kusok Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/ Hey guys, i was looking at this "article", and needless to say I have "strong feelings" about it, but I'm having some issues of how to put it together into words well. What do you think? Perhaps Stef can do an episode on this? This article is being linked and discussed already on some boards. Thanks for any and all thoughts.
masonman Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 Its such an absurd claim I'm not sure if its worth a video
JamesP Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 If setting the tax slaves free is so great, why have no slaveowners set their slaves free?
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 And the answer is... America. From founding until around 1836. At which point the steady influence of statism had made enough of a dent to begin the landslide. The more direct answer is because the world is full of morons like the writer of the article.
JKPgamer Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 My first thought when I read this article: People still think hierarchical systems are the only way to get morality. Stef has made this argument multiple times that the argument must come from morality to be won. The ruling class perpetuates the axiom that we need a ruling class. So of course a society hasn't emerged without one yet.
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 And the answer is... ... the black market. So obvious, I didn't see it staring me in the face. Thanks.
Wesley Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 And the answer is... ... the black market. Agorism FTW!
Formelyknown Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Since when libertarism is apealing to peoples? For one pro-libertarian article there is 100 agains it. That guy is not even wrong he is somethng else.
STer Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 I'm not even a libertarian, per se, but anyone who is logical should see that this is an absolutely moronic line of thinking to apply to any idea. Is the author implying that the truth of an idea can be measured by how many people support it? Was the earth not round until after most people accepted it and decided to try living as if it was the case? Is the author claiming that the majority of people can never be wrong, not even to mention that the small minority that get to decide the way countries are run can never be wrong or misguided or selfish or many other things that would keep them from trying a new system, even if it was beneficial to people in general? A better article, which would actually be very valuable, would be on the topic of why people often reject or do refuse to even try potentially better solutions. And there is a wealth of insight into that question. There is a long history of people resisting good ideas. I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it there for now.
Magnus Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 It's a stupid question -- why aren't States more pro-freedom? Answer: States are designed to be anti-freedom. They exist to enslave people. That's their purpose and function. It's like asking why more slave-owners weren't advocating for the abolition of slavery. If they were anti-slavery, they'd just free their slaves, and thus cease to be slave-owners. Why aren't the Chinese Triads, Russian mobs, or La Cosa Nostra founding more schools, hospitals and No Smoking campaigns? Uh ... that's not what people join those organizations to do. Every once in a while, some imposter or deluded soul will sneak into the ranks of the Government Class, in the hopes of dismantling it from within. But you'd have a better chance of working your way up to the top of the Sex Slave Trade with the Secret Master Plan of ending child slavery.
Metric Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 The question was answered already by a proto-libertarian a couple hundred years ago: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788[2] That's why it's rarely happens -- states are constantly in the business of seeking out and capturing new powers.
nathanm Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Why are there no libertarian countries? The question is one Statists need to answer, not libertarians. But here's the answer anyway: Because it's not logically possible. States claim ownership over every piece of dirt on this planet not covered by water and will use violence to back it up. If it were possible to have independent communities with different social experiments going on that would mean that the centralized government did not exist. If you had AnCapLand and CommieVillage and DemocracyTown all doing their own thing it would mean that everyone is not forced to live in the same mental construct of a country.
Pepin Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 I know it was not needed, but I provided some commentary. The article got worse and worse as it went on. Normally I like dissecting these sorts of articles, but it becomes difficult to have fun when trying to make sense out of gibberish. Why are there no libertariancountries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that theyunderstand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that nota single country in the world in the early twenty-first century isorganized along libertarian lines? What is the argument exactly? That if aparticular political philosophy is advantageous to society at large,why is it not adopted by those that control the state? One answer is that people within thestate benefit from taxation, and libertarianism is opposed totaxation, then the people who benefit from taxation will be opposedto libertarianism. An institution that claims 50% of your income byforce is partial enslavement, and slave masters are opposed to apolitical philosophy that opposes slavery on a moral level. Another simple answer is that the stateis not an institution that aims to benefit society at large, as anyinstitution that has the capability of murdering millions uponmillions of the people the claim to serve and claim it to be a virtueis not interested in what society as a whole. What about all thepeople caged in rape rooms for smoking a little vegetation? Whatabout the millions upon millions who have died in war? What aboutthose who have not been able to get medicine they needed due totariffs, sanctions, and bombing? What about all those who have losttheir livelihood due to the inflation of money? There is also the rational approach of analyzing the premises and finding faults and contradictions in the argument. This is especial vital to determining the validity of any theory, especially one that has yet to be tried out. It is doubtful that the author iscapable of making the case of libertarianism due to the phrase "howbest to organize". Libertarianism is more a philosophy thatposits that the state ought not to organize the majority of society. The author is aware of as shown later in the article. The opposing argument to the above would likely be one in which thefault is put on Republicans, corporations, or even worse: a conceptcalled greed. Such a response does not follow logically, but people seem to think it does for some reason. It’s not as though there werea shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you countthe Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status bythe world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’tat least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least onecountry, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, freetrade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and nopublic education system? Does this at all address thelibertarian arguments as to why this does not occur? Does the authorhave any understanding of the position they are arguing against? When you ask libertarians ifthey can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get abaffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like thisreply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there arecountries which have pursued policies of which libertarians wouldapprove: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security,for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however,gives a role to vouchers in schooling. But this isn’t an adequate response.Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policiesto create an imaginary utopia. Mixing and matching is what seems tooccur when one criticizes the concept of the state and the belovedrulers that have supported murder, imprisonment, theft, terrorism,and enslavement to their fullest extend possible. Also, the author avoids assessing theeffectiveness of "more voluntary programs", likely becausegetting into the empirical aspects of libertarian arguments wouldrequire making an argument, and explaining away statistics would giveyou the appearance of a weaker argument. A real country must functionsimultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, lawenforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Beingable to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at leastsome evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world. A “real” country. I don'tunderstand the author's need to differentiate, besides to give theappearance of something of value being put forth. The author offers their politicalphilosophy, which ends up being a cliché statement unsupported byevidence and then... reiterates their claim again? I am a littleconfused as to how that paragraph slipped by the editor as it isnonsensical even from a statist point of view. Some political philosophies passthis test. The test of some arbitrary rubric thatis put forth without reasoning and evidence? Also, the author is looking for apolitical philosophy to support their political philosophy. Kind ofreminds me of how adults tend to go for preexisting religions thatare similar to their existing belief structures. For much of the globalcenter-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic socialdemocracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbronerdescribed as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other politicalphilosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk othertests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the Westcould point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninistdictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” Theyargued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas ofdemocracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed ina large-scale modern industrial society. The fuck is going on in this article? While the liberal welfare-stateleft, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force inworld politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by thefailure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect butgenuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economicfailure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms ofsocialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism. What is the argument here? I mean, myScience, the author in the article complains earlier about mixing andmatching shit from governments, but this is worse because it isn'teven comprehensible. But think about this for amoment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communistregimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited bythe absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communismwas tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on thescale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in theworld. I'm sorry, but I did think about it fora moment, and that line of reasoning does not at all make sense. If socialism is discredited byempirical failure And if libertarianism has had noempirical test Then why is libertarianism notdiscredited by empirical failure How about education? Accordingto the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chieflypublic, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius. Infant mortality? Ineconomically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S.Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 livebirths, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a pricein human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—atleast Mauritius is economically free! Even to admit such trade-offs—likehigher infant mortality, in return for less government—wouldundermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizensof advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but atless cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced bymarkets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuadedthemselves that there is no significant trade-off between lessgovernment and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracyand more infant and maternal mortality, among other things. I am a little lost as to how the authorcould muster up this. I am not really sure what it is, or even how toaddress it. I mean, sure, these paragraphs may have been slipped in by adrunk sailors while petting a seal as some sort of practical joke, but certainly someone should have noticed a seal in the office, nor does it excuse such a terrible argument. Wait I thought mixing and matching wasnot an adequate response. It’s a seductivevision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’sheavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and lessregulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forcedto return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism isnot only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywherein the world ever tried it? Libertarians do not claim that peoplewould enjoy the same quality of life, but a higher quality of life.The author understands this, but must make us for a lack of substancethrough contradiction. Perhaps we are forced return to thatquestion because the article really has nothing to do with addressingthe question, besides randomly stating it at different points.
STer Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 I was going to add a couple more critiques of this article, but then I think I figured it out. This article is a form of trolling. In the next couple of days, the author will post a new piece explaining that he was just seeing how many people caught all the fallacies in the article and then going on to explain what they all were. Then we will all have a good laugh together.
Existing Alternatives Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 This article is a form of trolling. In the next couple of days, the author will post a new piece explaining that he was just seeing how many people caught all the fallacies in the article and then going on to explain what they all were. Then we will all have a good laugh together. You are funny… I mean, I hope, of course, but… One thing that struck me particularly is the anger in the comments. There were two or three commenters that tried arguing the libertarian side of things, but they were shred to pieces, and not in the intellectual debate kind of way. Ok, so you think libertarians are wrong – go grab your cake! Why the anger? At the end of the day, this was supposed to be an exchange of ideas.
Alan C. Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 Why are there no libertarian countries? Yeah, why don't billions of superstitious, functionally illiterate people embrace libertarianism? It's a mystery, alright.
STer Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 Does the fact that the author of that article has never been made the leader of a country negate his ideas? If his ideas are so great, howcome everyone hasn't cried out for him being installed in power? Hmmmm? Really makes you think doesn't it?!
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Salon.com statist deconstructed by a voice for Reason: http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/07/michael-linds-obtuse-attack-on-liberty-a
Recommended Posts