Libertarianism is incoherent - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Husky
#14345824
Libertarianism, as an ideology, is utterly illogical, preposterous, untenable, cruel and inherently oppressive.

I was previously a libertarian, but looking back at that I'm feeling almost disgusted with my own intellectual capacity.

I realized how libertarianism - every single argument laid forth by its proponents - is nonsensical. The way they condense capitalism and its very brutal history into a one-liner, song-and-dance affair where the free market will take care of things. Disregarding imperialism, wars and strife caused by the triumph of capital. The way they disregard the inherent clash of interests between capital and labour - the way they refer to libertarianism as economic freedom when it would be plutocracy. Their idealistic philosophy is stomach-wrenching, it is not grounded in reality or history. They ignore the role of the state in establishing capitalism, right from the birth of industrial capitalism; they ignore how the state is essentially controlled by the wealthy and used as a weapon against the disadvantaged.

Then there's the practical component. They ignore how libertarianism could never be reached as those in power would never allow it; they ignore the violent outburst that would erupt from workers if such a society was implemented; they ignore the social problems created by capitalism.

Honestly, and I mean this - the most misanthropic ideology I know of - and I used to associate myself with its views...
#14345827
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Libertarian Party? Answer the question!"

Image

#14345830
Husky wrote:Libertarianism is incoherent

In other news, the sky is blue. Libertarianism basically requires that 100% of the population spontaneously comes to accept the "non-aggression principle", and that all human conflict will simply disappear as everyone comes to adore the mystical power of the "free market". In this brave new world, 99% of the population will gleefully accept being made into serfs, and will actively work against their own interests until the end of history, all because it is the "moral" thing to do. Of course, they will have plenty of cheap weed and consumerist junk to keep them docile (which is about the only realistic part), meaning they would be too stupid to realise that they are actually in a living hell.
#14345835
Radical Libertarians are actually my favourite among the radicals in general. They are the only group that would not kill me to bring about their utopia. All others seem to be ready, and sometimes quite keen, to bring about death and destruction, so that the survivors may live happily ever after, or so they say.

But more seriously, and I've said that before, just like in any other ideological group there are extremists who require 100% perfection and consistency, however unrealistic that may be. Most libertarians (and classical liberals) are actually well within the mainstream and far from incoherent.
#14345837
Libertarianism is deceptively simple. I can see why it seems logical to privileged students in high school and college, who don't really understand how the world works at all.

Heisenberg wrote:Of course, they will have plenty of cheap weed and consumerist junk to keep them docile (which is about the only realistic part), meaning they would be too stupid to realise that they are actually in a living hell.

It's like that in the capitalist world anyway. And the anti-drug war/ pro pot advocates will abandon libertarianism as soon as they get what they want. They aren't really libertarians, they only use the ideology to justify their own singular agenda. So in other words I think you've gotten the argument backwards.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:But more seriously, and I've said that before, just like in any other ideological group there are extremists who require 100% perfection and consistency, however unrealistic that may be. Most libertarians (and classical liberals) are actually well within the mainstream and far from incoherent.

This. The vast majority of people who use libertarian rhetoric are only using it to support a specific agenda, rather than actually being for the destruction of government/ anarcho-capitalism.
#14345848
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Radical Libertarians are actually my favourite among the radicals in general. They are the only group that would not kill me to bring about their utopia. All others seem to be ready, and sometimes quite keen, to bring about death and destruction, so that the survivors may live happily ever after, or so they say.

Yeah, this is fair. I'd rather piss off Eran than Rei or KlassWar. (I'm not sure about SecretSquirrel, though...)

Brother of Karl wrote:It's like that in the capitalist world anyway.

Indeed it is. Which is why I'm not too keen on "capitalism on steroids", as it were...

Brother of Karl wrote:And the anti-drug war/ pro pot advocates will abandon libertarianism as soon as they get what they want. They aren't really libertarians, they only use the ideology to justify their own singular agenda. So in other words I think you've gotten the argument backwards.

Well, in those cases, you're right. The implications of a radical libertarian "society", taken to its logical conclusion, aren't much different, though.
#14345852
Husky wrote:I was previously a libertarian, but looking back at that I'm feeling almost disgusted with my own intellectual capacity.
Yes well I have had a leftist deviation in my past that I'm shamed to think of.

I realized how libertarianism - every single argument laid forth by its proponents - is nonsensical.
Really every single one?

Disregarding imperialism, wars and strife caused by the triumph of capital.
Possibly, although I'm not exactly sure when capitalism triumphed or indeed when it began, or that pre capitalist society was less imperialistic, war or strife ridden.

The way they disregard the inherent clash of interests between capital and labour -
I don't think there's any clash between labour and capital. There's a clash between those that have a lot of capital and those that have little or none. But that's a different matter.

Honestly, and I mean this - the most misanthropic ideology I know of - and I used to associate myself with its views...
It might be more enlightening to consider what encouraged your beliefs as a Libertarian. Did you hate humanity?
#14345857
The problem with any ideology is that it is readily misinterpreted if it is viewed through a purist, entrenched and dogmatic prism. Viewed thus, any ideology will terminate in its illogical conclusion, which can universally be derided.

I routinely plot as 'left' libertarian on the political compass. Whilst I know that 'left' libertarian is a contradiction in terms to classic US-style libertarians, it nevertheless reflects the fact that a lot of my responses to the PC and my corresponding views are broadly libertarian. I would like to live in a world where we didn't need to overly burden ourselves with rules and regulations because we could trust our fellow humans to act properly and do the right thing. Meanwhile, back in reality, such pipe-dreams will remain far off in humankind's future and how far off, I cannot tell. Ergo, whilst I am drawn to many libertarian principles I am left in the position that it is foolish in the early twenty-first Century to actively advocate actions grounded in such principles because of the corrupting influence of an immature humankind.

Thus any ideology can be branded incoherrent, because any concept bounded by the limits of the human mind and the borders of human language will be inoperable in the chaotic imperfection of real, human life.

God, I'm starting to sound like onemalehuman
#14345864
Husky wrote:Libertarianism, as an ideology, is utterly illogical, preposterous, untenable, cruel and inherently oppressive.

Funny your accusation is exactly how I would describe socialism or any other kind of statism.
#14346155
The only coherent ideologies are radical libertarianism and oppressive authoritarianism. Everything in between is the realm of incoherence and cognitive dissonance.
#14346210
Perhaps but secretsquirrell is still correct, wouldn't you agree ?
#14346213
I don't see it.

The only principle I apply without conditions and exceptions is that, when it comes to humans and society, you can't apply principles without conditions and exceptions. There are perhaps some principles that a near-unconditional (or near-absolute) but humans and absolutes don't really mix well.
#14346227
I would think that crimes such as stealing could certainly be enforced without exception, or at least the only exceptions are emergency situation for individuals.

This is in stark contrast to every country in the world today, where stealing is the norm for some groups but crimes for others.
#14346250
I'm not saying that it's impossible to enforce a principle. Even mad principles like "lets all go back to agrarian society" can and have been enforced.

The problem is that once a sufficient number of humans come together and are free to give input how society should work a 100% consistent application of principles becomes impossible. This is true for radical Libertarianism in particular since you guys require consensus (right?).

And even if you had consensus I can easily imagine situations where you'd have to suspend your principles, at least temporarily. For instance, in case of a genuine defense situation the state might have to seize private property if the owner doesn't voluntarily cooperate (e.g. land on the border, factories).
#14346302
In many countries there is a universal principle that it is immoral (and illegal) to rape and slightly less universal to murder (cops and soldiers can murder others and enjoy a beneficial application of the laws, within certain bounds)
There is no reason why stealing could also be universally seen as immoral and illegal. It is amongst most of the population, but of course the government can tax and resume land etc and this is not seen as illegal (and some don't see it as immoral either)
#14346312
Its Libertarians who are the thieves. They think they're entitled to steal land and other natural resources from the rest of humanity, monopolise them and even consume them and not have to pay anything back.
#14346316
Rich wrote:Its Libertarians who are the thieves. They think they're entitled to steal land and other natural resources from the rest of humanity, monopolise them and even consume them and not have to pay anything back.

Thanks for your valuable contribution Rich.
I think that is the single most stupidest statement I have ever read.
#14346326
I don't understand the Austriatarians either.

I will say that though that there is a "left" side of market libertarianism (sometimes called "free market anticapitalism") which involves more class analysis and historicist overviews, but you could argue they are simply selling the same message a different way.

I think no one has actually taken the difference to its potential conclusion yet though. There is an establishment/antiestablishment axis within libertarianism which has been ever more unbalanced towards the "right" ever since people like Rothbard embraced the New Right/US conservatives in the 70s after giving up on the New Left. The libertarian thinkers backed away from their turn towards an endorsement of expropriation in order to ride the wave of new conservatism.

The mainstay of present libertarian ancapitalism is predicated on the idea that existing property titles comply with the philosophy's own principle of good conduct in the form of the NAP. The property of big powerful corporations is seen as being hard gained in spite of state intervention, rather than property which is backed up by and only existed historically because of aggression by the state and private mercenaries such as the Pinkertons.

Karl Hess said that libertarians should defend the principle of property, and not all existing property titles willy nilly. As soon as you decide that most corporate property titles were not clearly established in a way that was consistent with voluntarism and the initial homestead principle, then you see that they become the unowned which can be turned back to those who work them. This would involve a full on expropriative revolution.

Of course, that would be chaos, and modern libertarians don't like chaos.
#14346327
@technology - correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Rothbard didn't necessarily support all existing property titles either but argued that unwinding them was complex and he therefore supported broad (almost simplistic) approaches in the spirit of Coase' Theorem sorting out allocation after the initial redistribution. For example, I'm thinking about his plan for getting rid of the Fed and returning to sound money and his essay on unwinding the USSR ownership.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 21
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.you[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]