What Would Happen if The Libertarian Party Rose?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:This is the only thing you have ever said that I agree with.

If the Libertarian party did gain influence it would only be a matter of time before they found pragmatism and then it just might as well be an other Democrat or Republican party.

Thanks for acknowledging that Libertarianism is not practical.

Big “L” political party not workable. Small “l” ethical framework totally workable.

I make a distinction between the two because one must always be in conflict with the other.

So I am curious in earnest: do you consider it possible to establish a society which conforms (at least mostly) to libertarian principles?[/quote]

I have a hard time with the word “establish” because this has connotations with trying to control something that is essentially uncontrollable – the valuations of individual people.

Libertarianism is based on the nonaggression axiom – aggression is always wrong.

To the extent that people believe the nonaggression axiom is true and act in accordance with it libertarianism establishes itself and what we end up with when these ideas become mainstream is anarchism – the absence of coercive authority. I, however, do not believe we are anywhere near this ideal.

I do believe it is possible to change people’s minds – and thus society – with good ideas through peaceful exchanges like this dialog we are having right now.

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:To the extent that people believe the nonaggression axiom is true and act in accordance with it libertarianism establishes itself and what we end up with when these ideas become mainstream is anarchism – the absence of coercive authority. I, however, do not believe we are anywhere near this ideal.

I do believe it is possible to change people’s minds – and thus society – with good ideas through peaceful exchanges like this dialog we are having right now.[/quote]

So here’s a question: in the event of high concentrations of wealth, when there is a large gap between the upper and lower class (interpret that however you will), what is to keep the lower class from appropriating the property of the wealthy? How does this square with the absence of coercive authority?

63

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:To the extent that people believe the nonaggression axiom is true and act in accordance with it libertarianism establishes itself and what we end up with when these ideas become mainstream is anarchism – the absence of coercive authority. I, however, do not believe we are anywhere near this ideal.

I do believe it is possible to change people’s minds – and thus society – with good ideas through peaceful exchanges like this dialog we are having right now.

So here’s a question: in the event of high concentrations of wealth, when there is a large gap between the upper and lower class (interpret that however you will), what is to keep the lower class from appropriating the property of the wealthy? How does this square with the absence of coercive authority?
[/quote]

A belief in the nonaggression axiom? If the workers believe in this then they will seek to become owners through honest means.

Though to be a little more thoughtful, I do not see a problem with a gap in the ownership of the means of production – which is synonymous to what you stated in your above question.

Someone has to own the means of production whether it is owned privately or by the state. If the state owns everything isn’t that considered a “large gap between upper and lower class” since there must be some class of individuals who benefits from state ownership of the means of production more than others? I would much rather see a system that rewards risk taking and ingenuity than how well some party member plays politics.

In a society where the means of production are privately owned then even nonowners still have the ability to thrive because the owners cannot utilize capital without labor. The owners of the means of production create jobs and these workers in conjunction with the owners create wealth. Everyone benefits because of cooperation.

Moreover, a non-owner can become an owner through his own hard work and diligence. In fact, it is this notion that provides much of the stimulus to work and become innovative. More self made millionaires exist in the US under a system of capitalism than anywhere else in the world precisely because of this stimulus.

In a nonaggressive society it is doubtful that there would be such a large discrepancy between the owners of the means of production and the nonowners. Heck, even relatively nonwealthy people can become a part of the owner class just by buying stock equities – then they become embedded in a system where they want the owners to thrive.

I would also argue that much of the disproportion we see today is a result of corporatism/fascism. The owners lobby government for special favors and bar the nonowners from entry into ownership with excessive regulation and licensing, etc.

Unfortunately, we live in a democratic society where everyone can steal from everyone just by becoming the majority. Democracy and government in general are the real problems. Under this system there is no motivation to work hard since I just have to get the votes to get what I want.

64

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Again, you are talking to someone that grew up 100 km from the Iron Curtain.

Yugoslavia?

Mwuahahahaha!

They averaged about 6% GDP growth for a while, which is better than most capitalist societies can do.

And for the rest, why not build them in a free society?

Why do you nedd government control?

If it was that awesome, schoiuld people not flock to it?

I’m not really sure what you mean here. Elaborate?

[/quote]

IS it ok if I do not trust socialist production numbers?

The problem is that the press is also owned by the state in socialist countries.

Since they started out somewhere in the area of Austria and are still far behind that did not work out to well.

Prof Block has a standard question when someone claims to be a socialist:

What kind of socialist are you, a voluntary one or a coercive one?

In a somewhat free society you are perfectly free to form a collective.

You will notice that some people choose to live in communes yet most prefer not to.

65

I guess, but they had a fairly extensive trade with other non-socialist countries, so it’s not like we have no idea what they did without relying on official numbers.

You know they’re capitalist now, right? And yes, their economy tanked after they started taking the IMF’s advice, you’re right.

[quote]In a somewhat free society you are perfectly free to form a collective.

You will notice that some people choose to live in communes yet most prefer not to.
[/quote]

However, you will also notice that when you propose “collective” policies without calling them that, people tend to prefer them. By which I mean, a less hierarchical command structure, more say in what goes on, etc.

Let me also observe that, for instance, East Germans prefer communism:

Glow is wearing off in the east
[FINAL Edition]
USA TODAY - McLean, Va.
Author: David J. Lynch
Date: Oct 11, 1999

“The east’s depression-level unemployment rate of more than 20% is crippling enthusiasm for democracy and free markets. In a September survey by the Forsa polling firm, only 38% of those surveyed in east Germany said they were satisfied with democracy vs. 60% in west Germany. Only 32% in the east backed free markets. The biggest shock: 51% said they were happier in the communist German Democratic Republic.”

66

Good point! This is the reason the USSR fails the “socialist test” in many regards. It’s also the reason I don’t advocate state-ownership.

But capitalist systems generally don’t reward ingenuity. It’s CEO, stockholders, and executives who make the big bucks, not actual innovators. Scientists and engineers (for instance) don’t make that much money (relatively, of course).

Furthermore, what about situations in which risk-taking threatens the community, such as our recent financial crisis? Should that be allowed?

This is a nice theory, but it never works out unless the country in question has another country or few to exploit (in which case, it still doesn’t work out if you look at the whole equation). Why is that? Sure they need labor, but you neglect to mention that the worker needs a job so he can eat. He doesn’t have nearly the resources that the capital owner does, and I think it’s dishonest to deny the fact that this gives the owner a huge advantage at the bargaining table. That’s why there are unions in the first place, because negotiation isn’t conducted on equal footing.

But the owners benefit more, right?

Ignoring the fact that this rarely ever happens, I think you have to take into consideration the conditions which allow it to happen. A person from a poor family, with no education is very unlikely to grow up to chair Goldman Sachs. Moreover, this was not the case even here in the US until we had several de facto colonies from which to extract resources, meaning our capitalists didn’t have to squeeze our citizens quite as hard.

That doesn’t follow. I think that statement is backwards: there must not be a large discrepancy in order for it to be a non-aggressive society.

But this is a consequence of capitalism, which, since it inherently tends toward monopoly, it’s only a matter of time until the wealthy take over the state apparatus. Furthermore, even if the government is kept small, they just begin to do it on their own. Rockefeller and other robber barons were ruthless in destroying competition. Rockefeller was even able to point-blank order railroad companies not to carry his competitors’ oil. No government required.

67

“Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability.”
-Ludwig Von Mises

68

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability.”
-Ludwig Von Mises
[/quote]

Wow. A Mises quote. That’s authoritative.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
So I am curious in earnest: do you consider it possible to establish a society which conforms (at least mostly) to libertarian principles?[/quote]

It was called the United States of America and it was damn close for about a century…

70

“…It was called the United States of America and it was damn close for about a century…”

I think women, Native Americans, Slaves, and Chinese Railroad workers (slaves)…(just to name a few)…would have a slightly different perspective.

Mufasa

71

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…It was called the United States of America and it was damn close for about a century…”

I think women, Native Americans, Slaves, and Chinese Railroad workers (slaves)…(just to name a few)…would have a slightly different perspective.

Mufasa[/quote]

Maybe, but that was not the issue.

The point was that the economy thrived because of a lack of regulations.

You will notice that those abuses stopped because of the application of libertarian principles.

72

Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

73

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability.”
-Ludwig Von Mises

Wow. A Mises quote. That’s authoritative.[/quote]

He answered your false claim about the owners in one sentence.

You still haven’t even told us what “workplace democracy” is and how it necessarily leads to Utopia.

74

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa [/quote]

The point is not to move backward but to move forward with what we know to be right and what works.

To say libertarianism doesn’t work by pointing to flaws in individuals in this country’s history is illogical.

That was not a flaw of libertarianism but of people inconsistently applying libertarianism.

75

Lift:

Go back to the original comment that prompted my response.

That comment wasn’t looking forward. It fact it WAS looking back to the first Century of this Country’s existence as a “Libertarian Utopia” that thrived merely because of following Libertarian ideals.

That takes a very narrow view on why, and more importantly how, our Country grew and expanded.

Mufasa

76

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.
[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t know about that. You see, for those people who look like me, it wasn’t an issue. Thus, for me, it isn’t an issue.

77

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa [/quote]

It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

78

[quote]orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

[/quote]

lol. Yes! Everything good = because of libertarian principles.

How was the capital/worker back in those days? Lots of bulldozers to dig trenches and machines to pick cotton? And why would an organization choose capital over labor if labor costs were lower? Hell, what did the southerners at the time say about what would happen to their economy without slavery?

No, you should definitely choose a different angle from which to argue that libertarianism saved slaves and women. Good luck writing history to fit your ideology.

79

I didn’t say that Capitalism worked because of slavery.

80

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Lift:

Go back to the original comment that prompted my response.

That comment wasn’t looking forward. It fact it WAS looking back to the first Century of this Country’s existence as a “Libertarian Utopia” that thrived merely because of following Libertarian ideals.

That takes a very narrow view on why, and more importantly how, our Country grew and expanded.

Mufasa[/quote]

Society thrives best where there is peace, freedom, and trade. This does not imply a Utopia.

It is not a word that brings these ideals about but rather human action. We could use any word we wanted to contain these ideas. However, it is not just a semantical argument we are making.

To the extent that we can promote the ideals themselves we do not care what it is called.