Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What's the matter with Libertarianism? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 ... 8

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8914
Offline
: May 12, 2013, 02:46:53 PM


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

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16933
Online
#1 : May 12, 2013, 08:25:39 PM

LOL . What a crock of shlt.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8914
Offline
#2 : May 13, 2013, 03:42:10 PM

LOL . What a crock of shlt.

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.
: May 13, 2013, 03:44:46 PM Runole

BucfanNC12

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1992
Online
#3 : May 13, 2013, 04:47:09 PM

The biggest problem is it gets very little media attention.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2735
Offline
#4 : May 13, 2013, 07:17:46 PM

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

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8914
Offline
#5 : May 13, 2013, 09:29:08 PM

I believe that the majority of American citizens that  aren't brainwashed Democrats and Republicans are Libertarians.   Unfortunately, the very nature of being a libertarian is to be self sufficient and not dependent on the NANNY GOVERNMENT MOST INEFFICIENTLY RUNNING THINGS. Nothing tops Big Government waste when it comes to the use of our Tax dollars.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2735
Offline
#6 : May 13, 2013, 11:09:22 PM

Ron Paul a Republican/Libertarian, Glenn Greenwald a Liberal/Progressive? Despite the labels, on this topic, there's not a farthings worth of difference between the two.

A 2 minute clip.


Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22983
Offline
#7 : May 14, 2013, 06:10:56 AM

My simplistic understanding of libertarianism is that they support as much economic freedom as possible and as much personal freedom as possible.  Doesnt sound too bad to me. In a sense it is the most progressive of all the political beliefs.  Now humans enter into a social contract and agree to be govern by another entity and adhere to that society's laws  to enhance their survival.  But even though they are willing to give up some of their freedoms for that human nature craves for individuality and freedom.  The acqusition of "power" is the driving force in all human behavior i truly believe.  Freud falsely thought it was sex.  Without the ability to feel enpowered we are not happy.  Otherwise we would be content to live under a dictator or communism as long as there was food on the table and we felt relatively safe.  History has proven that is not the case.   Bottom line is nothing is going to be perfect.  There is no utopic system. There is always going to be a contradiction between giving up some of our power/freedom and our desire for it.   But I do believe a society could successfully exist that is based on the basic principles of libertarianism. 
: May 14, 2013, 07:09:18 AM Skull and Bones


Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22983
Offline
#8 : May 14, 2013, 06:38:08 AM

But to answer the question why it isn't that popular,  it doesnt really pander to any group other than human nature.  And for those that think the wealthy and big corporations would take advantage of its economic freedom position and free markets then why dont they embrace it?    They don't!  They embrace the status quo.  Now one could make the argument that the U.S. is the closest humankind has gotten to these libitarian principles but this country framed its constitution to protect the interest of the economically elite and throughout its 200 year history it has been doing so. 
: May 14, 2013, 07:13:17 AM Skull and Bones


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16933
Online
#9 : May 14, 2013, 07:52:45 AM

But to answer the question why it isn't that popular,  it doesnt really pander to any group other than human nature. 

It isn't popular because people only like the "idea" of freedom . I can tell people basic generic libertarian tenants and almost everyone agrees in principle. When I follow that up with something specific like ,"... so good luck , you're on your own saving for that retirement" , they panic and cry foul.

Funny you should bring up Freud , because he did hit the nail on the head when he said , "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility."



It is gaining popularity slowly , however . There are a lot of libertarian minded people in the Republican party ( The Paul Wing )who just keep voting Republican because they are brainwashed to think there is no other choice. One day , maybe. It will take some colossal outrage ( like banckruptcy ) on the part of government to move people away from the two party scam and towards freedom...which actually is pretty likely to happen eventually.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalicoJack55

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4793
Online
#10 : May 14, 2013, 11:01:35 AM

There should be a government investigation.

My logo is bigger than your logo

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#11 : May 14, 2013, 10:20:28 PM

But to answer the question why it isn't that popular,  it doesnt really pander to any group other than human nature. 

It isn't popular because people only like the "idea" of freedom . I can tell people basic generic libertarian tenants and almost everyone agrees in principle. When I follow that up with something specific like ,"... so good luck , you're on your own saving for that retirement" , they panic and cry foul.

Funny you should bring up Freud , because he did hit the nail on the head when he said , "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility."



It is gaining popularity slowly , however . There are a lot of libertarian minded people in the Republican party ( The Paul Wing )who just keep voting Republican because they are brainwashed to think there is no other choice. One day , maybe. It will take some colossal outrage ( like banckruptcy ) on the part of government to move people away from the two party scam and towards freedom...which actually is pretty likely to happen eventually.

As someone who has voted and donated Libertarian Party for years, I have to disagree with the "brainwashed to think there is no other choice" part.  You do have no real choice.  There is a machinery involved in politics and Libertarians are not the kind to develop that from scratch, and it can also end up screwing you over with a worse problem (e.g. because of Perot, we got stuck with Clinton).  The focus on the part of modern libertarians is on reforming the Republican party from the inside -- hence the Tea Party, and why the media is so obsessed as portraying it as a racist or social conservative focused group.  It's diffused nature and lack of hierarchy allows some of those elements in, but it is primarily a movement of libertarianism.

And, no, Greenwald is in no way shape or form a libertarian.


Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22983
Offline
#12 : May 15, 2013, 11:19:03 AM

The tea party has been taken over by billionaires like the Koch brothers and political opportunist like Michelle Bachman.  They are not libertarians and have never embraced the party's stance on personal freedom.  As it was explained to be at a libertarian rally at USF in 1992, it is a combination of what would be considered extreme liberalism and extreme conservativism.  Even Paul isn't a true Libertarian.  The two party system and not being clearly on one side is why it isn't viable.  Of coarse that whole left/right wing political spectrum  as we know it is misused.  The status quo should be the right side and the left should be those wanting to move away from it.  So in theory, hard line communist in say Russia should be considered the right.  So technically libertarians should be considered leftist. 
: May 15, 2013, 11:20:46 AM Skull and Bones


Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8914
Offline
#13 : May 15, 2013, 09:03:54 PM

After ( unless he is removed) 8 years of Muslim rule perhaps the Libertarian movement will finally take hold.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#14 : May 20, 2013, 06:07:27 PM

I believe that the majority of American citizens that  aren't brainwashed Democrats and Republicans are Libertarians.

The problem with Libertarianism is that Libertarians routinely make comments like this. You are brainwashed unless you are a Libertarian. It's become more of a high school clique than an actual political movement.

I know more about Libertarianism than a pretty good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians that I have personally met. What I have found is actually the opposite of what this statement suggests. A pretty large number of Libertarians haven't got a clue as to what it actually is. They are either hyper conservatives or hyper liberals who are attracted by some aspects of Libertarianism with no real understanding of it's real-life implications, or better stated, what a Libertarian society would actually look like, and how out of step it is with what the world that they actually want to live in would look like.

Page: 1 2 3 ... 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What's the matter with Libertarianism? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools