I’ve wanted to write this thread for a while but never got around to it.
The argument I always hear from Libertarians is that pretty much any other system, ‘uses force.’ No matter what system it is, it is wrong because it has, ‘men with guns.’ But what is not realised here, is that any system must by necessity use force to defend itself. No matter how many people agree with a system, there will always be some who will not agree with it and use force against it. In this scenario, Libertarians would either have to allow their system to be severely damaged, or use, ‘men with guns,’ to protect it. If the 2nd is true, then Libertarianism has the same flaw that all systems must have out of necessity to protect themselves. It should also be noted that under a Libertarian society, (and this society also) force would be used against the majority of the population, though in a more subtle way. The majority of the population will be forced to work for the few who own businesses, otherwise they will starve. The Libertarian argument to this will be, ‘they can start their own buisiness or live off the land.’ For the first solution, money is necessary, so if someone wants to start their own buisiness they will have to work for one of the existing businesses for a significant amount of time. And when (or if) they finally get the money, the buisiness they set up could be outcompeted. There could always be another person who’s able to sell another product that is more popular. There is no guarantee that the person who starts up the business will be able to maintain their right to control their own lives. This right, of a person to be free, is not something that can be just given to some based on how lucky they are, it is a right of all people. As to the 2nd solution, the same problem applies, they’ll need money to live off the land. Land isn’t free, even the most basic house certainly isn’t free, vegetables, animals, none of these things are free. And regardless, the argument could always be made that why should someone half to live a primitive existence just because they don’t want to work under someone else’s command.
Libertarianism would use quite a lot of force, if the population tried to take control of the means of production to end the situation where they must live under the command of the minority. It would view this as trying to, ‘steal,’ the factories from their rightful owners. But what right does a person have to take control of for example food, necessary for the survival of the whole human race, and say that it will only be distributed to people on their terms? I do not believe this can be justified, food is a right, it cannot be given out to only those who agree to obey. I think an argument I got in response to this was, ‘They can walk away from the factory without being forced at gun point to return.’ So apparently shooting someone is wrong, but someone having severe starvation inflicted on them isn’t wrong at all. The argument seems to be saying that only if force is used directly, ie, using a gun, knife etc, does it count as real force, depriving someone of something they need to stay alive doesn’t seem to count as force according to this argument.
Libertarians are opposed to all forms of taxation, meaning there would be no safety for people who have lost their job or because of a disability cannot work at all. There is a lot of talk about the right of the people to keep their money, but what about the people who will be forced into severe poverty because they are unable to work? Isn’t the right of a person to have a reasonably comfortable and healthy existence more important than the right of a person to have slightly more money? Which is a worse scenario, someone who has enough for a house and a car suffering deprivation of funds that they might not even notice, or a person having to lie in the gutter? Suppose a person was suffering a heart attack in the street, would it be right for another person to not bother ringing an ambulance because it will take up some of their time? Perhaps you could make the argument that if the person had to spend their whole life looking after the victim that then they would have a right to complain. In the same way, perhaps if a person had to give all their money to the poor then they would be entitled to complain, however, only a small amount would be necessary to help those who cannot work. The Libertarian will worry about many other factors before they worry about people suffering it seems.
A thing I’ve noticed about at least some Libertarians is the use of selective logic. My earlier description of selective use of the term, ‘force,’ would probably apply. But another interesting thing I’ve noticed is that, if someone condemns capitalism using our current society as an example, Libertarians will often get a bit annoyed, saying something like, ‘That’s ridiculous, this society is not true capitalism, how could you even think of using this system as an example of how bad capitalism is? Then the exact same Libertarians will condemn socialism based on what happened in the USSR and similar countries. They fail to explain how Lenin was a socialist when he shut down the workers councils that had sprung up before the Bolshevik revolution. They fail to explain how Stalin was a socialist when he helped fight against the socialist revolution in Spain. In short, the USSR was socialist because it was referred to as socialist, but the current order isn’t capitalist even though it is referred to as capitalist. However, the USSR was in no way socialist, it had no worker’s democracy or anything of the sort, but, the current order, despite some deviations from capitalism, has the central principles in effect, a small handful controlling the means of production.
The other important thing to note is, Libertarians often throw out accusations about other people supporting an elite controlling everyone, but under Libertarianism there would be an elite controlling everyone. Libertarians disapprove of direct democracy and support Representative Democracy, which as I’ll explain is no democracy at all. Under a Representative Democracy, people can vote in a representatives who they are stuck with for 4 years. 4 years is a long time for a representative to be without control from the population. The representative, in theory, will follow a constituition, but what is to stop them being corrupted by power when they are not under the control of the people? They could, ‘interpret the constituition,’ whatever way they see fit, convieniently finding ways to serve their own selfish ends.
Well I hope this starts off a good old discussion.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I’ve wanted to write this thread for a while but never got around to it.
The argument I always hear from Libertarians is that pretty much any other system, ‘uses force.’ No matter what system it is, it is wrong because it has, ‘men with guns.’ But what is not realised here, is that any system must by necessity use force to defend itself. No matter how many people agree with a system, there will always be some who will not agree with it and use force against it. In this scenario, Libertarians would either have to allow their system to be severely damaged, or use, ‘men with guns,’ to protect it. If the 2nd is true, then Libertarianism has the same flaw that all systems must have out of necessity to protect themselves.
It should also be noted that under a Libertarian society, (and this society also) force would be used against the majority of the population, though in a more subtle way. The majority of the population will be forced to work for the few who own businesses, otherwise they will starve.
The Libertarian argument to this will be, ‘they can start their own buisiness or live off the land.’ For the first solution, money is necessary, so if someone wants to start their own buisiness they will have to work for one of the existing businesses for a significant amount of time. And when (or if) they finally get the money, the buisiness they set up could be outcompeted. There could always be another person who’s able to sell another product that is more popular. There is no guarantee that the person who starts up the business will be able to maintain their right to control their own lives. This right, of a person to be free, is not something that can be just given to some based on how lucky they are, it is a right of all people. As to the 2nd solution, the same problem applies, they’ll need money to live off the land. Land isn’t free, even the most basic house certainly isn’t free, vegetables, animals, none of these things are free. And regardless, the argument could always be made that why should someone half to live a primitive existence just because they don’t want to work under someone else’s command.
Libertarianism would use quite a lot of force, if the population tried to take control of the means of production to end the situation where they must live under the command of the minority. It would view this as trying to, ‘steal,’ the factories from their rightful owners. But what right does a person have to take control of for example food, necessary for the survival of the whole human race, and say that it will only be distributed to people on their terms? I do not believe this can be justified, food is a right, it cannot be given out to only those who agree to obey. I think an argument I got in response to this was, ‘They can walk away from the factory without being forced at gun point to return.’ So apparently shooting someone is wrong, but someone having severe starvation inflicted on them isn’t wrong at all. The argument seems to be saying that only if force is used directly, ie, using a gun, knife etc, does it count as real force, depriving someone of something they need to stay alive doesn’t seem to count as force according to this argument.
Libertarians are opposed to all forms of taxation, meaning there would be no safety for people who have lost their job or because of a disability cannot work at all. There is a lot of talk about the right of the people to keep their money, but what about the people who will be forced into severe poverty because they are unable to work? Isn’t the right of a person to have a reasonably comfortable and healthy existence more important than the right of a person to have slightly more money?
Which is a worse scenario, someone who has enough for a house and a car suffering deprivation of funds that they might not even notice, or a person having to lie in the gutter? Suppose a person was suffering a heart attack in the street, would it be right for another person to not bother ringing an ambulance because it will take up some of their time? Perhaps you could make the argument that if the person had to spend their whole life looking after the victim that then they would have a right to complain. In the same way, perhaps if a person had to give all their money to the poor then they would be entitled to complain, however, only a small amount would be necessary to help those who cannot work. The Libertarian will worry about many other factors before they worry about people suffering it seems.
A thing I’ve noticed about at least some Libertarians is the use of selective logic. My earlier description of selective use of the term, ‘force,’ would probably apply. But another interesting thing I’ve noticed is that, if someone condemns capitalism using our current society as an example, Libertarians will often get a bit annoyed, saying something like, ‘That’s ridiculous, this society is not true capitalism, how could you even think of using this system as an example of how bad capitalism is? Then the exact same Libertarians will condemn socialism based on what happened in the USSR and similar countries. They fail to explain how Lenin was a socialist when he shut down the workers councils that had sprung up before the Bolshevik revolution. They fail to explain how Stalin was a socialist when he helped fight against the socialist revolution in Spain. In short, the USSR was socialist because it was referred to as socialist, but the current order isn’t capitalist even though it is referred to as capitalist. However, the USSR was in no way socialist, it had no worker’s democracy or anything of the sort, but, the current order, despite some deviations from capitalism, has the central principles in effect, a small handful controlling the means of production.
The other important thing to note is, Libertarians often throw out accusations about other people supporting an elite controlling everyone, but under Libertarianism there would be an elite controlling everyone. Libertarians disapprove of direct democracy and support Representative Democracy, which as I’ll explain is no democracy at all.
Under a Representative Democracy, people can vote in a representatives who they are stuck with for 4 years. 4 years is a long time for a representative to be without control from the population. The representative, in theory, will follow a constituition, but what is to stop them being corrupted by power when they are not under the control of the people? They could, ‘interpret the constituition,’ whatever way they see fit, convieniently finding ways to serve their own selfish ends.
Well I hope this starts off a good old discussion.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Randy Ayndies are off in some kind of pseudointellectual delusion.
I have been to some of their sites. We have had fun fights.
When I suggested making accounting mandatory in school they objected on the grounds that nothing should be mandatory.
They use the term SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVISM a lot. I ask them how anyone can be scientifically objective and not figure out that planned obsolescence is occuring in cars? They haven't given me a satifactory answer, but people should be FREE to buy whatever car they want. However you can only choose from the garbage that is manufactured. Well you can design and build your own car. Even if one has the necessary time and knowledge that will take considerable resources. Rosen Motors spent $24,000,000 doing it.
And I ask how one can possibly be SCIENTIFIC without being OBJECTIVE and if one cannot doesn't that mean that SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVISM is Redundant and Repetative? Is there an OBJECTIVISM that can be described as UNSCIENTIFIC. They don't seem to like my saying that.
Libertarianism is a great rationalization if someone rich but not real bright. They already have force on their side. They need to brainwash people into not using force against them and upsetting the status quo.
Dal Timgar
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think the main flaw of Libertarianism is the following. Even the most freedom loving person will acknoledge that there are negative freedoms that should be prevented, eg. the right to attack someone. Libertarianism holds negative freedoms sacred and shuns positive ones. It's like it's the exact opposite of what a political ideology should be. And if someone points out that this loving of negative freedoms is bad, they are called, 'statist', 'elitist,' 'forcing their beliefs on others,' etc. A lot of these phrases used sound like they are being parrotted.
Also, while there are undoubtebly many well intentioned Libertarians, I think at least some of them are just plain bad and want a philosophy that justifies selfishness in order to justify themselves.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
From the threads that I have read in these forums it has become apparent that most of the discussions are about criticising and highlighting the errors in the opposite ideology. I'd much rather see some kind of progress being made where one side addresses how it will resolve these problems.
The problems with the two different ideologies are that in each case there is high probability that people will become exploited (in different ways). Has someone answered the question of how this exploitation can be stopped? The closest I came to an answer was that "...answer is to bring a moral standard back ". This to me seems, in the context of the current state of humanity, highly optimistic. However I could be called a hypocrite for the fact that I am unable to answer this question either. Nonetheless, this is the Communist forums and those that support this ideology have an obligation to answer these and other questions (some are raised in another topic, although it seems they fell on deaf ears).
I feel that you have failed to clearly put forward your argument and make it seem realistic and feasible. In that sense those who support the way things are currently are correct because you fail to provide a viable alternative so you have no right to criticise. I believe that this thread is not showing bias (which is good) to either side of the political spectrum. That being said it would be much more productive if you do express your views (there is no need to criticise the alternative) and state why it is superior.
The main problem with these conflicting ideologies is ignorance and by criticising each other you are only being detrimental to the situation. What I can see occurring is that people may despise an ideology they do not understand and/or support an ideology they do not understand (obviously not the same ideology). Therefore each side must present a clear argument showing how it is better over the other. Sorry, I just get the impression that this topic is wavering and is not truly definitive, thus not really helping.
Perhaps I have misread these threads or incorrectly analysed them (I have not read them all and bear in mind this is just my personal opinion). If you have provided definitive arguments in previous topics then I do apologise and would appreciate it if you link me to where you have done this.
I will address the thread in more detail. At first I was unfamiliar with the term 'Libertarian' but i believe this just simply mean those people who believe in the pure market economy. I agree with most of what was said. I agree with how you're explained that there is visible force and non-visible force "It should also be noted that under a Libertarian society, (and this society also) force would be used against the majority of the population, though in a more subtle way" and how we have no option but to abide by the current system. I also agree that it would be incorrect to say that either of these different types of force is worse then the other.
On a side note: I assume that most of these Libertarians are rich white people from America. If that is the case then I am baffled by the fact that they support the pure market economy yet are proposing tariffs and restrictions on China! This quite clearly is hypocritical. I have discussed this in an earlier post.
I also agree your disdain for representative democracy. How can a person serving 4-8 years care about the long-term effects of his decisions, especially when the consequences of these decisions may not show for 15-30 years? But then again you could argue that these people are representatives of their party and assuming the party wants to retain their leadership it will have a long-term strategy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.