“civil rights” hardly. Extremist right on civil rights. “States rights”
1 Like
They care so much about civil rights they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act because it can’t contain all the civil rights they want business owners to have.
3 Likes
Going to the Porcupine Fest? Bring your doggie!
2 Likes
I was browsing around the Mises Institute site one time, trying find out if there had ever been a Golden Era of Libertarianism with a solid philosophical or economic basis to Libertarianism, but there isn’t. It just started as amusement for rich guys who paid academics to tell them they could beat the income tax. The more you look, the less there is.
2 Likes
Yeah, people always point to Chile. But there was nothing about the dictatorship itself that was libertarian, or constructed by libertarians. There were economic policies that were recommended by libertarians, but violently suppressing dissent was never recommended and is inherently un-libertarian.
No, no, it was a genuine question, and I appreciate the link. But the face of modern libertarianism, as far as I can see, is more prominently represented by people at the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation. People like Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, Jesse Walker, Gene Healy, Virginia Postrel, or Megan McArdle, are the modern face of libertarianism, and I’ve never heard of them being that radical. Gillespie and Welch have both voiced support for [social safety nets][1] and environmental regulations.
Milton Friedman was very clear in his belief in a safety net, and proposed a “[negative income tax][2].” And many libertarians aren’t opposed to replacing most entitlements with a [basic guaranteed income][3].
I understand this in a historical context, but I don’t get it in terms of how property is usually maintained and traded today.
I have a belief that private property should exist, that people should be able to own property. But I couldn’t say that they way it was historically claimed was the most beneficial way.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p93MC8wQO9Y
[2]: Negative income tax - Wikipedia
[3]: Time for a Guaranteed Income?
1 Like
Libertarians don’t value profit motive over principles. If they did, they’d support slavery. Couldn’t one also say, “If only we had True Governance instead of this actually existing governance that has historically never been able to avoid colluding with powerful business interests. If only it had principles instead of never-ending hunger for power.” Obviously there are lots of people in government who aren’t in it just for power, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise, simply because government has historically been about the accumulation of power by those in government.
Well, I think the jury’s out on that. That’s the thing about economics. It’s not physics or biology. Reasonable people can’t disagree about whether or not evolution or climate change are real. But reasonable economists who are equally honored by their colleagues regularly disagree about fundamental causes and effects.
Well, as I’ve said, there are lots of kinds of libertarians and not all of them see the state this way. The most modern, outspoken ones clearly don’t.
“States rights” are a big part of why marriage equality (supported by libertarians long before Democrats) is becoming more legal. “States rights” are a big part of why medical and recreational marijuana sales (supported by libertarians long before Democrats) are becoming more legal.
Libertarians supported equal rights for women and minorities long before the major parties.
1 Like
I wish people would remember the difference between libertarians and Libertarians.
It’s not even that subtle.
Libertarians value freedom
libertarians value freedom -and- responsibility
1 Like
Doesn’t really help, because Libertarians also call themselves libertarians
1 Like
The trick is making sure there are systems in place to hold people to those responsibilities.
1 Like
Eh, your fact checking can’t be worse than Doctorow’s.
1 Like
I don’t know… if you look at the pictures accompanying that article, sure seems like the festival is a concentration of the ultra-elite Power Brokers!
Preston, you’re on fire today. I feel like I’m ‘like’ stalking you. 
Libertarianism is about empowerment of people and can be anywhere on the economic spectrum, from communism to free market capitalism. It’s not like communism is a clear philosophy either, look at the arguements between Karl Marx (Statist) and Mikael Bakunin (Libertarian) which ended up with Bakunin being thrown out of the first communist international. There are good reasons why I tend to refer to libertarian-capitalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian-communism when involved in discussions like this.
If Usain Bolt beat me at a 200m race in a sports car I could claim he was aided and abetted by the car. It doesn’t mean I stand any more chance of winning if he doesn’t have it.
Are you talking about private property (land, factories) or personal property (books, this computer i’m typing this on)? I have come across enough confusion about this to always ask first. Communism is against private property, but not necessarily against personal property (I’m certainly in favour of it).
I am assuming that when you say “political (socialist)” you mean “political (statist)”. There are libertarian-socialists and statist capitalists. I blame the smallest political quiz for this common misunderstanding, it seems to be deliberately designed to hide that libertarian-socialism exists.
Anyway, the third position has existed for over 150 years now. There’s nothing new about it.
I think a lot of people hold the core values of libertarians to heart: personal freedoms, smaller government, lower taxes, self reliance and responsibility, belief in private enterprise and the free market, etc. It’s when the big “L” libertarians take on radical extreme views where the world is black and white - all or nothing, it gets really absurd and turns a lot of people off and is impossible to take seriously.
The example of income tax being theft is a prime example. Tax is part of living in a civilized society. The order and infrastructure we all enjoy and allows us to grow as a community is supported by tax dollars. A select few of us could live up in the mountains in a cabin, completely independent of society, but not all of us.
Same with the idea of free enterprise vs the gov. The gov. can for sure hinder free enterprise, but if you think letting them do what ever they want is a good thing, you are naive. Even the argument that the free-market will always sort itself out, with bad businesses going under, isn’t a good one, as there are people more than willing to let their company crash and burn, after defrauding people and ejecting with their money.
So - anyway - lots of good concepts, but you have to apply some thought to each issue you address, not just use a blanket zero-tolerance policy. Life is grey, not black and white, and often times a balance is what needs to be achieved.
1 Like
Certainly one way of seeing it is just that us libertarian socialists have been right all along, and we told you so.
But I think there’s something more complex happening now, because a lot of the most interesting and useful ideas and practices which undermine power are not coming from libertarian socialists, they’re coming from other fringe perspectives like these porcupine weirdos in the woods.
Now, like most fringe groups, they’re way off base on some things, but they’ve given a whole lot of careful thought to others. And while in the past that might have relegated them to kooky irrelevance, the ability for different marginalized weirdos to cross-pollinate is leading to a fresh, increasingly coherent “anarchisty” perspective without a lot of the baggage of traditional anarchism. I definitely don’t think these folks have The Answer, but they’re part of the puzzle.
I went through a libertarian phase in college. Their stance on social issues is pretty appealing to a college student, but became disillusioned when reading further into the party platforms and discovering that the social issues were at best second fiddle to the primary goals of letting fat cats dodge taxes and let polluters pollute.
2 Likes
It’s hard to find a party that is libertarian socially, but also realizes that the free market is not the correct solution to every problem. The invisible hand is not effective at protecting the environment because the environment doesn’t buy anything.
Keep in mind that the invisible hand of the free market is only supposed to work in conditions of total transparency. The public can make lots of rational decisions if they have full access to accurate information, so the Free Market is something of a Utopian fantasy. Otherwise the marketplace is just economic bubbles, racketeering, monopolies, and systemic fraud that leads to crazy economic cycles and a working class in virtual slavery under a small oligarchy (the conditions that created Communism and other revolutionary movements). What discredits Libertarianism is that they refuse to acknowledge that their pipe dream would require much more financial regulation of industry, and that’s a lot more complicated that just saying “let the big banks fail.”
3 Likes
I think the problem with what you’re saying is that the early 20th century, more anarchists leaning version of libertarianism is not generally how it’s understood in the popular vernacular today. Libertarianism is associated with Randian objectivism now, like it or not. They tend to dominate the libertarian party and the libertarian wing of the republican party.
That doesn’t mean that a more broader understanding of libertarianism doesn’t exist, but that this is how it’s understood by the broad general public who aren’t interested in the nuances of political orientations.
2 Likes
