Libertarians are the anarchist pseuds

In theory, perhaps.* But in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.

*Libertarians lack any coherent theory of government or sovereignty, but they tend to elide that with rhetoric.

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

Is it your honest belief that Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security make up 5% of the government?

Libertarians lack any coherent theory

To say the very least.

Libertarians lack any coherent theory

To say the very least.

what's mine is mine. what's yours is mine too.

Anarchy sounds good to me
Until.someone asks who'll fix
The sewers

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

The (increasingly unpopular) establishment? yes. The Alex Jones of the world?

WTF does Alex Jones have to do with "the GOP"?

But in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.

Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite -- nobody is entitled to exercise power -- but keep the BBTF left-wing cheering section going.

Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite -- nobody is entitled to exercise power -- but keep the BBTF left-wing cheering section going.

In Libertarian land, if I as a private citizen purchase property completely surrounding your house, that's not an exercise of power, that's just exercising my rights as a private citizen. And if I restrict your ability to cross my land, that's not an exercise of power, that's just preventing you from exercising power over my property. And if I offer to allow you to cross my land to get to the grocery store in exchange for the right to sleep with your daughter, and she consents to keep the two of you from starving, that's not an exercise of power either, just a simple agreement between two consenting adults from which both sides benefit.

what's mine is mine. what's yours is mine too.

I had no idea my former girlfriend was a libertarian but it does make sense now.

Libertarians lack any coherent theory

I actually disagree, I don't think it is much more or less coherent than many other theories. I think it terrible and extremely non-pragmatic, but that is a matter of opinion/value judgement about the theory (what I know of it).

I believe there are real world issues that require a government to handle (externalities like pollution for example). Once you have conceeded the need for a government then the discussion turns to the role/function of that government.

WTF does Alex Jones have to do with "the GOP"?

Given that they're hellbent on not moving towards any middle - the paranoid dysptopian fetishists seem to be the field of support the GOP is most interested in tilling...

Or - if I wanted to be less snarky, I could bring up the fact that he's run for office (at least, run in a primary) as a Republican...

In theory, perhaps.* But in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.

Yeah, that's part of the "pseuds" part of the snark. It does bear mentioning in detail occasionally, I suppose.

Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite -- nobody is entitled to exercise power

This is one of those rare moments when David says something true and thinks he's made a point in his favor, but has really undermined his position fundamentally. This is, in fact, the complete truth of libertarian theory, phrased as friendly as possible for libertarians, by libertarians. "Nobody is entitled to exercise power." The poor fools honestly believe that if they clap loud enough Tinkerbell will sprinkle some fairy dust around and the reality of power in the world, and the universal exercise and execution of power, which has existed as a brute fact of reality since before we climbed down from the canopies, will fade into the mists of Libertopia.

It may be true that no one is entitled to exercise power, but entitled is the key word. Because entitled or not (as Sam says) people do exercise power, always have and always will.

In many ways pure Libertarian thought, much like pure Marxist though, has a much higher opinion of humanity than pure Liberalism. Of course no government has ever been run by pure anything ever.

I think the ensuing hair-splitting on "nobody", "entitled", "exercise", and "power" is good for a couple of pages.

Of course no government has ever been run by pure anything ever.

NSDAP

In many ways pure Libertarian thought, much like pure Marxist though, has a much higher opinion of humanity than pure Liberalism.

Not really. Not at its heart. What libertarianism does is forfeit moral outcomes for dogmatic assumptions. It slaughters practice on the alter of theory. We see this with the occasional outbreak of "the Voting Rights Act was tyranny." The theory - everybody must have pure unadulterated choice in all things* - must reign supreme, even if the practical effect in the world - continuation of Jim Crow and slavery-in-all-but-name across the nation - "bad things happen, man." You can also see this when, on the occasion where he admits it publicly, our resident libertarians admit that democracy is just a means to an end, not the end itself.

*unless they're a woman, then David would like for them to be required to have babies regardless of their free will

DMN is pretty upfront about his distaste for democracy.

What libertarianism does is forfeit moral outcomes for dogmatic assumptions. It slaughters practice on the alter of theory.

That's exactly what the communists used to do. Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.

This is one of those rare moments when David says something true and thinks he's made a point in his favor, but has really undermined his position fundamentally. This is, in fact, the complete truth of libertarian theory, phrased as friendly as possible for libertarians, by libertarians. "Nobody is entitled to exercise power." The poor fools honestly believe that if they clap loud enough Tinkerbell will sprinkle some fairy dust around and the reality of power in the world, and the universal exercise and execution of power, which has existed as a brute fact of reality since before we climbed down from the canopies, will fade into the mists of Libertopia.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights. And while you and your fellow travellers here like to pretend that Libertarians are foolish to believe in such fairy tales, when the "wrong" people exercise power, you guys are awfully quick to scream about your "rights" being violated.

On the bright side, it's nice to see [violation of TOS] posting about something other than his anti-semitic views.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights. And while you and your fellow travellers here like to pretend that Libertarians are foolish to believe in such fairy tales, when the "wrong" people exercise power, you guys are awfully quick to scream about your "rights" being violated.

If you think I am opposed to exercising power in the world, you really don't read very well.

On the bright side, it's nice to see [violation of TOS] posting about something other than his anti-semitic views.

You slandering me with false accusations shows how pathetic your arguments are. I, [edited], am no more antisemitic than Peter Beinhart or Matt Yglesias. Which you know, but you are just trying to Google-bomb my name. Which, perhaps, Furtado should take note of.

On the bright side, it's nice to see [violation of TOS] posting about something other than his anti-semitic views.

You were so close to a reasonable post, and then that. Oh well.

Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.

This is true and expresses a non-policy issue I have with conservatives. Conservatism can never fail, after all, only conservatives (in name only one suspects).

ut in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.
Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite

No it's not and your stated policy preferences over the years are proof of that, your response shows the real problem with libertarians, most of you are simply full of #### when you claim to want liberty- some do, some don't, obviously you are one of the ones who is full of it

Edit I know this is bordering in an ad hominum personal attack, but there really is no other way to deal with the disingenuous nonsense being spewed at times

WTF does Alex Jones have to do with "the GOP"

He has a lot more to do with the 2012 version of the GOP than, oh, Bill Ayers has ever had to do with the Democratic Party

The best part is no one* believes this. National defense, law enforcement, running elections, and so on are include government programs with near universal appeal. It is just having a principle and being absurd about it.

I wouldn't say that government is pure concentrated evil. There are a few things that government can do very well: maintain order, adjudicate internal and international disputes, address tragedies of the commons, etc. Our current government does some of those things well, but many of them poorly, which we should fix. Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.

I'm not opposed to a little bit of wealth redistribution either. I don't think you can have an ordered society with people dying in the streets of starvation or easily preventable diseases.

Crosbybird is the only libertarian I've encountered on the web who's views are consistent and thoughtful.

EDIT: Ha! he hadn't yet posted that when I made my comment. Perfect timing.

DMN is pretty upfront about his distaste for democracy.

I know, it's kind of a nice brush with honesty on his part. The reason I prefer, oh Good Face, to someone like DMN, is that GF is honest, he doesn't deny the logical impact/meaning of his policy preferences, he owns them, even when they prompted and to wish divine retribution on his head.

DMN doesn't, he won't acknowledge what his preferences mean in the real world, and then he'll twist reality, for instance his discourse on, oh the civil rights era and civil rights legislation is really beneath contempt.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights.

Libertarians are concerned about SOME rights, other "rights" they simply deny are "rights" at all, which makes for very simple debates when in the echo chamber, and exasperation all around when not.

I know, it's kind of a nice brush with honesty on his part. The reason I prefer, oh Good Face, to someone like DMN, is that GF is honest, he doesn't deny the logical impact/meaning of his policy preferences, he owns them, even when they prompted and to wish divine retribution on his head.

DMN doesn't, he won't acknowledge what his preferences mean in the real world, and then he'll twist reality, for instance his discourse on, oh the civil rights era and civil rights legislation is really beneath contempt.

Yes, but David is a nice guy who's actually pretty funny. TGF is a horrible little troll. Style matters to me at least.

Libertarians are concerned about SOME rights, other "rights" they simply deny are "rights" at all, which makes for very simple debates when in the echo chamber, and exasperation all around when not.

This is true all around, to be fair.

Crosbybird is the only libertarian I've encountered on the web who's views are consistent and thoughtful.

Kiko Sakata (I might have the name wrong, I have a terrible memory and let me apologize if I do upfront) self identifies as Libertarian (or mostly so) I think and is also pretty thoughtful and consistent (if memory serves) - this sentence needs more qualifiers regarding my memory.

Regarding 574 - Where to draw the lines is always the truly hard part. I think this is because reality is crazy complex and doesn't care about anyone's ideology, and so dealing with it often means ignoring reality, living with subioptimal results, or accepting the limits of ones ideology.

However I would amend you statement "There are a few things that government can do very well" to say "there are some things that government may do well or may do poorly, but it is the only actor that can fill certain roles in a society".

Posting slanderous comments using a person's real name is a violation of our Terms Of Service.

BBTF asks you to not use vulgarity, profanity or insults in your comments. You are free to disagree (even vehemently) with what other members of the BBTF community have to say, but we ask that you do so in a respectful manner.

Comments will not be deleted for disagreeing with other members. They may be removed for the above reasons or if the comment is hurtful, spiteful, libelous, slanderous and really does nothing to move the conversation forward. Comments whose primary purpose is to advertise, self-promote may also be removed. Trolling (purposely posting inflammatory messages in order to disrupt an ongoing discussion) messages may also be removed.

The site administrator is the ultimate arbiter of what speech constitutes a violation of the TOS. While the site administrator is a strong free speech supporter, this site is not an exercise in the limits of the expression of that speech. Instead it is a private forum which, although free wheeling for the most part, does place limits on the manner and subject of that speech. Ultimately, BBTF reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.

Term of Service

To be be very, very clear, posting slanderous comments while using a person's real name is a violation of our policy. If The Good Face makes a similar comment using the real name of another poster. His account will be permanently banned.

That's exactly what the communists used to do. Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.

Agreed. Libertarianism, like Marxism, is a radical utopia.

[581] Jim, you might want to redact the name in the quoted material in [570] if that's possible.

though I suppose a hydro-electric plant would do - once built that can be a pretty dammned cheap source of power

Sure, until someone upstreatm decides to divert that water for themselves, or the government comes and builds an aqueduct upstream of your dam. Good luck enforcing those downstream water rights when you've cut yourself off from society.

If you continually give the other side half of what it wants, it eventually gets all of what it wanted in the first place.


So the stance is that "I rather get nothing I want, as long as they get as little as they want possible" ?

It's actually even dumber than that, which is typical of Joek. Ignoring the zero-sum game fallacy, if compromise means the other side is getting half of what it wants, it also means you are getting half of what you want. And by Joek's logic, if you keep getting half of what you want, eventually you'll have gotten everything!

Thank you Jim.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights. And while you and your fellow travellers here like to pretend that Libertarians are foolish to believe in such fairy tales, when the "wrong" people exercise power, you guys are awfully quick to scream about your "rights" being violated.

Everyone is concerned about 'rights' to at least some extent... I think the difference is that most non-libertarians accept that simply by participating in society, it's inevitable that some of those rights are going to have limits...

I wouldn't say that government is pure concentrated evil. There are a few things that government can do very well: maintain order, adjudicate internal and international disputes, address tragedies of the commons, etc. Our current government does some of those things well, but many of them poorly, which we should fix. Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.

I don't disagree - but I think it's really "dictate" where the discussion happens, or should happen.

I don't know what CB's opinion on any and all forms of government health care is - but echoing Yearrghh - I imagine it's one a reasonable one (even if it's not one I share wholly)...

Once we cross that bridge, I then think we need to break apart "dictate".

Banning big gulps?

I agree... bad, stupid, unreasonable, and just a dumb idea.

However, I DO think it's reasonable to do something like apply, say, a 5% surcharge to a big gulp.

Ditto smoking...

I don't think banning tobacco is good government policy because (setting aside second-hand smoke issues - I do think it's reasonable to limit where people can 'enjoy' this leisure activity) people do have a right to pursue leisure activities that aren't particularly good them.

However, I likewise think it's reasonable to tax the crap out of tobacco, as well as to apply various surcharges to cover the health related expenses it inevitably creates.

Just like on the gun control debate -- I'm not unsympathetic to how such regulations can be abused.... you could probably tax big gulps out of existence just as easy as banning them... and we do have an awfully hard time ensuring that taxes levied towards a specific purpose don't get reallocated.

But - I consider those give-and-take propositions, and ultimately, things that we are capable of rationally solving.

Libertarians are the anarchist pseuds; I'm sorry, the "minarchists." They don't want the government to be too big. But they don't want the government to be too small. They want the government to be _just right._ And of course, they are Goldilocks and get to decide what "just right" means.

By libertarians, you mean pretty much everybody. Everybody who isn't the Supreme Leader of a country is opposed to government that's "too big"; nobody wants a Harrison Bergeron society; everybody who isn't a pure anarchist is opposed to government that is too small.

559. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4342675)

what's mine is mine. what's yours is mine too.

I had no idea my former girlfriend was a libertarian but it does make sense now.

We might know the same woman.

Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.

There's a heck of a lot of stuff in between, though. I realize that certain posters here want the market to solve everything, but personally I like the fact that there's an FAA that tries to ensure that planes stay in the air. Sure, in the absence of an FAA the airline whose planes keep crashing will probably go out of business, but that's small consolation to all of the dead market research participants. Similarly, I'd rather have someone enforce rules about selling tainted meat than have the satisfaction that the meat packer who just gave me e-coli might suffer some economic consequence in the near future.

Do guns have rights?

By libertarians, you mean pretty much everybody. Everybody who isn't the Supreme Leader of a country is opposed to government that's "too big"; nobody wants a Harrison Bergeron society; everybody who isn't a pure anarchist is opposed to government that is too small.

Yes. That's my point. It's utterly pointless to arguing "I'm a minarchist, I want the smallest government possible!" The devil's in the details, and the details are the sloppy back and forth (in a democratic society) by which we all come to some commonly agreed upon compromise of what the "smallest government possible" is. Libertarians, generally speaking, want to shortcut the filthy mudhole of democratic compromise and dictate what the proper size of government must be, from their towering ivory towers of pure principle. The irony that they're attempting to dictate, and impose from on high, their personal preferences by use of the power of the state they claim to abhor, is far too often lost on them.

nobody is entitled to exercise power

This is a perfect example of what I meant by using rhetoric to hide the ball. DMN is making use of the multiple meanings of the word "entitle" to obscure the point. In an anarchy, it would be true to say that "no one is entitled to exercise power". Anarchists have a coherent theory, even if it's wrong.

But in Libertopia, there actually is a government and it's limited to doing the things libertarians think are good even if other people disagree (whether because they don't think those things are good, or because they think additional things are good). One thing libertarians think is good is the enforcement of property rights. Thus, libertarians believe property owners are entitled to have the government enforce property rights. In addition, the government must prohibit other people from exercising their own rights if those rights interfere with property. That's the power property owners are entitled to exercise, even if they don't themselves control the government (which they will in the long run).

Crosbybird is the only libertarian I've encountered on the web who's views are consistent and thoughtful.

I appreciate that, but I think there are a lot of us out there. Most people have libertarian tendencies in one area or another; it's not a particularly bizarre aspect of the human condition to desire individual autonomy.

Where to draw the lines is always the truly hard part. I think this is because reality is crazy complex and doesn't care about anyone's ideology, and so dealing with it often means ignoring reality, living with subioptimal results, or accepting the limits of ones ideology.

Of course. You can't have any individual freedom and have optimal results on the societal level; you can't have any societal mandates and optimize individual freedom. I think part of why I am a libertarian or at least libertarian-leaning is because society is so complex and full of competing ideologies; it seems presumptuous of me to tell other people how to behave as individuals in order to craft my ideal society (as if I have all the answers). I don't want to be told what to do, and I don't want to tell you what to do.

Obviously, we both have to accept some restrictions, particularly on aspects of our behavior that affect other people, but the philosophy should be to view those restrictions as paying a cost, with an emphasis on legitimately questioning the value gained for paying that cost, and not trivializing that cost, when it comes to policy making. It means that often we'll have to allow people to behave in ways that we find repulsive, and that we'll have to take more personal responsibility to make the society that we want through our own behavior. It means that often we won't see the change we want for a long time.

However I would amend you statement "There are a few things that government can do very well" to say "there are some things that government may do well or may do poorly, but it is the only actor that can fill certain roles in a society".

That's a fair point. Even if we had no choice but a terrible government, we'd still need to have something in place or there really wouldn't be what we think of as society.

Even if we had no choice but a terrible government, we'd still need to have something in place or there really wouldn't be what we think of as society.

The difference between CB and, say DMB, is that CB understands that the real world grime requires some imperfect real world solutions. DMB doesn't even believe in society.

I don't know what CB's opinion on any and all forms of government health care is - but echoing Yearrghh - I imagine it's one a reasonable one (even if it's not one I share wholly)...

My basic position on health care is the same as it is on food, shelter, and education: it's a baseline requirement for all citizens in a civilized society. That means that we tax the citizens enough to pay for everyone to have adequate service; that's the price for living in a first-world country.

Yes. That's my point. It's utterly pointless to arguing "I'm a minarchist, I want the smallest government possible!" The devil's in the details, and the details are the sloppy back and forth (in a democratic society) by which we all come to some commonly agreed upon compromise of what the "smallest government possible" is. Libertarians, generally speaking, want to shortcut the filthy mudhole of democratic compromise and dictate what the proper size of government must be, from their towering ivory towers of pure principle. The irony that they're attempting to dictate, and impose from on high, their personal preferences by use of the power of the state they claim to abhor, is far too often lost on them.

w/r/t taxes, no one *wants* to pay a lot of taxes, but at the same time no one (or almost no one) believes the correct tax rate sbould be zero. So we're left arguing about the right level, a tricky issue that isn't going to resolved by ideology. As a result, arguments that taxation is theft or whatever are a waste of time.

I appreciate that, but I think there are a lot of us out there. Most people have libertarian tendencies in one area or another; it's not a particularly bizarre aspect of the human condition to desire individual autonomy.

True. I certainly consider myself a strong civil libertarian, and don't think the government should have a right to control my body or expression. And I think the government should stay out of private transactions for the most part. But I do think the government has a very important role to play and isn't inherently bad. In fact, I would argue that the "free market" and survival of the fittest has led to the creation of strong, centralized states with hybrid economies. Something better might come along in the future, but our current approach (broadly speaking) is the best approach we've found so far for running a society.

DMB doesn't even believe in society.

Just one more reason to hate the Dave Matthews Band.

Not really. Not at its heart. What libertarianism does is forfeit moral outcomes for dogmatic assumptions. It slaughters practice on the alter of theory. We see this with the occasional outbreak of "the Voting Rights Act was tyranny." The theory - everybody must have pure unadulterated choice in all things* - must reign supreme, even if the practical effect in the world - continuation of Jim Crow and slavery-in-all-but-name across the nation - "bad things happen, man." You can also see this when, on the occasion where he admits it publicly, our resident libertarians admit that democracy is just a means to an end, not the end itself.

As long as you're talking to hear yourself talk, note that it's the Civil Rights Act, not the Voting Rights Act, that you mean to reference.


Oh, and the word is spelled "altar."

[Alex Jones] has a lot more to do with the 2012 version of the GOP than, oh, Bill Ayers has ever had to do with the Democratic Party

Really? Does Jones normally host fundraisers for Republican candidates?