Why hate Libertarians?

sprinkles said:
I thought Libertarians would be against unions, with the way unions currently work. Or at least say that the company is free to ignore the union which makes the union pointless for practical purposes.

Edit:
Also I'm not sure where you live, but where I come from unions exist largely because of the government intervention. If unions were not protected, plenty of companies would fire the entire union whenever the union asks for anything that isn't favorable to the company. Some companies would absolutely love to do that.
Click to expand...

There are probably multiple reasons for this. But I don't buy the fact that if the public knew the benefits of a Union, they would be useless. And even if they were, you have to remember a large portion of a corporations power comes from government influence. In a Libertarian society, they would not have this influence,
 
wolly.green said:
There are probably multiple reasons for this. But I don't buy the fact that if the public knew the benefits of a Union, they would be useless. And even if they were, you have to remember a large portion of a corporations power comes from government influence. In a Libertarian society, they would not have this influence,
Click to expand...
It would be great until there is a strike and the company just hires people that are not union. Then what?

What bargaining power do you really have when you can just be gotten rid of? There's always somebody else that needs a job.
 
sprinkles said:
It would be great until there is a strike and the company just hires people that are not union. Then what?

What bargaining power do you really have when you can just be gotten rid of? There's always somebody else that needs a job.
Click to expand...

This is the same problem as " how to influence enough people". I addressed this a bit above. But to give a full treatment of the subject I need to write an essay. If I write another article would you be keen to discuss it? It's been a few years since I wrote my dissertation so it will take me a couple of days.
 
wolly.green said:
This is the same problem as " how to influence enough people". I addressed this a bit above. But to give a full treatment of the subject I need to write an essay. If I write another article would you be keen to discuss it? It's been a few years since I wrote my dissertation so it will take me a couple of days.
Click to expand...
I don't recommend wasting that much time on somebody like me. I don't want you to regret doing so.
 
@wolly.green. I think you will find you are a bit more informed than people like. You put up a well worded argument. One that is difficult to find flaw in. I for one have enjoyed your posts and have in fact actually learned things I did not initially know.
 
Eventhorizon said:
@wolly.green. I think you will find you are a bit more informed than people like. You put up a well worded argument. One that is difficult to find flaw in. I for one have enjoyed your posts and have in fact actually learned things I did not initially know.
Click to expand...

Oh wow thanks for that! I'm glad you agree, even though I value criticism greatly!
 
wolly.green said:
The reason I like Libertarianism is because it is the only political system I know of that is internally consistent.
Click to expand...

I used to believe that was true as well, but in reality it is not. If you listen to someone like Ron Paul talk about regulations he'll sit here and tell you that they kill jobs and waste productivity by raising the barrier of entry and a whole bunch of other junk. But then if you ask Ron Paul what we should do about marijuana he'll tell you we should legalize it, but regulate it.

Why the inconsistency? If regulations on other businesses are so bad, why not legalize marijuana without regulations? Wouldn't that be better?

There is a very important principle in economics called a Nash Equilibrium. It essentially proves that individuals operating in their own best interest rarely achieve optimal results. Sometimes in order to do what is ultimately right, you need some way to force everyone to coordinate and do the same thing.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Back in 2008 my home state of Minnesota banned smoking in all public places including bars. At first I didn't really like it. Even though I don't smoke myself the libertarian in me said that it wasn't the states business. Individual bar owners should be allowed to decide that for themselves. What I found out later though was that virtually every bar owner I knew was happy about the decision. Why? Because they all wanted to go smoke free, but were scared to do it individually. They were worried that if they went smoke free, but their competition across the street didn't they would offend their regular smoking customers, and drive them away with no guarantee they'd get new customers to replace them. They had a working business model, and they were scared to "fix" it. But the thing is their competition felt the exact same way, so even though both businesses wanted to do the right thing, neither felt like they could unless they had confidence their competition would do the same.

When the ban passed it allowed them to have the smoke free business that they actually wanted, but since they could blame the government for it their customers wouldn't take it out on them. As it turned out business boomed following the ban because their actually were a ton of people who generally avoided the bars because of all the smoke who could now come and enjoy it.

This exact type of scenario plays out a lot more often than libertarians would like to admit it does. The regulation doesn't hurt the business it actually helps them do the right thing. The problem with the free market is that if even one of your competitors is choosing to do something unsavory in order to cut costs and get a competitive edge it kind of forces all the competition to do the same thing just to keep pace. Even if they know it's morally wrong their forced to either do it, or risk going out of business. Government regulation is the only realistic way to solve these problems.

Liberals understand this reality, libertarians do not.
 
MrWonka said:
Why the inconsistency? If regulations on other businesses are so bad, why not legalize marijuana without regulations? Wouldn't that be better?
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is a problem. Ron Paul is inconsistent, not libertarianism

MrWonka said:
There is a very important principle in economics called a Nash Equilibrium. It essentially proves that individuals operating in their own best interest rarely achieve optimal results. Sometimes in order to do what is ultimately right, you need some way to force everyone to coordinate and do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The biggest flaw with this argument is that it falsely assumes that some problems have no solution. But since this is wrong, it cannot be used as an argument against Libertarianism. You have a really good example, so I'll work with that to build an argument.

In the example you gave, bar owners want to do the "right thing" and ban smoking on their property. However nobody wants to do it because there is a risk of losing profit. Suppose everyone suddenly decides that restrictions are a really good idea and agree to ban smoking on their property. In this situation, everyone can feel good about the fact that they have done the "right thing", and feel secure in the fact that they will not lose profit. However, this kind of situation is unstable and ripe for exploitation. If just one bar decides to exploit the smoking ban by lifting it, they stand to gain a lot of extra profit. If one bar lifts the ban, others will follow. And before long, smoking is allowed everywhere. The ban is unstable because there is too much to be gained by breaking it. And so in order to inject stability, government must intervene by creating laws.

This is a well constructed argument, everything fits together nicely! However it is ultimately flawed. The first obvious problem is that you assume the only way to inject stability into an unstable situation is to use government force. That sometimes, the only way to achieve results that are good for everyone is to impose laws. But why should that be the case? I don't have solution myself, but why should I believe that sometimes, the only way solve societies problems is to use coercion? One common answer is: 'some problems simply cannot be solved'. It's perhaps comforting to think it really is possible to get bar owners to co-operate without government intervention, but if you get off the pipe you'll see that this is simply not possible.

Now I'm not one to indulge in hopeless pipe dreams, but perhaps the claim that 'some problems are insoluble' deserves closer inspection. At the heart of this claim is the assertion that some questions have no answers. That there is an outter limit to what human rationality can discover. One very common analogy is that human reason is like a bubble. All things inside the bubble are knowable, while all things outside are unknowable. Any mystery that lies beyond the bubble also lie outside the limits of human reason. However, the key problem with this claim is that if some things really are unknowable to us, why should we believe that anything is knowable at all. You can claim that human rationality is capable of discovering some truth, but if rationality is limited, why should we believe that it is capable of discovering any truth whatsoever? Because it's worked in the past? But how do you know that? Quite simply, the best claim that can be made is the human rationality is capable of discovering truth. Saying that human rationality is limited is itself irrational.

So getting back your bar example, government is one way to solve the instability of a smoking ban. But why should that be the only solution? As I showed above, it is simply irrational to claim that there are no other solutions. Human rationality is capable of discovering truth. That much we know. It may take a long time to solve the smoking ban dilemma without government, but if we want a solution, we can find it. Humans have done some remarkable thing. We have built planes, gone to space and genetically engineered living organisms. We have even artificially created tempreatures that are far colder than coldest places in the universe. This idea that we need government to solve all our problems is simply a cop out. We've done some incredible things already. There's no reason that some intellectual giant cannot solve these problems of creating a stable society without government.

MrWonka said:
Liberals understand this reality, libertarians do not.
Click to expand...

This is a very naive thing to say.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
Humans made the atomic bomb, too. Just because it's smart, that doesn't mean it is good, or even rational.
Click to expand...

That's completely irrelevant. What on earth does that have to do with the claim that humans are capable of solving problems?
 
wolly.green said:
Why the hate for Libertarians? A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across a few comments on this forum. They implied that libertarians are both nieve and selfish. Is this view common here? And are there any libertarians here that feel misunderstood?
Click to expand...

I think we all have a libertarian streak; AND yes, I am wary of any monolithic institution that operates as a regime; doubly so if anyone is simply handed tremendous power and access by virtue of his or her connections as opposed to actual qualifications and fitness for the position. I think an honest libertarian would find Trump antithetical to his or her values.? Not to mention any single party rule. That's scary. I won't rant on and on, but basically, we have a Super Government atm, one that is as close to authoritarian rule as I've ever seen, or for that matter, my 73 year old mother has ever seen. As someone with libertarian sympathies, how do you feel about our current political system?

When you say libertarian, what do you mean?

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-kind-of-libertarian-are-you-721655
  • Anarcho-Capitalism. ...
  • Civil Libertarianism. ...
  • Classical Liberalism. ...
  • Fiscal Libertarianism. ...
  • Geolibertarianism. ...
  • Libertarian Socialism. ...
  • Minarchism. ...
  • Neolibertarianism.
More items
Click to expand...


I feel that "selfish" and "nieve" are inapposite labels. My values might seem that way to an INFJ, but it is, in fact, false. So completely false it annoys me (hence this rant) As an INTP, I appreciate logical consistency. In searching for values, a care much for those that are internally consistency. The reason for this is simple, a logical contradiction is nonsense. A theory that is self contradictory is, by definition, false. So in searching for values that are internally consistent, I am actually searching for truth.
Click to expand...

Spoken like any generic INTP! This stuff sounds like something a college kid would write -- you mentioned "truth," "internal consistency," 'logical contradictions," and other words/phrases kids use to sound profound -- hell, you even offered up these two gems:

1. "I feel that "selfish" and "nieve" are inapposite labels. My values might seem that way to an INFJ, but it is, in fact, false."

-- Do you post here because it's easy to bolster your ego by exploiting stereotypes about NF feelings, and how their "feelings" apparently cripple their ability to think logically, thus leaving you winner by default?

2. "So completely false it annoys me (hence this rant) As an INTP, I appreciate logical consistency. In searching for values, a care much for those that are internally consistency."

-- Isn't reminding all that you are an INTP simply putting on your "professor cap?" Ah, stomping the underlings. You are the authority. Got it.

I love theory too, but apply the paragraph above to libertarianism as a governing philosophy, applied to a human populace. Analyze how it would actually work irl, with real people, as a real governing body.



The reason I like Libertarianism is because it is the only political system I know of that is internally consistent. Every other system, including: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism...... eventually unravel into some sort of logical contradiction. And since a theory (including a political system) that unravels into a logical contradiction is false, it follows that it can be ruled out.

Now I'm not saying Libertarianism is true -- far from in fact. But since it is the only system I have yet to discover a contradiction in, it is the only one I have yet to rule out. "Selfishness" has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So, libertarianism is just a thought experiment with no practical application?

Now, I can see that! Or, did I miss where you typed something meaningful, free of Big Shot fluff?
 
sprinkles said:
Also I think humans are shit and I don't trust them to solve anything in a timely manner, even though they could.
Click to expand...
Lurk said:
I think we all have a libertarian streak; AND yes, I am wary of any monolithic institution that operates as a regime; doubly so if anyone is simply handed tremendous power and access by virtue of his or her connections as opposed to actual qualifications and fitness for the position. I think an honest libertarian would find Trump antithetical to his or her values.? Not to mention any single party rule. That's scary. I won't rant on and on, but basically, we have a Super Government atm, one that is as close to authoritarian rule as I've ever seen, or for that matter, my 73 year old mother has ever seen. As someone with libertarian sympathies, how do you feel about our current political system?

When you say libertarian, what do you mean?






Spoken like any generic INTP! This stuff sounds like something a college kid would write -- you mentioned "truth," "internal consistency," 'logical contradictions," and other words/phrases kids use to sound profound -- hell, you even offered up these two gems:

1. "I feel that "selfish" and "nieve" are inapposite labels. My values might seem that way to an INFJ, but it is, in fact, false."

-- Do you post here because it's easy to bolster your ego by exploiting stereotypes about NF feelings, and how their "feelings" apparently cripple their ability to think logically, thus leaving you winner by default?

2. "So completely false it annoys me (hence this rant) As an INTP, I appreciate logical consistency. In searching for values, a care much for those that are internally consistency."

-- Isn't reminding all that you are an INTP simply putting on your "professor cap?" Ah, stomping the underlings. You are the authority. Got it.

I love theory too, but apply the paragraph above to libertarianism as a governing philosophy, applied to a human populace. Analyze how it would actually work irl, with real people, as a real governing body.





So, libertarianism is just a thought experiment with no practical application?

Now, I can see that! Or, did I miss where you typed something meaningful, free of Big Shot fluff?
Click to expand...

Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? I'm not trying to be mean or condescending. Why are you being so nasty. Do you get off on being a sadistic prick?
 
wolly.green said:
What the heck? I'm not trying to be mean, or condescending. What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you being so nasty. Do you get off on being a sadistic prick?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Really.

You were pissy with me the other day. And, I do kinda think you have college kid syndrome. ;)

Seriously, I would like for you to explain more, though.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top