I finally realized why I don't call myself a libertarian

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyan Connect
  • Start date Start date
I agree with that perspective, for the most part. But the way you frame it, you're approaching it the same way I do: which is that this approach to economics is more effective, not that it's morally superior due to its embrace of individual liberties. I had caveated that statement with a comment about the way libertarian economic notions are approached.
 
you seem to be painting with a wide brush.

Just as people who align them selves with any other political belief, the majority of the time they don't agree 100% with exact ideals of the party. In reality it would be more like 75% libertarian 20% constitutionalist 5% socialist. aka libertarians the vast majority of the time understand some regulation is needed and some wealth redistribution yet we just don't believe near as much is needed as we currently are using
 
The problem with the utilitarian-consequentialist viewpoint, at least from a deontological viewpoint, is that it can lead to tyranny. For example, the first utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were advocates of liberal-libertarian economics and of a free society. However, rooted within their very philosophy was a 'Trojan horse' - if society can be shown to be more prosperous because of liberal economics, then excellent. But, if society can be shown to be more prosperous ('greatest happiness for greatest number') by allowing the State to manage all affairs, then so be it. The conservatives in England at the time were right for deploring Bentham and the Mills - the next generation of utilitarians were advocates of socialism.

Mises also understood this and that was the reason why he called Mill the great advocate of socialism, even greater than Marx, Engels, Saint-Simon, or anyone else.

If the only reason you like libertarian economics today is because you believe it is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources, then what happens when some neo-Marxist comes out tomorrow with 'evidence' that the 'best' way to manage the markets is with some centralized interventionist scheme? While we deontological libertarians believe that free markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources, that is not the reason why we advocate them so; rather it is precisely because of our a priori philosophical beliefs regarding non-aggression, private property, etc.
 
I think we should start selling American products as much as we buy foreign goods. And we can continue to trade as long as we keep America financially secure.
 
You're assigning me a position I haven't espoused. Just because I don't take a moralist approach to libertarianism doesn't mean I'm utterly utilitarian.
 
The practice of applying political labels.



Sure, if that weren't the case, I wouldn't be having this conversation at all. I'm just referencing the average of my very subjective experience with other people who call themselves libertarian.

Which is probably incredibly skewed by DIAC
 
1. This is at least partially unrelated to my impression that a lot of them are assholes. I'm not, per se, saying they're assholes because they're libertarians.

2. To the extent that I'll address this, what I'd say is that I generally agree with the notion that people have their own incentives to succeed and that treating them differentially isn't generally a good idea and doesn't necessarily help them much. As far as that goes, I think most libertarians would approximately agree.

I will also say that I think many people, libertarian or otherwise, have a very skewed impression of poverty and success. They often credit the successful for their success and blame the poor for their poverty. While it's certainly true that some portion of the differential success of these people is due to their own efforts (or lack thereof), the degree to which that's probably true and the degree to which it's perceived to be true are dramatically different.

When people perceive their own success to be of their own doing, and others lack of success to be of the other's doing, and attest to this effect to a degree that's completely out of whack with the actual probable influence of that effect, it can certainly create the impression of being an asshole. And sure, it may be the case that fiscal conservatives harp on this effect more than others, because they are philosophically more inclined to magnify that effect.

I'll cap that off with stating, again, that by no means do I think the fact that these effects are overestimated is cause for them to be heavily counterbalanced by policy.

That what you wanted to hear, asshole?
 
Selling American products is great. The best way to do it is to create a market for them. The best way to create a market for them is to encourage the growth of foreign economies. The best way to encourage the growth of foreign economies is not to boycott their cheap crap.


...and other such arguments.
 
what exactly can a third party with no real power do to correct the injustices of the government? We don't pretend to be above the game, libertarians want nothing more than to be allowed to PLAY the game. But the way this country's political system has developed has created a two-party system that is built to (and in some cases actively reinforces efforts to) freeze out third parties on a large scale.

It's easy to say libertarians make no effort to fix any of the problems they see and thus are worthless, but the reality is they don't have the ability to fix the problems they see because a) the established system discourages people from giving 3rd parties a chance and b) there are a couple of very distinct approaches within the LP that create internal tensions to limit the party's effectiveness.

I won't get into B right now because it has to do with basically the entire philosophical core and roots of the party and would take a long time, first paragraph mostly explains A.
 
You espose a belief in libertarian principles but you also believe some sort of economic protectionism is necessary in the free trade/capitalist economy. This is to protect the U.S. against takeover by foreign markets, i.g. tarrifs, import quotas, and government subsidies to U.S. companies.
 
Actually, 'they' come off as assholes because of the propensity avoid thinking beyond 'how does this ultimately conflict with my absolute definition of personal freedom'.
 
I'm not a libertarian because i dont believe in a commodity back currency. I also believe in the use of fiscal and monetary policy. I also believe in the regulation that will serve to preempt environmental harm and harm to u.s citizens.

In regards to the latter, libertarians only have a reactionary approach to dealing with such violations. If they commit an act of harm towards others or the environment, we will then have legal action. The threat of this legal action will prevent such transgressions from occurring in the first place (as argued). This is complete B.S and our entire justice system is evidence to the point that punishment alone is not an effective deterrent to the encroachment of liberty.
 
I don't think that's an essential aspect. Even outside the realm of accepting fiat currency, there are other potential solutions. And I'm not sure being a libertarian necessarily entails rejecting fiat currency.

I'm not a fan of asset-backed currency either, although I'm more open to the Free Banking idea.

I suppose the strict libertarian response would be to argue that the system of regulations is set up such that those organizations are prevented from being justly punished, and everything would work out nicely if we would just abolish all of those regulations.

I'm with you in agreeing that this is a fantasy. As I said before, I'm no idealist.
 
Back
Top