam and Eve first proved that even in Paradise we aren't going to obey the rules anyway.

Libertarianism is not a centrally established platform. Some is incompatible, some isnt. I put my faith in God, not man, but that is irrelevant to governing Philosophy. An atheist can still be friendly to christian governance.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. Read the rest of the passage. It's about not being a hypocritical self righteous judge rather than not having a judge at all. For example, after ww2, the Nuremberg Trials is an example of abusing justice, with the victors, committing just as many atrocities, we're not tried, yet they were judge jury and executioner for those who had surrendered. Sickening. But, that does not mean they did no wring, that they shouldn't have been held accountable.

God gives us Free Will. Yet our government should follow God's Law *see Aquinas and Augustine*. Our Fallen Nature prove the necessity for Legislation to reinforce that Law.

I'm just not okay with the Murray Rothbard ethics....that since it doesn't violate the NAP, a mother is morally in the right to give birth and then let her child starve to death on the table...and any who may come running yo help the child is in the wrong, as they are trespassing. No no no.

The NAP is a good guideline, but no substitute for morals.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Take a look at my sig line.



Are we talking about the imaginary contract that is used as a justification for whatever the state does?

Or are we talking about an actual contract: as in, this is a proprietary town, and the residents are tenants?

If the latter, I'd have no objection.



There's never a shortage of competition in a free market economy.

Monopolies simply do not work.

....unless the government is sponsoring them, which is invariably the case whenever you fund a monopoly.



Not so sure about Adam and Eve...

I'll take Louis and Marie-Antoinette.

Very nice sig line haha. You're probably quite a bit ahead of me in this thinking, I appreciate you challenging me on this stuff.

Yes, I'm talking about a physical contract. I drafted a form of government about a week ago that combined republic, aristocracy, and monarchy into one. It was pretty cool. I forgot exactly how I factored in children, I think I made a special class of citizen for them, but you don't get full privileges of citizenship until you physically sign the social contract.

What happens when the businesses become more powerful than governments, and they impose their own monopoly. See coca cola and Latin america.

I'm taking the premise that Adam and Eve immediately after the Fall is the purest form of Natural Order we have, everything from there is more and more government. I'd be happy with what you have written for sure.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

The cities aren't in ruins because of overpopulation; the most blighted of the cities have seen dramatic declines in population.

e.g. Detroit's current population is less than half of what it was in 1950

The cities are in ruins because of decades of extremely destructive government policy, e.g.. as relates to welfare and drug prohibition.



A. In the OP, you were complaining about egalitarianism. Now you're complaining about inequality. Huh?

B. It's not okay, not because inequality is bad, but because in this particular case the inequality is the result of massive theft (e.g. via inflation).



Communism arose in medieval Europe, as a Christian heresy.

The egalitarian impulse is a basic part of human nature. It has always existed and will always exist.

The reason for the growth of socialism in the last two centuries is democracy.

Society becoming wealthier has nothing to do with it.

If anything, it undermines the appeal of socialism.

It's not a coincidence that radical socialist movements get the most traction in times/places where there is extreme privation.

e.g. 1917 Russia, 1940s China, 1930s US



Obviously, libertarians are opposed to central banking.



What exists today is not a free market economy; the existing system is not what libertarians are advocating.

So, I'm not sure why you're pointing at problems in the current system as if they reflect poorly on libertarianism.



No, it's not.

There's a Marxist strand of Islamic thought, just as there's a Marxist strand of Catholic thought (liberation theology).

Both are new, and very different from the older tradition.

Traditional economic thought in Catholicism and Islam is pretty similar: fairly pro-market, with some idiosyncrasies based on morality.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing Catholic economics by comparing it to Islamic economics.

Both are false, but both are less bad than mainstream schools of thought dominant today.

I'm willing to agree with everything you just wrote. Perhaps I was unclear on a few things, but your rebuttals pretty accurately describe what I was attempting to say.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Libertarianism is not a centrally established platform.

Well, for the record, here's what I mean when I say "libertarianism."

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I drafted a form of government about a week ago that combined republic, aristocracy, and monarchy into one...

A good way to learn about political science:

Devise a form of government that you think would work well (as you've already done).

Then imagine how it could be broken; what are its "failure modes"?

e.g. one failure mode of a federation is civil war between the member states

Then create an updated version of the design to try to solve those problems.

Then try to break that one.

...and so on and so forth.

You'll learn a lot (I did), and eventually I think you'll start to see the unique appeal of monarchy.

What happens when the businesses become more powerful than governments, and they impose their own monopoly. See coca cola and Latin america.

If anyone ever becomes more powerful than the existing government, that amounts to a coup, with them becoming the new government.

This isn't really an economic problem, it's just a fact of life.

Sometimes governments get overthrown.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

A good way to learn about political science:

Devise a form of government that you think would work well (as you've already done).

Then imagine how it could be broken; what are its "failure modes"?

e.g. one failure mode of a federation is civil war between the member states

Then create an updated version of the design to try to solve those problems.

Then try to break that one.

...and so on and so forth.

You'll learn a lot (I did), and eventually I think you'll start to see the unique appeal of monarchy.



If anyone ever becomes more powerful than the existing government, that amounts to a coup, with them becoming the new government.

This isn't really an economic problem, it's just a fact of life.

Sometimes governments get overthrown.

That's exactly what I did haha.

 

[euphemia]

Until someone disagrees with the principle that everyone should be free. When someone says we should actively support our own enslavement, things get very touchy.

Up until then, there may be disagreement, but it will be a remarkably comfortable disagreement.

I disagree. Libertarians are some of the most ruthless, unkind, and illogical people I have ever met. It's either their way or the highway, and it just proves to me that Libertarians are people who cannot self-govern or apply their own logic to real life.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

And the Jeopardy question is:

I'm not sure Trump has anything at all to do with anything I just promoted...

 

[Ronin Truth]

I am rejecting both, but let me explain.

I obviously believe strongly in private property. Here is Hans Hermann Hoppe on Immigration.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/

When we form a government, it is our government (or that of the Kings). There is no expectation for secularism or to not impose morality. Do we not have a right to live in a town based on a social contract that we volunteer to be apart of? It is not Just to be tolerant of Evil within your own society. Thus self ownership is the private ownership of property, but the public ownership of culture. You don't get to be a radical Jihadi st communist and live in my town. I will not tolerate you. I will not invite you. Check out the article.

As for the NAP, that would certainly be a step up from what we have now, don't hit. But it But why must that be the extent of what is morally enforceable? Adultery destroys the family unit, harms children in development, ect. Why should that be permitted in a voluntary society? I want to live where it is highly taboo, illegal even. I want my government to reflect my morals. So let's break apart the leviathan, and allow me to go live in my preferred society!

I'm rejecting the idea that self ownership and the NAP will somehow save us from the perils of unjust liberty.

It was never the intent that libertarianism was to be, the be all and end all of morality. That was never the design. Why reject it for what it's not and never was?

I'm rejecting the idea that self ownership and the NAP will somehow save us from the perils of unjust liberty.

Does the term "strawman fallacy" have any meaning for you? If not, you may want to look it up.

Go ahead and reject that particular idea. Saving you from "the perils of unjust liberty" (so called [whatever that is]) is/was never the target or goal of libertarianism.

If you don't wish to be a libertarian, then just go ahead and quit. The only person standing in your way, is you.

 

[acptulsa]

I disagree. Libertarians are some of the most ruthless, unkind, and illogical people I have ever met. It's either their way or the highway, and it just proves to me that Libertarians are people who cannot self-govern or apply their own logic to real life.

Charmed. So pleasant to have you join us. As always the height of civility and the perfect guest.

 

[danda]

Please note: I am mainly playing devil's advocate here. I consider myself somewhere in the spectrum of libertarian/voluntaryist/anarchist, so I'm not arguing for any type of statism. But I think there is some intellectual weakness at the base of libertarian property rights and I find it interesting to think about if there isn't a more fundamental truth that does not require a nebulous, ill defined, and state-enforced concept of "property".

Again I would be appreciative if anyone can point me towards any written works that address the topics I bring up below.

--------

The economic justification for private property rights is not at all tenuous.

Any argument based on a desired economic outcome is fundamentally a utilitarian/practical argument as opposed to one based on pure ethics/morality/logic. As I stated in my post.


Now, I happen to believe that the most ethically correct and freedom-maximizing society will tend to produce the highest level of economic activity, productivity, technological innovation, etc.

But putting "the economy" before the individual is wrong-headed, in my view.

They lived at subsistence level, died young, and suffered from extraordinary levels of violent crime in comparison to industrial societies...

I think that is an overly-simplistic generalization. Most of them probably lived healthier lives than most of today. Anyway, it is an interesting question why their society did not advance more technologically. Were private property rights the key missing ingredient? maybe, maybe not.

Force is justified in defense of property, on the libertarian view.

And "property" is a uniquely human concept. An artificial construct. It does not exist in nature, except perhaps that a bear will protect its cave, etc. But the moment the bear is gone, it is finder's keepers. Nature does not need lawyers and judges...

So again, what is the moral/ethical/logical basis for this property? You haven't addressed that.

A. That is not a libertarian principle.
B. That right would be physically impossible to exercise. Everyone cannot be in the same place at the same time.

freedom of movement is clearly a more fundamental (natural) right than property. Every animal in their natural state is free to travel as they please. Libertarians (and I count myself as one) purport to believe in "natural rights".

Freedom of travel/movement is exercised every day by most every organism on the planet. In natural law, the main constraint is physics. No one is arguing against that.

But humans go far beyond the natural constraints of physics and instead add legal/societal barriers based solely on force and fear to keep others out.

Does it have to be that way? no. It's just the way it is. Have you ever really thought about it and questioned it?

The alternative to having rules about that is to have the issue settled by violence, law of the jungle.

Aside: you are correct that the only truly natural law is the law of the jungle. A strong and depressing argument can be made that under natural law (ie any state of anarchy) the strongest rise to the top and this will always be the case. ie, the best we can hope for is new boss same as the old boss. This is exactly what we see today. The very strong, powerful and connected at the apex of society.
​

Another alternative is to become a peaceful species such that one individual would not even consider harming another.

Too idealistic?

Well recall that my first post posited a free society based on the NAP but without private property rights beyond self-ownership. So in such a scenario, basically anything goes up until the point that someone physically aggresses upon another's body. At that point, it is society's role to protect the "victim" and possibly enforce restitution.


-------------

Final thought: property rights are a slippery slope. Let's see what all this concept has lead to:

    mixing labor with the land.
      homesteading.
        ownership of tangible objects.
          ownership of minerals, waters and things beneath the land
            ownership of lakes and oceans
        ownership of intangible objects.
            ownership of electrical frequencies.  ( a property of nature. )
            ownership of ideas.
              ownership of arbitrary written words by default.  ( copyright )
              ownership of inventions.  ( patents )
              ownership of words and phrases  ( trademarks )
              ownership of business practices  ( biz patents )
              ownership of life processes.   ( genetic patents )
              ownership of chemical formulas  ( eg: big pharma patents )          
          ownership of others  ( slavery! )

And I'm probably leaving out a bunch. Each one of these "properties" is a monopoly held by an individual or corporation to the exclusion of the rest of society by the threat of force.

 

[acptulsa]

You're taking rather a rose-colored glasses view of nature, are you not? Intrude on the territory of a pride of lions some time, and see what the laws of physics have in store for you.

To become such a peaceful species that no individual would ever dream of harming another is also a bit simplistic. It also involves no individual dreaming of doing something that would give another individual just cause to harm them, wouldn't it?

'We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.'

 

[danda]

You're taking rather a rose-colored glasses view of nature, are you not? Intrude on the territory of a pride of lions some time, and see what the laws of physics have in store for you.

The lion does not band together with 1 million other lions and divide up the land into tiny sections, and make up all sorts of other rules that you are just expected to know and haul you away to the lion's cave at night if you happen to violate one of them.

To become such a peaceful species that no individual would ever dream of harming another is also a bit simplistic. It also involves no individual dreaming of doing something that would give another individual just cause to harm them, wouldn't it?

Not really simplistic. If it were, I expect we'd have done it by now.

Haven't you read any sci-fi? As a youngster I read several books with examples of such societies. The first that comes to mind is the very advanced morlock race ( future humans ) that built a ring around the Sun in "The Timeships" by Stephen Baxter. A sequel to "The Time Machine".

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Any argument based on a desired economic outcome is fundamentally a utilitarian/practical argument as opposed to one based on pure ethics/morality/logic.

That's right.

Now, I happen to believe that the most ethically correct and freedom-maximizing society will tend to produce the highest level of economic activity, productivity, technological innovation, etc.

But putting "the economy" before the individual is wrong-headed, in my view.

"The economy" consists of individuals.

To "maximize prosperity" means to make individuals wealthier.

So, I'm not seeing the conflict.

I think that is an overly-simplistic generalization. Most of them probably lived healthier lives than most of today.

Not judging by their average life span.

Anyway, it is an interesting question why their society did not advance more technologically. Were private property rights the key missing ingredient?

I would think it was a major factor.

And "property" is a uniquely human concept. An artificial construct. It does not exist in nature, except perhaps that a bear will protect its cave, etc. But the moment the bear is gone, it is finder's keepers. Nature does not need lawyers and judges...

Yes, that's true, but I'm not sure what your point is.

So again, what is the moral/ethical/logical basis for this property? You haven't addressed that.

Sure I have. My justification for libertarian ethics is that only through adherence to those rules can a society prosper maximally.

This is, as you pointed out, a utilitarian justification (not in the classical, Benthamite sense, though).

freedom of movement is clearly a more fundamental (natural) right than property. Every animal in their natural state is free to travel as they please.

Why would the fact that animals lack the concept of property mean that humans shouldn't use it?

Animals don't cook food, therefore humans shouldn't either?

Libertarians (and I count myself as one) purport to believe in "natural rights".

I'm not a "natural rights" libertarian, but "whatever is natural is good" is not what that school of thought is about.

But humans go far beyond the natural constraints of physics and instead add legal/societal barriers based solely on force and fear to keep others out.

Does it have to be that way? no. It's just the way it is.

No, we don't have to use rules to settle interpersonal disputes.

We could instead settle them by brute force, allowing the stronger the prevail.

The quesiton is: why would that be preferable?

Another alternative is to become a peaceful species such that one individual would not even consider harming another.

Too idealistic?

Much

Well recall that my first post posited a free society based on the NAP but without private property rights beyond self-ownership. So in such a scenario, basically anything goes up until the point that someone physically aggresses upon another's body. At that point, it is society's role to protect the "victim" and possibly enforce restitution.

When Bob and Jones come to blows over who gets to eat the apple off the tree, how is it decided who's in the wrong?

The purpose of private property is to answer that question, by assigning ownership of the apple to one or the other.