Your opinion of Libertarians

[opebo]

They're way too worried about unimportant things like the top tax rate and not enough about things like legalization of drugs and prostitution, preservation of abortion, etc.  In other words they prioritize economic issues way too much over social issues.

This is priceless.  I remember the day that you were criticizing the state of West Virginia for voting social issues over economic issues.

Well of course - because they vote the wrong way on social issues.  They prize oppressing gays, women, etc. over their own economic interests.

I thought right and wrong existed only in one's mind...

Quite correct.  I mean they vote in a way I don't like - to impose their subjective preferences on other people's personal lives.

[ian]

Positive, Dem.

[Bono]

Results have been better than expected.

[The Duke]

Every libertarian I know is a decent fellow, responsible hard working citizens who obey the law.  The trouble is they think everyone else is capable of being a decent person too, and it just ain't so.

Since when? First off, we wouldn't be for guns if we weren't aware of this - criminals fall into the 'not decent' category. Second, we're for limited government power, because greater power results in more corrupt politicians, who also fall into the 'not decent' category. Need I go on?

Reliance on private charity for social welfare?  End to the drug war?

[John Dibble]

Every libertarian I know is a decent fellow, responsible hard working citizens who obey the law.  The trouble is they think everyone else is capable of being a decent person too, and it just ain't so.

Since when? First off, we wouldn't be for guns if we weren't aware of this - criminals fall into the 'not decent' category. Second, we're for limited government power, because greater power results in more corrupt politicians, who also fall into the 'not decent' category. Need I go on?

Reliance on private charity for social welfare?  End to the drug war?

Plenty of people donate to charity, and lower taxes would increase the amount that many of them are able to and will give. I'm not pretending it will make up for what will be lost from welfare, and I don't know many Libertarians who do - we primarily are opposed government wealth redistribution, which is highly inefficient anyways.

End of the drug war has little to do with the subject you brought up. First off, it has done little to curb the use of drugs - people have always done drugs, and they still do drugs. We oppose it because it infringes upon the rights of citizens to put what they want in their own bodies and because the war on drugs causes higher violent crime rates, like during alcohol prohibition.

[The Duke]

My interaction with libertarians has led me to believe that they think people can take care of themselves.  So to leave people to taking care of themselves will leave society better off.  I don't think yoou are advocating things that you think will make people worse off simply because of some academic principle.  If you do believe that, it would come as a surprise to most here.  Many times, you've made long, in depth posts about how less government control will leave us better off.

So I think its fair to say that most libertarians think that most people can take care of themselves.

I disagree with this starting point, and think that most people need some kind of guidance from authority.

[John Dibble]

My interaction with libertarians has led me to believe that they think people can take care of themselves.  So to leave people to taking care of themselves will leave society better off.  I don't think yoou are advocating things that you think will make people worse off simply because of some academic principle.  If you do believe that, it would come as a surprise to most here.  Many times, you've made long, in depth posts about how less government control will leave us better off.

So I think its fair to say that most libertarians think that most people can take care of themselves.

I disagree with this starting point, and think that most people need some kind of guidance from authority.

When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.  ~George Pataki

I find that freedom is generally a good thing. Freedom has it's tradeoffs, but most often the benefits outweigh the negatives.

And yes, I do feel that most people can take care of themselves - they were able to do it before the nanny state, why not now?

[David S]

I have a very positive view of libertarians, its their ideas that bother me.

Every libertarian I know is a decent fellow, responsible hard working citizens who obey the law.  The trouble is they think everyone else is capable of being a decent person too, and it just ain't so.

Most people are ignorant, mean spirited, irresponsible, and selfish.  95% of the population could not function in a libertarian society, because they are not ready, and never will be ready, for the kinds of freedoms they would have.

Since most libertarians are in the 5% of decent people, they don't quite get this.

If most people are as you say "ignorant, mean spirited, irresponsible, and selfish" then what a rat's nest we've become!  I'm one of those who believes that most people are basically good. For those who will not behave honestly and legally we have the justice system. And yes I still want the second amendment so I can defend myself and my family from the few who are truly evil.

As for people being responsible enough to provide for themselves, it seems to me that most people do that now. Most people work for a living so they can care for themselves and support their families. It isn't the government who puts food on your table, its you. It isn't the government who buys your clothes or makes your house payment, its you. It isn't the government who raises your children, its you. It isn't the government who teaches your children values, its you. (BTW would you really want Bill Clinton teaching values to your children?) You do a much better job of those things than government can.

[nclib]

I have a very positive view of libertarians, its their ideas that bother me.

Every libertarian I know is a decent fellow, responsible hard working citizens who obey the law.

I would agree.

My question mainly meant--"what is your opinion of Libertarians politically".

[Democratic Hawk]

Negative (D)

Politically, with yours truly being rather liberal on economic issues and moderately populist on social issues, I'd have to say I have a negative opinion of Libertarians

Personally, I'm sure there is good and bad among Libertarians just as there is in among folk of other ideological orientations

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Big "L" Libertarians, negative.
Small "l" libertarians... depends what you mean by libertarian.

[John Dibble]

Big "L" Libertarians, negative.
Small "l" libertarians... depends what you mean by libertarian.

You have a negative opinion of me?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You have a negative opinion of me?

No. You see to be fairly sane actually. I meant it in a more generic sense.

[MaC]

Reviving for the fun of it...

I say positive, not very postitive because the party heads aren't the smartest people.

Ex. "if only we could get on the ballot in every state, then we'd get elected.   lol

[Frodo]

If you mean on a strictly ideological (as opposed to personal) basis -Option 4...perhaps even 5. 

[Gabu]

My opinion of libertarianism as a political ideology has steadily decreased since my post on here a while ago the more I critically examine libertarianism.

I don't dislike the people, though.

[Ebowed]

Generally positive.  Out of the major ideologies I find libertarianism to be the one riddled with the least contradictions, followed by populism.  I often wonder about the mainstream conservative movement supporting social restrictions while opposing economic ones, and vice versa for the mainstream liberal movement.  I sometimes get the impression - unfair as it may be - that these ideologies are driven more by partisan politics and special interests than sound ideological thinking.  Populism and libertarianism, on the other hand, have to work with the two main parties in order to get their goals accomplished.  This means that the ideologies are better thought-out and not bound to Capitol Hill lobbyists, etc.  One example of a contradiction I find in liberalism is purported support of equal rights for all people and then supporting causes such as affirmative action, which uses race or sex as a factor as opposed to treating the criterion as irrelevant, as it should if equal rights are to be an actual goal.  There is the argument, though, that it is a responsibility to create "equal" rights by levelling the playing field, often used by the liberal movement to justify their support of affirmative action.  But in order to level the playing field, it must be admitted that one type of person needs help while the other doesn't - and in this case, the basis for giving that help is skin color.  This is, in my opinion, tantamount to treating one skin color as inferior to another.  The obvious solution for the liberal movement, of course, is to drop any and all support of race-based affirmative action and support economic- or class-based affirmative action instead.  This way, those who are in poor economic or social situations are given the "equal" oppurtunity that they deserve, according to liberal ideology.  But the Democrats appear reluctant to do this, instead treating dark skin as if it were some sort of social problem.

However, there are certainly liberals and conservatives who believe what they do without any special interest in either party.  It is just less common than with libertarians and populists, as evidenced by the fact that you can find both in either of the two major parties (although populists are more likely to be Democrats, and libertarians are more likely to be Republicans).

[Defarge]

They scare the willies out of me, especially the smart ones.

"What do you mean monopolies are bad?"

[A18]

"Populism" is not the same as authoritarianism. I don't know why it's used that way here.

You can be a libertarian and a populist.

[Ebowed]

"Populism" is not the same as authoritarianism. I don't know why it's used that way here.

It's used that way here because it's shorter to type than authoritarianism or communitarianism.

[A18]

'Dog' is even shorter. Why not use that?

[opebo]

My opinion of libertarians has become more negative since my last posting.  Their social positions are generally good, though a great many that call themselves libertarian on here seem just as socially intolerant as a Republican. 

The annoying thing about libertarians is their totally unrealistic understanding of economics, and their slavish worship of their betters.  If you're going to be a fawning dog, expect to be kicked!

[CheeseWhiz]

Very, very positive!

[Democratic Hawk]

Negative (D)

Politically, with yours truly being rather liberal on economic issues and moderately populist on social issues, I'd have to say I have a negative opinion of Libertarians

Personally, I'm sure there is good and bad among Libertarians just as there is in among folk of other ideological orientations

Dave

My position on libertarians has changed somewhat of late. While, I'll never be one, there are plenty of libertarians on the Forum who I like personally and some moderate ones who I like politically. I could indeed support moderate libertarians in Forum community polls and Fantasy elections

They've gotta be economically compassionate though

Dave

[Bono]

I have a very positive view of libertarians, its their ideas that bother me.

Every libertarian I know is a decent fellow, responsible hard working citizens who obey the law.  The trouble is they think everyone else is capable of being a decent person too, and it just ain't so.

Most people are ignorant, mean spirited, irresponsible, and selfish.  95% of the population could not function in a libertarian society, because they are not ready, and never will be ready, for the kinds of freedoms they would have.

Since most libertarians are in the 5% of decent people, they don't quite get this.

That's an example of the falacy of turtles all the way downm that stem's from an anecdote Stephen Hawking used in A Brief History Of Time:

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down.”

Jacob Lyles shown how this falacy is commonly used in justifying government:

Thomas Hobbes believed that humans were naturally violent, nasty, and mean. Left in a state of nature, man will constantly try to bash his neighbor over the head and run off with his money. Under anarchy “might makes right” and the strong survive by plundering the possessions of the weak.

Hobbes thought that the only way to change this was to institute a government. If its armed men were stronger than everybody else, then the government could provide a safe environment, ensuring that its citizens could go about their business without fear of being killed or mugged.

But there was a fatal flaw in Hobbes’ reasoning. The government is also made up of men. Instead of ending theft and murder, the men in government become the most flagrant thieves and murderers. Since they are more powerful than everyone else, they exploit their position to conduct plunder on a vast scale.

The bloody history of the world’s governments shows this to be true. They have slaughtered at least half a billion people during the 20th century alone. Hundreds of millions have lost their lives in wars to expand the glory and power of their government. When not killing foreigners, governments have been busy at work killing their own subjects. To cement their power, communist regimes killed additional hundreds of millions of innocents through starvation, forced labor, and the execution of dissidents.
In the United States our leaders have been mercifully slow to kill their own citizens since 1865, but we are not left in peace. Our government has become the largest den of thieves in the history of the world. It serves as a conduit for corporate farmers, arms makers, steel makers, oil companies, trade unions, and others with political pull to siphon away our hard earned money to the tune of $3 trillion per year. The old steal from the young, the rich and poor steal from the middle class, and the politician steals from us all until theft becomes so commonplace as to go unnoticed.

Scott Scheule ave a more formal analysis of this fallacy as applied to government in his guide for policy makers::

[T]here are two proper requirements to be fulfilled before implementing a policy. I will state them first casually, then in more precise economic terms.

To justify a policy you must show:

   1. Something is wrong.
   2. There is a way to fix it.

Now, in economic terms. You must show:

   1. The private market is erring.
   2. The political marketplace will yield a result that fixes the corresponding private market error.

The second requirement is usually ignored. In fact, it was for a long period of time assumed that the government was a perfect actor with perfect information. These assumptions were wrong. Once this was realized, the field of public choice economics emerged, which discussed in detail why the political marketplace has its own errors. I believe the second requirement has never once been fulfilled in the history of mankind, and that is why I am an anarchist.

The readings we’ve been assigned have a sort of “gotcha” feeling to them. Empirical study comes out, shows that people significantly overvalue risk when it’s widely publicizied, and the statists cry, “Gotcha! The private sector erred, capitalism has failed here.” Requirement one, satisfied. Time for the government to fix the problem.

Ah, but what of number two?

Irrationality will arise just as surely in the political marketplace as the private one. Every datum offered for a failure of neoclassical assumptions applies just as easily to the political marketplace. Yet the latter extension is ignored. Government is presumed perfect; requirement two is glossed over.

Classic example. It is generally presumed that monopolies are bad. Many prescribe antitrust laws administered by the government to prevent the formation of monopolies in the marketplace; without realizing that the government itself is a monopoly, and one backed up by far more force than any software giant. The market was bad because it was monopolistic, and antitrust proponents assume that an even larger monopoly will be able to fix the initial ill.

Economics is not a game of “Gotcha.” It is the study of how people make choices. And how do they do that? A person picks the most preferable of his options.
So, with regards to the big picture, it is not enough to say the market is flawed. Everything is flawed. One must satisfy the second requirement; they must provide a less flawed alternative; we have the entire field of public choice to show why government is not such an alternative.

Unlike most other errors in economics, this is one that is all too frequently made by professional economists with fancy degrees and lots of letters after their names. Why? What explains this glaring blindspot? An unwillingness to part with tradition, both social and academic? An excessive faith in the regulatory power of democracy?

The best explanation for this failure is touched upon in the following two articles: “Do Pessimistic Assumptions About Human Behavior Justify Government?“, by Benjamin Powell and Christopher Coyne, and “Do We Really Ever Get Out Of Anarchy?“, by Alfred G. Cuzan. Many of us think of the government as “conceptually external,” exogenous to the overall social system.

The founder of public choice, James Buchanan, made this critical error when he wrote, in The Limits of Liberty:

The state emerges as the enforcing agency or institution, conceptually external to the contracting parties and charged with the single responsibility of enforcing agreed-on rights and claims along with contracts which involve voluntarily negotiated exchanges of such claims.

Yet, if public choice theory has taught us anything at all, it is that governments are composed of men – the very same breed of men who compose markets – and therefore governments must be conceptually internal, endogenous to the social system. Buchanan himself seemed to recognize this fact, observing that

There is no obvious and effective means through which the enforcing institution or agent can itself be constrained in its own behavior. Hence, as Hobbes so perceptively noted more than three centuries ago, individuals who contract for the services of enforcing institutions necessarily surrender their own independence.

Murray Rothbard, writing in For a New Liberty, described the system of checks and balances with which government is supposed to constrain itself:

As we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government’s own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government. Furthermore, the highly touted ‘checks and balances’ and ‘separation of powers’ in the American government are flimsy indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisions are part of the same government and are governed by the same set of rulers.

Very clever, these checks and balances, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.


Still waiting for an answer here.