[BATIK]

Extreme libertarianism is based on two ridiculous premises: that the capitalist system could sustain itself without the state; and that unrestricted relations between the capitalist class and workers would grant workers agency.

Both notions are absurd, for different reasons. First of all, asserting that the capitalist mode of production could function without the state is being purposefully ignorant of history and reality. Not only is the role the state plays in a capitalist economy inseparable from its continuity, in terms of [temporarily] fixing the crises of over-production and over-accumulation (see: Creative destruction) and keeping the exploited classes at bay, but also in terms of keeping an economy relevant on the global scale (hegemony, imperialism, scare-tactics etc).

The undeniable truth of reality is that the state, just as it always has, is used by the ruling class to maintain power.

The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The second notion, that unrestrained capitalism (which is just hollow intellectual claptrap), given the opportunity to be solely driven by 'market forces', would allow all participants to have full agency, is as much offensive as it is divorced from reality. To believe that workers have any agency now, with social programs and propaganda coups attempting to axe and shatter revolutionary spirit, is absurd. But to propose that full agency would be realised without the deceiving tactics produced by the milquetoast puppets of the Wall Street oligarchs running the show, is almost hilarious.

[JohnRawls]

You would get rid of all the protections that labor unions were able to achieve as well, right?

That should not be allowed to happen at all cost. This could revive stalinist communism back to life, which is not acceptable. Arguably, libertarianism is the final stage of capitalism that Marx described. While those unions are a quick patch that was thought by People like Bismark and the Co, to prevent the communists-socialists from gaining power.

Unfortunately libertarians are making a prophet out of Marx, specially lately which is sad to see.

[lucky]

You would advocate geting rid of [...]
Fixed for the pedantic.

Thing is, an-caps not only don't want to be in power and take action, they don't even advocate anybody else do that. They don't want to elect anybody to do anything concerning public policy or public goods because that's immoral to them. Their own morality tells them it's wrong to do that. It's a self-defeating plan. Their policy is to moan in online forums about all the immoral violence that is happening to them because of public policy, and to argue about who has the better take on the immorality of this injustice. It's more like a victim complex than a policy proposal.

[AFAIK]

Also: libertarianism is opposed to democracy? No, just no. Read "The Road to Serfdom". It talks a lot about democracy.

Just read it and it seems more reasonable than the opinions on this site. I'm still concerned about the political process though. Political parties are dependent on external funding, which makes them susceptible to co-option by big business and big unions. I don't see how the economy can remain relatively free and accessible in the long term.

I didn't say that libertarianism opposed democracy. I said it promoted plutocracy. If you take the position that the state should play a minimal role in providing housing, healthcare, etc. and promote flat taxes that allow the concentration of wealth; then spending on healthcare will be dominated by a handful of philanthropists who can make their own decisions independently of the public. Or they could by an island in Dubai.

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

Where is the boundary between libertarianism and liberalism?
What is the actual distinction?

[lucky]

Where is the boundary between libertarianism and liberalism? What is the actual distinction?

I think that in the US "libertarianism" means more-less what "liberalism" means in other countries and languages, and what it meant a long time ago in the US as well. Modern American liberalism is more like social democracy is other countries. Detailed distinctions are always a gray area, since American libertarianism and liberalism do share common roots.

I didn't say that libertarianism opposed democracy. I said it promoted plutocracy. If you take the position that the state should play a minimal role in providing housing, healthcare, etc. and promote flat taxes that allow the concentration of wealth; then spending on healthcare will be dominated by a handful of philanthropists who can make their own decisions independently of the public. Or they could by an island in Dubai.

What's wrong with somebody buying an island in Dubai? They provide something in exchange that the seller agent thinks is worth the price, don't they? The seller could of course be a bribed government official, in which case the transaction would be a problem, but then it's a principal/agent problem on the sell side rather than anything wrong with the buy side.

Libertarians have different opinions about tax systems. Friedman was in favor of a progressive income tax, not a flat tax. Those that do support flat tax (I do) do so for reasons of removing inefficient incentives, not because they want to promote a concentration of wealth. That's sort of a different topic: flat taxation is all about marginal tax rates with respect to income, not about the distribution of income. You can well have a flat tax and still redistribute a lot of money to the poor, say by giving everybody a big tax credit that is not income based.

[Rich]

You may be confusing (right) anarchism for libertarianism, AFAIK. The classical liberals did not, in principle, oppose the provision of public services and taxation. What you are referring to above is an extreme version of libertarianism and it's one that I have never come across in real life, but only on this website (where it seems to dominate).

The forum's organisation doesn't help where Libertarianism is equated with classical Liberalism. I've heard Libertarians say no Libertarian would ever support slavery, when very clearly many classical liberals supported slavery. In fact it was Julius Caesar and Lincoln who wanted to limit slavery while the Libertarian heroes: the Confederacy, Cato and Brutus that supported its unrestricted use. If Libertarians can not actively support slavery then Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism must be two utterly distinct ideologies.

Libertarianism is just American nationalist fantasy sold as moral philosophy. The settlers found a land without a people. They created productive farms and towns from untamed wilderness through their own hard work. Trade with the British west Indies wasn't important to the development of the early British colonies. The Dutch of New Holland voluntarily became Anglos and the French and other European nations just withdrew from their North American possessions through free exchange without any aggression or use of Britain's military prowess what so ever

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Where is the boundary between libertarianism and liberalism?
What is the actual distinction?

I think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the distinction well:

2.1 Classical Liberalism

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.

Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).

Although classical liberals agree on the fundamental importance of private property to a free society, the classical liberal tradition itself refracts into a spectrum of views, from near-anarchist to those that attribute a significant role to the state in economic and social policy (on this spectrum, see Mack and Gaus, 2004). Towards the most extreme ‘libertarian’ end of the classical liberal spectrum are views of justified states as legitimate monopolies that may with justice charge for their necessary rights-protection services: taxation is legitimate so long as it is necessary to protect liberty and property rights. As we go further ‘leftward’ we encounter classical liberal views that allow taxation for (other) public goods and social infrastructure and, moving yet further ‘left’, some classical liberal views allow for a modest social minimum.(e.g., Hayek, 1976: 87). Most nineteenth century classical liberal economists endorsed a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization (Gaus, 1983b). Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n). Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

2.2 The ‘New Liberalism’

What has come to be known as ‘new’, ‘revisionist’, ‘welfare state’, or perhaps best, ‘social justice’, liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order (Freeden, 1978; Gaus, 1983b; Paul, Miller and Paul, 2007). Three factors help explain the rise of this revisionist theory. First, the new liberalism arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the ability of a free market to sustain what Lord Beveridge (1944: 96) called a ‘prosperous equilibrium’ was being questioned. Believing that a private property based market tended to be unstable, or could, as Keynes argued (1973 [1936]), get stuck in an equilibrium with high unemployment, new liberals came to doubt that it was an adequate foundation for a stable, free society. Here the second factor comes into play: just as the new liberals were losing faith in the market, their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life was increasing. This was partly due to the experiences of the First World War, in which government attempts at economic planning seemed to succeed (Dewey, 1929: 551-60); more importantly, this reevaluation of the state was spurred by the democratization of western states, and the conviction that, for the first time, elected officials could truly be, in J.A. Hobson's phrase ‘representatives of the community’ (1922: 49). As D.G. Ritchie proclaimed:

be it observed that arguments used against ‘government’ action, where the government is entirely or mainly in the hands of a ruling class or caste, exercising wisely or unwisely a paternal or grandmotherly authority — such arguments lose their force just in proportion as the government becomes more and more genuinely the government of the people by the people themselves (1896: 64).

The third factor underlying the development of the new liberalism was probably the most fundamental: a growing conviction that, so far from being ‘the guardian of every other right’ (Ely, 1992: 26), property rights generated an unjust inequality of power that led to a less-than-equal liberty (typically, ‘positive liberty’) for the working class. This theme is central to what is usually called ‘liberalism’ in American politics, combining a strong endorsement of civil and personal liberties with, at best, an indifference, and often enough an antipathy, to private ownership. The seeds of this newer liberalism can be found in Mill's On Liberty. Although Mill insisted that the ‘so-called doctrine of Free Trade’ rested on ‘equally solid’ grounds as did the ‘principle of individual liberty’ (1963, vol. 18: 293), he nevertheless insisted that the justifications of personal and economic liberty were distinct. And in his Principles of Political Economy Mill consistently emphasized that it is an open question whether personal liberty can flourish without private property (1963, vol. 2; 203-210), a view that Rawls was to reassert over a century later (2001: Part IV).

Considering your comment on plutocracy, you may be a "New Liberal", AFAIK.

[Ambroise]

You may be confusing (right) anarchism for libertarianism, AFAIK. The classical liberals did not, in principle, oppose the provision of public services and taxation. What you are referring to above is an extreme version of libertarianism and it's one that I have never come across in real life, but only on this website (where it seems to dominate).

That's because libertarianism is primarily an American phenomenon, and although it may have spread, it's at its most unadulterated form there. American libertarians, mainstream figures at that, certainly make these sorts of arguments against public services. Just take Ron Paul, for instance. During a presidential debate, this is what he had to say on the hypothetical situation of a healthy young person who decides not to get insurance due to adolescent 'I am invincible!' arrogance, and suddenly he, by misfortune, needs it. Who should pay for it since he doesn't have insurance?

[youtube]8T9fk7NpgIU[/youtube]

Ron Paul is one of the most well-known libertarians in the world, and most libertarians would certainly identify with him.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Ambroise, I see your point, but there are quite a few parties in Europe that consider themselves classical liberal (e.g. FDP in Germany) and which are pretty moderate compared to somebody like Ron Paul. The term libertarianism is not really used in Europe, so that might add to the confusion.

[Ambroise]

Ambroise, I see your point, but there are quite a few parties in Europe that consider themselves classical liberal (e.g. FDP in Germany) and which are pretty moderate compared to somebody like Ron Paul. The term libertarianism is not really used in Europe, so that might add to the confusion.

I agree with you on that. Libertarianism/classical liberalism has not spread as far, or in the same form, in Europe, largely due to certain historical and cultural reasons. It's a matter of different forms within different contexts at the end of the day.

[AFAIK]

Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n). Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

I could be a Benthamist. I don't think it would work in practice though. People are much more motivated to pursue positive rights that will have an immediate and direct impact on them than negative rights that are more abstract and vague in their anticipated impact.


I think libertarians can (and often should) be in favour of public healthcare. It is something everyone uses, countries that have instituted it have better outcomes and lower costs than those who haven't and the positive externalities (healthy, low-stressed workforce) are beneficial for the broader economy/ society. Or are my arguments purely liberal?

[Technology]

I'm in favor of all public services that support people. My only problem is taxation, which I consider to be mostly theft (it's more and more akin to an internal transfer when heavily subsidized companies in bed with gov are taxed).

Of course, the answer is to increase the automation of these services to bring down cost, and reduce the taxation needed to fund them, not just slash them and have all public services auctioned to private ownership by companies.

[Phred]

Who should pay for it since he doesn't have insurance?

Whoever volunteers to pay for it, of course. In a Libertarian society, no one will stop you from paying that young man's medical bills. No one will stop you from trying to persuade as many people as you possibly can to assist you in paying his medical bills. Honestly. I swear I am not making this up or being sarcastic or facetious.

The key words here are "volunteer" and "persuade". Libertarians believe in interacting with other humans through persuasion. Statists believe in interacting with other humans through force. Neither side will ever be able to convince the other of the justice of their respective worldviews.

Phred

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I think libertarians can (and often should) be in favour of public healthcare. It is something everyone uses, countries that have instituted it have better outcomes and lower costs than those who haven't and the positive externalities (healthy, low-stressed workforce) are beneficial for the broader economy/ society. Or are my arguments purely liberal?

Here is an article by a contemporary American libertarian who disagrees with Hayek. Some of Hayek's quotes from within:

There is nothing in the basic principles of liberalism to make it a stationary creed; there are no hard-and-fast rules fixed once and for all.

[...]

Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire.

There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained . . . security against severe physical privation the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance . . . should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. . . . There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody.18

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.31

The position of European classical liberals is, as a general rule, close to Hayek.

[Rich]

Libertarians believe in interacting with other humans through persuasion. Statists believe in interacting with other humans through force.

Oh so if someone killed your children as a Libertarian you wouldn't even consider using force against them or asking the government to use force on your behalf? You'd just try and persuade them to not do it again.

[AFAIK]

You have confused libertarianism for pacifism. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force. It is legitimate to use force defensively.

[mikema63]

This brings up the question, Is it legitamate use of force to revolt against big business on the basis that they used force to steal their position, power, and money using the government?

[Phred]

This brings up the question, Is it legitamate use of force to revolt against big business on the basis that they used force to steal their position, power, and money using the government?

Those are pretty nebulous terms. What does "position" mean in this context? What does "power" mean in this context? Ford Motor Company has no power over me whatsoever.


Phred

[lucky]

Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.

Only if you define "force" in a nonstandard way, encompassing all kinds of violations of rules in addition to actual use of physical violence, rules such as property ownership titles, contract law, etc. And if you do so, it amounts to nothing other than "libertarians oppose violation of their preferred rules", and that is pretty much a tautology true for everybody else as well.

According to Newton's 3rd law, when A exerts force on B, B exerts force on A at the same time

[BATIK]

Libertarians oppose the initiation of force. It is legitimate to use force defensively [in terms of protecting their property]

But what a twist of reality this presents!

Just to throw the view of wide-ranging philosophers on the issue to get some nice articulation on the issue:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

[...]as long as you have private property, and as long as cash money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily. For justice cannot exist where all the best things in life are held by the worst citizens; nor can anyone be happy where property is limited to a few, since those few are always uneasy and the many are utterly wretched.

The division of society into a small, excessively rich class and a large, propertyless class of wage-workers results in a society suffocating from its own superfluity, while the great majority of its members is scarcely, or even not at all, protected from extreme want. This state of affairs becomes daily more absurd and – more unnecessary. It must be abolished, it can be abolished.

Libertarianism is essentially built atop the false dichotomy of magically separating the concept of liberties into negative and positive liberties. But what a specious argument that is! To argue anything but the undeniable reality that one set of liberties cannot exist without the other is master sophistry.

Those are pretty nebulous terms

But it could not be simpler. Again, contradicting undeniable facts of reality is sophistry, cloaked in petit-bourgeois political economy.

Capitalism, like a vampire, sucks the blood out of its victims. When you speak how an employer has no power over its employees, well that is disillusioned. Maybe there is no physical crack and whip, but what about the social alienation?

Although on the surface the worker seems to be an autonomous entity, in actuality he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, in order to extract from the worker the maximal amount of surplus value, in the course of business competition among industrialists.

The worker invariably loses the ability to determine his or her life and destiny, under the capitalist mode of production, when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of himself as the director of his actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define his relationship with other people; and to own the things and use the value of the goods and services, produced with his labour.

Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. . . . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.