Boards > Pirate's Cove

What's the matter with Libertarianism?

(1/24) > >>

Runole:

Several reasons according to this author's opinion.

LINK

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201108/what-s-the-matter-libertarianism


One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society.  The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man).

.....

So-called free markets are routinely distorted by the wealthy and powerful, and the libertarians' crusade for lower taxes, less regulation and less government plays into their hands.  Perhaps unwittingly, anti-government libertarians would have us trade democratic self-government for an oligarchy.

......

A more serious concern is that the libertarian fixation with individual freedom distracts us from the underlying biological purpose of a society.  The basic, continuing, inescapable problem for humankind, as for all other living organisms, is biological survival and reproduction. 

.......


So why is libertarianism unfair?  It rejects any responsibility for our mutual right to life, where we are all created approximately equal.  It would put freedom and property rights ahead of our basic needs, rather than the other way around.  It is also oblivious to the claims for reciprocity, an obligation to contribute a fair share to support the collective survival enterprise in return for the benefits that each of us receives.  And it is weak on the subject of equity (or social merit) as a criterion for respecting property rights.  It presumes a priority that property holdings are deserved, rather than making merit a precondition.  Imposing a test of merit would put strict limits on property rights.  Finally, it is anti-democratic in that it rejects the power of the majority to restrain our freedom and limit our property rights in the common interest, or for the general welfare.     

Dolorous Jason:
LOL . What a crock of shlt.

Runole:

--- Quote from: Dolorous Jason on May 12, 2013, 08:25:39 PM ---LOL . What a crock of shlt.

--- End quote ---

Agree 100%  here is an excellent rebuttal someone gave...



________________________________________
One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society. 


I can't help but laugh at the irony of a simplistic article with a simplistic argument calling libertarianism simplistic.  The article acts as if the overall opinion of society is moral, intelligent, wise, well informed, and so on. 



The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in whichcooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathytoward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man).


What evidence of written history is there that society has evolved intellectually?  I realize you can point out the evolution of mankind physically, but there is little evidence that society have evolved intellectually.  As mankind lives on technology may get better and there may be more breakthroughs and discoveries in the sciences, but this is in no way proof the average person has evolved intellectually.  If they did then why does history repeat itself?

It is also very intellectually dishonest to equate libertarian believes with anti-social behavior.  Understanding the repercussions of large government does not mean that I don't want to interact with others.  If your political beliefs have an effect on your overall interaction with others, then there might be a problem there and that's true to all beliefs.  One of the main reasons I use this board is because hardly any of my friends pay attention to politics. 

Also of course people want to interact with others, everyone wants the respect and approval of others, etc. I mean all he's describing here is group activity, which has no basis as an argument against libertarians.  What he's saying could be used to describe bloods, crips, fraternities, cliques, churches, I mean this point his trying to make against libertarians is completely asinine.


So-called free markets are routinely distorted by the wealthy and powerful, and the libertarians' crusade for lower taxes, less regulation and less government plays into their hands.  Perhaps unwittingly, anti-government libertarians would have us trade democratic self-government for an oligarchy.


He begins by admitting we do not have free markets by saying "So-called," which is very well known to libertarians.  Libertarians do not want the markets to be distorted by crony capitalism, yet his argument is against crony capitalism.  An anti-government libertarian would not be for unsound money, bailouts, tax-loopholes for certain companies, would be against pretty much anything that goes against the market.



A more serious concern is that the libertarian fixation with individual freedom distracts us from the underlying biological purpose of a society.  The basic, continuing, inescapable problem for humankind, as for all other living organisms, is biological survival and reproduction.


Libertarians don't like sex?  Is that really his argument here?



So why is libertarianism unfair?  It rejects any responsibility for our mutual right to life, where we are all created approximately equal.  It would put freedom and property rights ahead of our basic needs, rather than the other way around.  It is also oblivious to the claims for reciprocity, an obligation to contribute a fair share to support the collective survival enterprise in return for the benefits that each of us receives.  And it is weak on the subject of equity (or social merit) as a criterion for respecting property rights.  It presumes a priori that property holdings are deserved, rather than making merit a precondition.  Imposing a test of merit would put strict limits on property rights.  Finally, it is anti-democratic in that it rejects the power of the majority to restrain our freedom and limit our property rights in the common interest, or for the general welfare.


Honestly does he know anything about libertarian belief?  Our mutual right to life?  Libertarian belief is to stop the wars on moral grounds and predictable but in the majorities view unforeseen consequences, yet he equates libertarians with denying the right to life?  In what way is this even an argument?

Free markets with honest money would raise the standard of living for everyone, but the cronies and the bankers, and the elite.

The problem with democracy is the majority has the power to restrain the rights of the minorities.  Democracies have allows denied rights to people. 

His view that societies prosper when governments impose the will of the majority on all is incredible naive.  What he fails to realize is best put with the following quote about how governments can convince their people to go to war:


"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
 
--Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


Just because the majority desires the government to take an action does not equal the government's action being in the best interest of the people.  Public opinion is easily swayed.  Take the above quote from Goering and this technique has been used since Julius Caesar days to convince populations to go to war, and the quote perfectly describes how W. convinced people to go to war.

The article is pathetic.  The author knows nothing about libertarian belief.  His view that the majorities opinion is wise is very misleading as masses are easily influenced.



Thought the above was a well reasoned rebuttal. I might also add the historical results of the "Tyranny of the Majority" has not been pretty.

BucfanNC12:
The biggest problem is it gets very little media attention.

Mr. Milich:
I really admire the emphasis placed on constitutional rights. Some of the other stuff, not so much.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version