[DrSteveBrule]

As a libertarian, I have a major caveat for fellow libertarians and moderate conservatives : corporations are not on your side.

Where did this delusion come from? We recognize that the government is not our friend, yet many of us have overlooked the fact that unchecked accumulated wealth also isn't in our favor either. Can't we see that completely free markets is driving us towards corporate fascism? While the government itself was the enemy of liberty in the past, the present enemy is a government manipulated by wealth. Our elections are bought out by lobbyists and PACs. Why isn't marijuana legalized yet? Why aren't there compromises on gun control? Politicians are not free to make decisions without the consideration of whether lobbyists will drop their funding for a certain act. The fact is that the top are playing us for their benefit, and most of us have been going along with it.

Both libertarianism and conservatism agree that the government has the role in securing the rights of the people. Why don't we act on that? Why can't the government be re purposed to counteract the influence of the super wealthy? Shouldn't SuperPACs and campaign contributions be limited, since fair elections are a right? Why is net neutrality about to be abandoned, paving the way for the elite to destroy the last bastion of free speech? The brainwashed masses have lead us to the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and big pharma.

Now I'm not arguing for socialism, but at a certain point, libertarianism needs to realize that monetary power is as powerful as political power, and that it poses the same threat to liberty. The focus needs to shift from weakening government to nullifying power through wealth, even if that means making the government slightly stronger. If we have to empower the FCC to stop Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers, so be it.

[Lightman]

Steve, are you familiar with Markets Not Capitalism or the existence of left-libertarians? I feel like they might be right up your alley.

[DrSteveBrule]

Steve, are you familiar with Markets Not Capitalism or the existence of left-libertarians? I feel like they might be right up your alley.

Thanks for the lead. I found an ebook version of it online. It really is a fascinating read, especially since it's a compilation of essays from different authors. Ill probably pick up a hard copy at some point.

[JohnRawls]

Just dont go too far to the left. If there is a good libertarian, he is surely somebody who stands between the Kochist and Chomskyst libertarianism but doesn't go too far into any direction.

[Lightman]

Thanks for the lead. I found an ebook version of it online. It really is a fascinating read, especially since it's a compilation of essays from different authors. Ill probably pick up a hard copy at some point.

Glad you enjoy it. I don't fully endorse all (or even most) of the positions in that book, but I think it definitely shows a path forward for a more humane libertarianism, more in tune with libertarian socialism than laissez-faire Ayn Randism. I actually took a class with one of the editors (Charles Johnson) a while back. Interesting guy.

[DrSteveBrule]

Just dont go too far to the left. If there is a good libertarian, he is surely somebody who stands between the Kochist and Chomskyst libertarianism but doesn't go too far into any direction.

So a centrist Libertarian then? Koch is right wing, Chomsky is populist left wing.

Lightman

For America's situation, Randian libertarianism is impractical. It fails to acknowledge that any attempt to resort to laissez faire will lead to neoliberalism. Hence why I could never come to fully believe in Rand's ideal of rational self interest acting in the common good, as history has shown that people in power often act against those ideals.

[Phred]

Hence why I could never come to fully believe in Rand's ideal of rational self interest acting in the common good, as history has shown that people in power often act against those ideals.

Which is exactly why Libertarians/Classical Liberals/Laissez-faire Capitalists/Minarchists insist that government be strictly held to the minimal "night watchman" role. There should be a separation of economy and state just as there is of church and state. People "in power" can't do a lot of damage if the extent of their power is to steer the most recent contract for building a new prison to the cousin of their brother in law or if they award the contract for new police cars to the car manufacturer whose shares they hold in their portfolio.

Of course people are going to act like dicks sometimes. That's human nature. The trick is to make sure that when they do act up, the impact of their decisions is minimized as much as is reasonably possible.


Phred

[Truth To Power]

Can't we see that completely free markets is driving us towards corporate fascism?

What we have is not remotely close to completely free markets. Our markets are dominated by privilege: landowner privilege, bankster privilege, IP monopoly privilege, corporate limited liability privilege, and union privilege, just to name the most important ones.

While the government itself was the enemy of liberty in the past, the present enemy is a government manipulated by wealth. Our elections are bought out by lobbyists and PACs.

True: government by and for rich, greedy takers.

Why isn't marijuana legalized yet?

That's easy: its prohibition is too good a source of prison (i.e., slave) labor.

Why can't the government be re purposed to counteract the influence of the super wealthy?

Maybe because the super-wealthy own the government?

[JohnRawls]

So a centrist Libertarian then? Koch is right wing, Chomsky is populist left wing.

Lightman

For America's situation, Randian libertarianism is impractical. It fails to acknowledge that any attempt to resort to laissez faire will lead to neoliberalism. Hence why I could never come to fully believe in Rand's ideal of rational self interest acting in the common good, as history has shown that people in power often act against those ideals.

That is correct. Falling to much to one or the other side makes you a loonie in my book because you either wants Somalia then or somekind of Corporate dystopia.

[Lightman]

Do you seriously think that Somalia is an example of left-wing libertarian ideals in action?

[JohnRawls]

To some degree if taken to the extreme, the dissolution of the fabric of the state will lead to neo-feudal/tribal outcome, Somalia is an exagerated example of that.

[Lightman]

I don't see how replacing the state with a network of voluntarily associated cooperatives and the like would lead necessarily to a situation like Somalia.

I'm not willing to grant that the left-libertarian approach would actually work, but I don't think its failure would look anything like Somalia. The Somali government collapsed because of a civil war, not because of a concerted and ideological effort to dissolve the state.

[DrSteveBrule]

The corporate state is the end result of right libertarianism, but I would see extreme left libertarianism as a rehash of the USSR.

[JohnRawls]

I don't see how replacing the state with a network of voluntarily associated cooperatives and the like would lead necessarily to a situation like Somalia.

I'm not willing to grant that the left-libertarian approach would actually work, but I don't think its failure would look anything like Somalia. The Somali government collapsed because of a civil war, not because of a concerted and ideological effort to dissolve the state.

Libertarianism wants to dissolve the state but wants to keep the same aproximate borders as the state. This is possible only in an ideal situation when the whole world goes libertarian in one specific time. Otherwise the state or the people of the ex-state that went libertarian will become to devided and just fragment into smaller pieces. Somalia was an extreme example as i said, collapse of the Soviet Union(Desolution of Central power), collapse of China(Desolution of central power), even collapse of the British Empire(Collapse of central power after ww2 and giving more freedom to colonies).

The main point here is that to switch the ideology of the country/world we will need to have a large geopolitical metamorphasis. Maps will need to be redrawn and wars will probably happen more so because of this. Desolution of central power along with greater liberty creates a sort of power vacuum and divide as history showed.

I understand the notion that libertarians are pacifists by nature, but this only works in an ideal scenarion when majority of the world switches to libertarianism almost instant.

The corporate state is the end result of right libertarianism, but I would see the failure of left libertarianism as a rehash of the USSR.

I do not know much about historic progression of Libertarinism time frame wise, but i would assume that Marxism was the starting point of left-libetarianism. Because Marx wasn't exactly anti-freedom in das capital. In a sense the foundation of marxism was to 'free the prols from the chains that bind' , which is basically also attaining freedom.

[Nunt]

As a libertarian, I have a major caveat for fellow libertarians and moderate conservatives : corporations are not on your side.

I agree with your diagnoses. People can commit crimes, and when people in charge of powerful corporations commit crimes, then the consequences can be severe and we may not have the means to bring them to justice.

However, I disagree that the state is the best or even a necessary institution to stop this. First, let me point to the inherent contradiction in using the state to protect us from very powerful organizations. The state, as it is usually conceived, is a very powerfull organization. Even a minimized nightwatch state, would still most likely be the most powerfull organization in a country. So if the state protects us from the cooperations, who protects us from the state? An additional problem is the unique position that a state is in. We are much more distrustful of corporations than we are of the state: we allow the state several priviledges that we would never allow a corporation. Finally, a lot of people strongly believe in the state ideology: many people would be willing to kill, torture and die for the state. This is very dangerous. You can have bomberpilots killing dozens of people, people who they don't know and cannot verify whether they deserve to die or not, and cannot verify whether some other innocents are killed as well. Yet those pilots can go home and believe they have served justice and have the respect of their neighbours for killing the enemies of the state.

Can you imagine a private corporation getting away with this? Sure, for enough money, people would kill, torture and die for the Shell Corporation. But I doubt many people would ideologically support the killing of Shell's enemies. If they go home, they won't be heroes, they'd be dispised by their neighbours.

To hold a mega corporation accountable is difficult, but to hold the state accountable, that is almost impossible. When was the last time a president was held convicted for war crimes? Hundrends years of fighting killing millions including children, and appearantly no president was responsible for any crime.

So what is the solution? I propose that we do need some "public defender" organizations, but I would not give them the same monopoly and priviledges that governments has. They'd have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Their main job would be to mobilize public sentiment and money so they can take on big corporations. They have to act within the law, and must survive on voluntary contributions rather than taxation.

Libertarianism wants to dissolve the state but wants to keep the same aproximate borders as the state. This is possible only in an ideal situation when the whole world goes libertarian in one specific time. Otherwise the state or the people of the ex-state that went libertarian will become to devided and just fragment into smaller pieces. Somalia was an extreme example as i said, collapse of the Soviet Union(Desolution of Central power), collapse of China(Desolution of central power), even collapse of the British Empire(Collapse of central power after ww2 and giving more freedom to colonies).

These examples share little with what libertarians are proposing. I do not advocate the collapse of the state and the entire social fiber that the state has been entangled in. All the example you give are examples of failed states, not an example of a failed attempt to introduce libertarianism.

Libertarianism is not just the absence of the state. It is much more than that. Libertarianism is a rule of law, libertarianism is a society in which the majority of the population believe in certain moral principles (for example, the NAP). So yeah, when a certain state collapses and central power disappears and local warlords and oligarchs make a play for power, then you're not gonna get libertarianism.

What we do need to achieve libertarianism is a gradual increase in public approval of libertarian principles and a gradual replacement of state functions by voluntary associations. Transitioning from a state to libertarian society is a different thing that a state imploding.

[JohnRawls]

That requires 100% of society to follow libertarianism, it doesn't answer the main question that works again libertarianism: How do you change society without destroying it first? For example, ideal communism also was noble, to free people from the chains that bind, workers utopia, free best possible healthcare etc. In reality communist was a bloody revolution with a civil war before things started changing for the better.

I see libertarians the same in a sense. Not ideology wise but in what will happen. Absence of power, creates power struggle that's an indisputable situation. In theory it can go smoothly but several pre-conditions need to be met which are a) Almost indisputable support for libertarianism in you country b) Almost indisputable support of libertarianism in your neibours. I am not sure if its a too radical change from standard liberalism, but in general, large ideological changes follow a revolutionary pattern.

Also it doesn't change the fact that libertarianism is a theoretical ideology. It hasn't been tried yet. There are many unknown factors with libertarianism.

[Nunt]

That requires 100% of society to follow libertarianism, it doesn't answer the main question that works again libertarianism: How do you change society without destroying it first? For example, ideal communism also was noble, to free people from the chains that bind, workers utopia, free best possible healthcare etc. In reality communist was a bloody revolution with a civil war before things started changing for the better.

I see libertarians the same in a sense. Not ideology wise but in what will happen. Absence of power, creates power struggle that's an indisputable situation. In theory it can go smoothly but several pre-conditions need to be met which are a) Almost indisputable support for libertarianism in you country b) Almost indisputable support of libertarianism in your neibours. I am not sure if its a too radical change from standard liberalism, but in general, large ideological changes follow a revolutionary pattern.

Also it doesn't change the fact that libertarianism is a theoretical ideology. It hasn't been tried yet. There are many unknown factors with libertarianism.

Thats why I advocate a gradual process towerds libertarianism. Give people time to get accostumed to libertarian ideals. I wouldnt say that it requires 100% of society to follow libertarianism. But a large proportion of people that believe in libertarian ideals is indeed necessary. This is hardly surprising. Any society needs the support of the population. The same with democracy. If a large proportion of the population believes in theocracy rather than democracy, then democracy won't happen. You can't bomb people into democracy, and similarly, you can't bomb people in liberty.

A gradual transition, rather than a sudden collapse gives an answer to most of your issues. If you can slowly transition, then their wont be a power vacuum when the state disappears. Voluntary associations have time to gradually take over the state's power.

[DrSteveBrule]

So what is the solution? I propose that we do need some "public defender" organizations, but I would not give them the same monopoly and priviledges that governments has. They'd have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Their main job would be to mobilize public sentiment and money so they can take on big corporations. They have to act within the law, and must survive on voluntary contributions rather than taxation.

Are you thinking about a government supported alternative that acts as a competition to private services? I could see that working for health insurance.

Regardless, I'm not advocating for nationalization of any industry, but I do advocate for some regulation, as long as it acts in the interest of the people, and not in the interest of the corporation. We would protect ourselves from the state with measures that ensure government accountability (fair elections, open budget reports, etc...). I would even go so far to say that a form of direct democracy should be an option to pass or repeal bills.

To hold a mega corporation accountable is difficult, but to hold the state accountable, that is almost impossible. When was the last time a president was held convicted for war crimes? Hundrends years of fighting killing millions including children, and appearantly no president was responsible for any crime.

When was the last time that a CEO was held responsible for unethical business? A government can be held accountable via democratic means, but a corporation has no means of being regulated by the public, except for the government.

Finally, a lot of people strongly believe in the state ideology: many people would be willing to kill, torture and die for the state.

Sadly, yes. It is nearly impossible to have a majority of citizens view the government in a critical manner. People seem to regard businesses as a necessary evil that is scrutinized closely, but fail to do so with government.

[JohnRawls]

Thats why I advocate a gradual process towerds libertarianism. Give people time to get accostumed to libertarian ideals. I wouldnt say that it requires 100% of society to follow libertarianism. But a large proportion of people that believe in libertarian ideals is indeed necessary. This is hardly surprising. Any society needs the support of the population. The same with democracy. If a large proportion of the population believes in theocracy rather than democracy, then democracy won't happen. You can't bomb people into democracy, and similarly, you can't bomb people in liberty.

A gradual transition, rather than a sudden collapse gives an answer to most of your issues. If you can slowly transition, then their wont be a power vacuum when the state disappears. Voluntary associations have time to gradually take over the state's power.

And this is my main disagreement with libertarians. Gradual transition is very unlike because it would mean surrendering power of the people to large corporate/financial enterprises or voluntary associations.(well atleast the power that they have now). In modern society power is basically 'control' or ability to enforce this 'control'. This is manifested through the entety we call the state. People vote to elect this rulling official of this 'state' so on their behalf the 'state' could overwatch and increase their prosperity(Social contract of sorts).

In a libertarian society power will not come from control, but will be substituted with money, because it will be possible to buy this 'control' or enforcment of this 'control. Lets say there is a powerfull limiting factor nowadays in the face of state enforcment and legislature that prevents it, to a large degree(it is still possible though). In libertarian society you can buy personal protection/police force , so a situation where two enteties or individuals have a conflict or conflicting interest will be decided how much they will be able to spend on buying this 'control' (Be it mercenaries, police force, etc)

You see how in this situation Libertarianism turns from liberty into lawlesness/unfairness/injustice or more specificly increased power for whoever has more money. In the same sense, it will make individual a subordinate of the larger monetary enteties since individuals will have hard time compeeting with larger enteties due to absence of resources(Be it education, healthcare, control, personal protection etc).

But then again libertarianism doesnt have to mean the full desolution of the state, which would imply a certain barrier on the existance of the state. Which also means that current state(strictly speaking about USA) is already a form of possible libertarianism, just not in a theoretical form.

[Reason10]

As a libertarian, I have a major caveat for fellow libertarians and moderate conservatives : corporations are not on your side.

What IS a corporation, but an artificial person created by government for purposes of lower taxes and limited liability. One person can incorporate. I somehow don't believe the American economy is suffering from this concept.

We recognize that the government is not our friend, yet many of us have overlooked the fact that unchecked accumulated wealth also isn't in our favor either

.
How would you define "properly checked accumulated wealth?" Where in your statist opinion is a legal MAXIMUM WAGE? Since when does a libertarian believe in CLASS ENVY?

Can't we see that completely free markets is driving us towards corporate fascism?

Ayn Rand, the Mother of the Libertarian movement is turning over in her grave.

While the government itself was the enemy of liberty in the past, the present enemy is a government manipulated by wealth

.
It costs money to get elected. And that FIRST AMENDMENT is a real bitch, huh? How would YOU regulate the money in politics as the self appointed king?

Our elections are bought out by lobbyists and PACs.

Our elections are STILL determined by voters, most of which are as stupid as injured wombats. Don't blame lobbyists and PACs. A lot of people are on welfare and their votes are bought by Democrats. And you want more of that.

Why isn't marijuana legalized yet?

Did you ever consider that the country as a whole doesn't want it legalized? Certainly we had Barak Ebola and a total Democrat Congress from 2008 to 2010. They could have legalized marijuana, crack cocaine, HELL THEY COULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES TO BE MARRIED.

Why aren't there compromises on gun control?

Could be that pesky...uh...SECOND AMENDMENT. Funny how the Founding Fathers weren't really in the mood to compromise.

Politicians are not free to make decisions without the consideration of whether lobbyists will drop their funding for a certain act. The fact is that the top are playing us for their benefit, and most of us have been going along with it.

When has that ever been any different?

Both libertarianism and conservatism agree that the government has the role in securing the rights of the people. Why don't we act on that?

The Founding Fathers already did. The BILL OF RIGHTS is nothing more than limitations on the power of government. What other "acting" would a HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT Libertarian propose, without winding up on the left wing liberal dark side?

Why can't the government be re purposed to counteract the influence of the super wealthy?

Why is that any of your business?

Shouldn't SuperPACs and campaign contributions be limited, since fair elections are a right?

No one ever said fair elections were a right. The Founding Fathers certainly never said that.

Why is net neutrality about to be abandoned, paving the way for the elite to destroy the last bastion of free speech?

You seem to be the one in this discussion wanting to curb the free speech of the achievers.

The brainwashed masses have lead us to the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and big pharma.

Now you're talking like a liberal.

Now I'm not arguing for socialism

,
Basically, your WHOLE POST is right out of the Upton Sinclair handbook.

The focus needs to shift from weakening government to nullifying power through wealth, even if that means making the government slightly stronger. If we have to empower the FCC to stop Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers, so be it

I've noticed you've said nothing about stopping George Soros or the fat cat unions. You seem to be going after only conservative billionaires.
You're about as libertarian as Jeffrey Dahmer is a chef.