[Eran]

This is the problem I have with libertarianism, the intelligent individual can be easily sidelined by the masses, as there is little incentive for them to pursue higher long term goals, its in their nature, when you look throughout history.

Anybody worried about being sidelined by the masses should be an strong supporter of libertarianism. Only libertarianism maximally safeguards individuals against those masses of which you are concerned. In any non-libertarian system, the intelligent individual is, to some degree, subject to the decrees of politicians which, in turn, invariably appeal to and try to appease the "masses".

Thus I am forced to subsidise, through my TV License, the junk that is emitted by BBC 1.

In a libertarian system, individuals are much more capable of pursuing the local environment, interests and culture that suits them, with much less regard to the "masses".

You also seem to mistake the nature of libertarianism. Libertarians object to the use of coercion (primarily but not exclusively through government action). They do not, however, object to the use of education and persuasion. If you are concerned about decline in culture, you are most welcome, in the context of a libertarian society, to contribute to and become an active participant in societies, groups and organisations dedicated to that goal. Contribute money to free productions of Shakespeare, open-air classical music concerts, opening museums to school-children, etc.

The idea that promoting the use of government power, especially in the context of a democratic society, to fight against the forces of popular culture is deeply mistaken.

The question i pose is; would a libertarian "system" would force a generational line of thinking, that would either render the parents of that child stamping out such behaviour, of the child themselves, would overtime see the effects of such a way of life and thinking and be made to change such a debauched life.

A libertarian system, by removing various subsidies for irresponsible behaviour, would tend to reduce incidences of such behaviour. It wouldn't "force" anybody to behave responsibly - merely make them face the actual consequences of their choices, something that a government is evidently and predictably, failing to do.

There may be a reply to this along the lines of "people should be free to do whatever they want", but lets face it, even in democratic systems, only a certain level of freedom exists, even in a state of anarchy; you would be perpetually forced to abide by a popular consensus or the rules of nature.

People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate other people's rights. That caveat makes members of a libertarian society much less susceptible to the influence of the majority.

[Rich]

Only libertarianism maximally safeguards individuals against those masses of which you are concerned.

And when can I meet Mr Libertarianism, he sounds like a wonderful guy. First off all we have the no true Libertarian fallacy. But even when Libertarians accept each other as legitimate, they disagree on such basic matters as is abortion murder?

You see your system requires the large majority to become Libertarian. But this is impossible because the large majority are incapable of fully understanding Libertarianism. I can understand your system as I can understand most systems, even if I profoundly disagree with them. At the best the majority will only ever play lip service to a sophisticated ideology. they are left prone to their own prejudices and the incitement of demigods, even if they wanted to act in good faith.

The point about the founders and slavery is not that mass slavery would immediately be on the agenda of say most local White communities in America. The point is how even intelligent people can marry just about any action to any set of principles if their is sufficient disadvantage to abstaining from such action. What about the less intelligent person who never really understood the principles in the first place? Its not just classical Liberalism, take Christianity. I defy any fair reading of the New Testament to be compatible with slave owning. But did that stop anyone? The Atlantic slave trade proved to be entirely compatible with Jesus's teachings. Even if the majority of the population did accept the Non Aggression Principle I would guarantee there would be no action that would be incompatible with it. if their was sufficient desire.

Eran you sound exactly like Lenin in "State and Revolution" except in that the magical power to create this land of milk and honey where the lamb lies down with the lion is attributed to the armed workers as opposed to the mysterious entity of Libertarianism. How wonderful I can embrace the future with out fear, if the world moves in a Libertarian direction, because if my rights are not protected, if I am ever oppressed by the bigotry and ignorance of the collective I can rest assured that its not true Libertarianism.

[lucky]

And when can I meet Mr Libertarianism, he sounds like a wonderful guy.

I love this quote.

Eran created his own bubble that he's living in and is painting a cartoon, self-contradictory image of libertarianism as a magical "system", a public policy without bothering to run a public policy.

It's nothing like the actual libertarianism is the real world, which is, more prosaically, not a "system", not a different world, but a set of views on how to modify public policy through the tools of public policy (called the government), just like any other set of political views that clash in the democratic process called politics.

It's no big deal, it's fun to read his crazy ideas. It's only a problem because he tarnishes other libertarians with this brush, being so persistent in the forums. "Libertarians this, libertarians that", and everybody starts to think that's what the word means. When called out on it, he will agree and officially declare himself an anarcho-capitalist or a volutarist or whatever, but only until he posts in another thread.

[SE23]

Surely you only want to settle for libertarianism or socialism, anything in between is futile. Market regulation just benefits the big businesses more than anyone else, especially those who have motivation or a innovative spirit; and a semi controlled free market, will just annoy the socialists, as big businesses still are the top dogs, and have influence in the political sphere.

Thanks for your post Eran it was very informative.

[Someone5]

I have been studying libertarianism for a while now, economically it seems to make the most sense

It does? Right-wing Libertarianism's economic proscriptions strike me as kind of insane.

and pushes through paradigms of thought which are simplistically ingrained into us.

"I've got mine Jack, you can go twist." Probably not the most useful paradigm for building a society.

Welfare state benefiting poor people, minimum wage benefiting poor people for example.

Both of those do, in fact, benefit everyone--at least in the short term. There is some worthy debate about whether welfare is really just a way to keep the poor from organizing themselves and overthrowing their oppressive rulers... but from a practical standpoint people do need to eat and welfare lets that happen.

Although in some aspects libertarians appear spot on regarding economics,

Such as?

It appears that eventually the free market will always lead to degenerate culture eventually being consumed by the masses, people choosing Miley Cyrus over Bach for example. Although a libertarian system in place, would push people to go deeper, and understand the complexities of life, as they will be faced with the harshness and beauty of a more natural system;

Pretty sure they'll be too busy slaving away for the boss in the company town for 14 hours a day to bother with Bach.

Over time when wealth is generated to a high level, and a middle class is formed; what would stop them from becoming morally narcissistic and make demands that go against the principles that led them to have such prestige.

Libertarian economic planning does, in fact, lead to the destruction of the middle class.

To cut it shorter and to get straight to the point, how can we prevent the eventual decline of the populace if there is no overarching authority directing them.

Authority is the problem--right-wing libertarianism glorifies the ascendancy of private tyranny.

I believe in the power of the people and the power of the individual, yet the individual seems to require dominance over the masses, otherwise they will be burnt at the stake for presenting an idea uncommon to them.

A genuinely free population has no particular reason to beat down the unusual. But in a highly competitive society, such a deviant is a material and social threat that individuals must confront.

[Joe Liberty]

"I've got mine Jack, you can go twist." Probably not the most useful paradigm for building a society.

That's not libertarianism. Frankly, it's disingenuous to conflate refusing to force strangers to pay for the responsibilities of others with "you can go twist", there is a huge difference between those two things. Charity is not charity if it's accomplished at gunpoint, and playing fast and loose with the language doesn't change that.

Both of those do, in fact, benefit everyone--at least in the short term.

Key words: short term. In the long term they only give more power to, and foster dependence upon, government.

Libertarian economic planning does, in fact, lead to the destruction of the middle class.

"In fact"? There is no fact there, it's an opinion.

Authority is the problem--right-wing libertarianism glorifies the ascendancy of private tyranny.

Up is down, right is left, war is peace...

[Eran]

And when can I meet Mr Libertarianism, he sounds like a wonderful guy. First off all we have the no true Libertarian fallacy. But even when Libertarians accept each other as legitimate, they disagree on such basic matters as is abortion murder?

It would be strange indeed if all libertarians agreed on everything. Especially when you understand the proper nature of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is paralleled not by liberalism or conservatism (the analogues usually contrasted with it), but rather with the much broader worldview of Constitutional Democracy.

Constitutional Democracy advocates a political system in which majority opinion, expressed through representatives, may have broad, but not unlimited, scope in setting rules within society.

Libertarianism, in contrasts, advocates a political system in which property rights dominate as the source of legitimate use of force and government, if it exists at all, has a very limited scope of action.

Just as Constitutional Democrats differ on a very wide range of issues (including, of course, abortion), so one should expect libertarians to hold a very diverse set of views on many issues. They primarily agree on the point that government's legitimate role in society is limited or non-existent.

You see your system requires the large majority to become Libertarian. But this is impossible because the large majority are incapable of fully understanding Libertarianism.

Just as Constitutional Democracy requires the large majority to become Constitutional Democrats. When that doesn't happen, you see scenes like those of today's Egypt. As for understanding Libertarianism, that is actually much easier than understanding Constitutional Democracy. The only problem is that today's society suffers form status-quo bias. People have grown up being told that government is essential for most everyday functions in society. Naturally, people believe that. But then a few hundred years ago, people firmly and virtually universally believed that the Catholic Church is essential for many everyday functions of society. Or that Kings have a Divine Right to rule. Or that women are naturally inferior to men. Or that slavery is natural and acceptable.

Eran created his own bubble that he's living in and is painting a cartoon, self-contradictory image of libertarianism as a magical "system", a public policy without bothering to run a public policy.

Actually, my views are entirely and perfectly consistent, whereas those of non-anarchist libertarians tend to be self-contradictory. For example, most libertarians agree that government tends to provide inferior solutions to a variety of social needs such as education, health-care and product regulation. Yet non-anarchist libertarians somehow still hold that when it comes to enforcement of property rights, one of the most important services within society, government is the only way to go. Who is self-contradictory?

It's nothing like the actual libertarianism is the real world, which is, more prosaically, not a "system", not a different world, but a set of views on how to modify public policy through the tools of public policy (called the government), just like any other set of political views that clash in the democratic process called politics.

My views and those of "actual libertarians" match on questions of current policy. In these forums, I tend to present the longer-term, radical perspective.

It's only a problem because he tarnishes other libertarians with this brush, being so persistent in the forums.

That's a valid point. I'm sure there are many people who would be attracted to milder, compromising libertarian views, but scared away by my more radical pronouncements. Within the libertarian movement, there is room for a whole spectrum of views. I would love for you or others to vocally and persuasively represent the more moderate side of the libertarian movement.

Surely you only want to settle for libertarianism or socialism, anything in between is futile. Market regulation just benefits the big businesses more than anyone else, especially those who have motivation or a innovative spirit; and a semi controlled free market, will just annoy the socialists, as big businesses still are the top dogs, and have influence in the political sphere.

Interestingly, this is the view expressed very clearly by Ludwig von Mises (who, btw, wasn't an anarchist, but rather a classical liberal). He referred to the practice of market regulation as Interventionism, and showed how it is both self-defeating (in the sense of logically leading to results different from those espoused by their backers) and inevitably leading to socialism (through progressively deeper and deeper levels of intervention).

but from a practical standpoint people do need to eat and welfare lets that happen.

And yet before welfare, people didn't actually starve. I have recently watched a BBC program in which several current recipients of various kinds of welfare assistance have, for one week, been required to be subject to the rules of the Welfare State as they existed in 1949, the year in which welfare was introduced in Britain. It was very instructive, as the early promoters of welfare were keenly aware of its corrupting potential. Too bad later generations forgot that.

By your logic, pre-1949 Britain was characterised by people starving in the streets. It wasn't.

But in a highly competitive society, such a deviant is a material and social threat that individuals must confront.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with whether society is highly competitive or not. Socialist or social-democratic societies can be just as highly-competitive.

What characterises libertarianism is that, to the extent that people are highly-competitive, the only means for them to compete is through superior cooperation and satisfaction of consumer preferences. In other words, people can only compete by producing more economic value. Contrast that with any other society in which highly-competitive people often use (or become part of) the political system in which competitive drives are satisfied through the use of force.

[lucky]

Actually, my views are entirely and perfectly consistent, whereas those of non-anarchist libertarians tend to be self-contradictory. For example, most libertarians agree that government tends to provide inferior solutions to a variety of social needs such as education, health-care and product regulation. Yet non-anarchist libertarians somehow still hold that when it comes to enforcement of property rights, one of the most important services within society, government is the only way to go. Who is self-contradictory?

Without going into specific policies: there is nothing self-contradictory about statements "it's good when government does X" and "it's not good when government does Y". These statements are not opposites of each other.

On the contrary, the reasoning that "it's not good when government does A, B, C" must automatically imply "it's not good when government does D" or else it's a contradiction, is an example of a fallacy that probably has a name, perhaps "faulty generalization".

[Eran]

Libertarians do not just point out why it is bad that government performs specific function. They often (correctly) identify general reasons why government provision of services is inefficient. Those include the monopoly aspect of government provision, its lack of specific accountability, its inability to compare cost and benefits, etc.

All those general arguments against government provision of services apply equally for the function of property right protection.

On the deontological side, libertarians often (correctly) identify violations of property rights as moral evils. Yet such violations are an inescapable aspect of government qua government. Suggesting that taxing people to pay for welfare or agricultural subsidies is wrong, yet that taxing to pay for police protection is legitimate is, again, contradictory.

In fact, every single general argument (of which many exist) used by libertarians against government services applies with equal (or greater) force when it comes to enforcement of property rights.

[Phred]

On the deontological side, libertarians often (correctly) identify violations of property rights as moral evils. Yet such violations are an inescapable aspect of government qua government. Suggesting that taxing people to pay for welfare or agricultural subsidies is wrong, yet that taxing to pay for police protection is legitimate is, again, contradictory.

Not true. We've been round this mulberry bush before, you and I. It is not at all self-evident that the essential minimal functions of government (cops, courts, military) need be funded through seizing money from people against their will, particularly in a large and prosperous society (i.e. the US). Many alternative modes of funding have been proposed over the years and doubtless even more will be discovered over time.


Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

This is great and all, but the topic is about art and culture.

Since great works of art have no market value (i.e. they are priceless in one sense and unsellable in another), how does a system that defines value solely on economic terms make culture valuable to the community?

[Rich]

Constitutional Democracy advocates a political system in which majority opinion, expressed through representatives, may have broad, but not unlimited, scope in setting rules within society.

Constituional Democaracy doesn't advocate any political system. Its like Liberals, they can be for slavery or against it,for genocide or against it. And of course Liberals can disagree about who is to be enslaved or genocided. Iran has a Constituiiional Democracy, although they don't seem to count as Liberals.

Just as Constitutional Democracy requires the large majority to become Constitutional Democrats. When that doesn't happen, you see scenes like those of today's Egypt.

The Muslim brotherhood are very definitely into Constitutional democracy. For them the Koran is the foundation of the Constitution. You are right that a certain level of consensus is required, but the point is that mixed government democracy can survive surprisingly low levels of consensus. Finland after the civil war is a good example. The Weimar Republic is a fantastic example of how awesome pure proportional representation is. It very nearly survived even though for a couple of years maybe 60% of the population wanted to overthrow democracy and institute a dictatorship of one sort or another.

As for understanding Libertarianism, that is actually much easier than understanding Constitutional Democracy. The only problem is that today's society suffers form status-quo bias. People have grown up being told that government is essential for most everyday functions in society. Naturally, people believe that. But then a few hundred years ago, people firmly and virtually universally believed that the Catholic Church is essential for many everyday functions of society. Or that Kings have a Divine Right to rule. Or that women are naturally inferior to men. Or that slavery is natural and acceptable.

Or think of Pakistan where 30 years ago women had a level of freedom that would be unthinkable now.

Your Libertarian ideal will never ever happen, but if it did a very small minority would blow it away.

[Eran]

You are right that a certain level of consensus is required, but the point is that mixed government democracy can survive surprisingly low levels of consensus.

For a while, any status-quo has "momentum" that allows it to last while its opponents struggle. I am sure the same would hold for a libertarian anarchy as well.

The principle, however, is the same. There is, in stable democracies, a very broad consensus over the legitimate mechanisms for resolving disputes. The same would hold in a stable libertarian anarchy.

Your Libertarian ideal will never ever happen, but if it did a very small minority would blow it away.

It may never happen. But if it did, it would be very robust - more so than democracies. Here is why.

In a democracy, we already have a single organisation with both the fire-power to dominate society, and the broad legitimacy to use that fire-power to solve society's problems. From time to time, circumstances (inevitably labeled as "war") come about that justify, in the public's eye, expansion of the powers assumed by the state. A combination of such emergency circumstances and a charismatic leader can easily push society away from a democracy and into dictatorship. Historic examples abound.

A libertarian anarchy, on the other hand, is based, as a foundational principle, on the de-legitimisation of the aggressive use of force. Not only is the use of aggressive force considered illegitimate, but no single organisation has the monopoly over fire-power that makes it a viable candidate for taking over society.

Power in society, in other words, is physically distributed, and culturally very limited.