Why would libertarianism not work?

[Distruzio]

You know me.

I do this.

Just like people never advocate feudalism with hopes of being a serf, people don't advocate libertarianism with ambitions of getting screwed.

That's a convenient sidestep, but doesn't change the fact that I was born with a bad hand and I am yet a libertarian. You're making poor generalizations.

[Gauthier]

Just like people never advocate feudalism with hopes of being a serf, people don't advocate libertarianism with ambitions of getting screwed.

That's a convenient sidestep, but doesn't change the fact that I was born with a bad hand and I am yet a libertarian. You're making poor generalizations.

Being born with a bad hand is irrelevant to the point. It's your hand at the time you advocate a position that matters.

[The USOT]

Economically, history has shown intervention as necessary. Now this does not mean that free markets are bad or failures, but that stimulus in certain areas and protection of those most vital to the wellbeing and freedoms of others need to be sustained.

It also has a false dichotomy on freedom. It is often the case that compromise must be met to ensure different kinda of freedom.

Anyone here for instance could assure 100% economic and political freedom. All you would need to do would be to revert to a primitive lifestyle.
You would however have a freedom that is incredibly vulnerable, limit your freedom of resource, limit your freedom of lifestyle etc.

Now of course this is the more extreme end, the point is that libertarianism does not (in its classic sense) guarantee freedoms to the same extent that a non libertarian system (one that can compromise and adapt) can.

[Xirnium]

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

The short answer is that wealth inequality allows the elite to accumulate privileges and powers which allow them unfair advantages over the common person. It is a fact that, historically, a result of these unfair advantages has been the exploitation of the vulnerable. For this reason, some form of state intervention is manifestly required.

The long answer requires you to embark upon your own serious enquiry into history, politics and political economy.

[Slafstopia]

...Is it just me or are people in this thread only talking about libertarian capitalism?

[Xirnium]

...Is it just me or are people in this thread only talking about libertarian capitalism?

If that’s the fault of anyone, it’s the OP’s for not defining the scope of his question. His question asked ‘why might libertarianism not work’, a subject which would be too broad for a 100,000-word doctoral thesis, and probably require a multi-volume series of books to address comprehensively. Personally, I attempted to offer a criticism that went to the core of what I expect the OP finds most attractive about libertarianism, which required a fair bit of guesswork since his post was devoid of any real content.

[Distruzio]

That's a convenient sidestep, but doesn't change the fact that I was born with a bad hand and I am yet a libertarian. You're making poor generalizations.

Being born with a bad hand is irrelevant to the point. It's your hand at the time you advocate a position that matters.

It's a hand I yet retain, Gauthier.

[Distruzio]

Economically, history has shown intervention as necessary. Now this does not mean that free markets are bad or failures, but that stimulus in certain areas and protection of those most vital to the wellbeing and freedoms of others need to be sustained.

It also has a false dichotomy on freedom. It is often the case that compromise must be met to ensure different kinda of freedom.

Anyone here for instance could assure 100% economic and political freedom. All you would need to do would be to revert to a primitive lifestyle.
You would however have a freedom that is incredibly vulnerable, limit your freedom of resource, limit your freedom of lifestyle etc.

Now of course this is the more extreme end, the point is that libertarianism does not (in its classic sense) guarantee freedoms to the same extent that a non libertarian system (one that can compromise and adapt) can.

Indeed. I know this is strange coming from me but... at the request of my Bishop, I'm reanalyzing my libertarian philosophy. "Recognizing ideals is a beautiful thing, Tito... but ideals are uncompromising and lead to dangers to the soul. There is only one ideal that cannot be compromised. The ideal of Jesus Christ. The State may be, as you say, anti-christ, but it is here to stay. Wouldn't you agree that we should, therefore, do our best to cultivate the least anti-christ-like State possible for the good of those who cannot or do not adhere to our ideal? Should we not, as Jesus did, dip our hands into he filth and trust that His Grace, His Love, His Word will allow us to remove them as clean as when they went in? I admire your zeal, my son. But you should not allow it to alienate you from the society you are responsible for."

Well... shit. What the fuck am I supposed to say to that? Thanks, your eminence.... thanks for making more sense than me.

[Xirnium]

Being born with a bad hand is irrelevant to the point. It's your hand at the time you advocate a position that matters.

It's a hand I yet retain, Gauthier.

Not to get all psychoanalytical on you, but since you two are discussing how your personal condition rationalises your support for libertarianism, I’m going to guess: misplaced disillusionment with the mainstream.

Next.

[Distruzio]

It's a hand I yet retain, Gauthier.

Not to get all psychoanalytical on you, but since you two are discussing how your personal condition rationalises your support for libertarianism, I’m going to guess: misplaced disillusionment with the mainstream.

Next.

Why would it be misplaced.... assuming that's what it is?

[Xirnium]

Not to get all psychoanalytical on you, but since you two are discussing how your personal condition rationalises your support for libertarianism, I’m going to guess: misplaced disillusionment with the mainstream.

Next.

Why would it be misplaced.... assuming that's what it is?

Your faith in libertarianism’s power to improve your condition (ie ‘if only we abolished big government I could lift myself up from my bootstraps’) is misplaced. Libertarianism would make your condition worse.

[Distruzio]

Why would it be misplaced.... assuming that's what it is?

Your faith in libertarianism’s power to improve your condition (ie ‘if only we abolished big government I could lift myself up from my bootstraps’) is misplaced. It’d make it worse.

How so?

[Xirnium]

Your faith in libertarianism’s power to improve your condition (ie ‘if only we abolished big government I could lift myself up from my bootstraps’) is misplaced. It’d make it worse.

How so?

Refer to my first post in this thread. Those unfair advantages which exist now with state intervention would only be strengthened without it.

I grant you that you could beat the odds, though, and rise to elite status yourself. You could also do that in your current condition. You would have less chance if the elite were allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them.

[Distruzio]

How so?

Refer to my first post in this thread. Those conditions which exist now with state intervention would be strengthened without it.

I grant you that you could beat the odds, though, and rise to elite status yourself. You could also do that in your current condition. You would have less chance if the elite were allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them.

What about libertarianism assumes that the elite would be allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them in a way that would impede the non-elite?

[Xirnium]

Refer to my first post in this thread. Those conditions which exist now with state intervention would be strengthened without it.

I grant you that you could beat the odds, though, and rise to elite status yourself. You could also do that in your current condition. You would have less chance if the elite were allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them.

What about libertarianism assumes that the elite would be allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them in a way that would impede the non-elite?

I don’t think you’ve defined your particular flavour of libertarianism, but I’m going to assume that in it there aren’t any laws against anti-competition, predatory pricing, cartels and the like. In a world where the elite are allowed to lock away most of the capital inside monopolies and oligarchies, competitors are effectively excluded from trade. If you’re excluded from trade, how can you ever expect to better your condition?

[Distruzio]

What about libertarianism assumes that the elite would be allowed to use their wealth to the full advantage that it grants them in a way that would impede the non-elite?

I don’t think you’ve defined your particular flavour of libertarianism, but I’m going to assume that in it there aren’t any laws against anti-competition, predatory pricing, cartels and the like. In a world where the elite are allowed to lock away most of the capital inside monopolies and oligarchies, competitors are effectively excluded from trade. If you’re excluded from trade, how can you ever expect to better your condition?

Let us assume that firm A wants to become a market monopolist. In order to do so, it would then need to purchase the other firms present in the industry it specializes in. Let us assume that firm B will sell for $100 million. Now, firm A will not likely have $100 million available on hand for such a purchase. So it will likely have to a)borrow: b) trust it's shareholders to forsake a percentage of their payouts: or c) raise the prices of it's services and products. With any of these choices firm A will put itself in a relative competitive disadvantage to the other firms in the industry.

If we assume that firm A goes through with the plan anyway and purchases firm B, then we will find that there are fewer competitors in that industry, aren't there?

So firm C will charge a higher premium to firm A since it has a greater percentage of the current market share. Once more, firm A will have to rely on those three options listed above. Let us assume that the price for firm C is $110 million. Suppose firm A gets the money together and purchases firm C.

What then?

Firm D will be even more expensive. Perhaps it'll be $115 million?

Firm E? $120 million. So on and on. And without anything to prevent market entrance, new competitors can consistently join and sell themselves to firm A, the monopolist, at artificially inflated numbers as selling ones firm will be more profitable than providing a service.

How long could that company maintain so high a level of debt? How long will the shareholders forgo their payouts? How long will consumers endure higher prices when there are clearly other alternatives available?

Firm A, I'm sure you see, will collapse.

Now what of undercutting (predatory pricing)?

Suppose that, for the time being, firm A (from our previous example) is so laden down with debt that it cannot purchase the final market participants. There are just too many! What shall it do? Perhaps it will undercut? Since the customers are likely abandoning the firm in favor of more competitive firms, this would make sense, amirite? How will it finance such an artificially depressed pricing index? It already has enormous amounts of debt? Well, regardless of the debt it already has, let us assume that it undercuts anyway. It takes on more debt to facilitate this action plan and, indeed, the other market participants are driven out due to a lack of profitability. What happens the moment firm A raises prices in order to pay it's debt? New market participants enter the market in order to cut into it's profits so it must, again, undercut. Over and over until it cannot sustain itself.

And what of collusion?

If we assume that all the firms in a given industry will raise their prices together then we must also remember that all market participants are subject to the incentive to earn profit. With higher prices effected from collusion it would not be difficult to imagine golden showers of money falling upon all of them, blow parties, orgies, etc etc. My how the expropriation of society benefits them all!

But what happens if one company lowers their prices just ever so slightly? Perhaps only to preferred customers? Well, as news of these lowered prices spreads among the population being expropriated, customers will begin to switch companies in favor of the one with marginally reduced prices. It will gain market share while those with whom it once colluded will lose market share. The oceans of money everyone was swimming in before will begin to dry up for the others while the one firm with the marginally lower prices begins to see an even greater amount of profit. Only now he has marginally reduced his expropriation of society at the expense of his fellows in the collusion.

What are the other colluders options without a State to enforce their collusion? They'll have to lower their prices as well just to stay afloat. And there we have a relative easing of the expropriation that grows ever more fierce until the collusion has broken down completely in favor of a more balanced free market competition.

[Ashmoria]

Just like people never advocate feudalism with hopes of being a serf, people don't advocate libertarianism with ambitions of getting screwed.

That's a convenient sidestep, but doesn't change the fact that I was born with a bad hand and I am yet a libertarian. You're making poor generalizations.

well no he's not. you may well be one of those people imagining that if we went libertarian you would end up on top. surely you don't think that advocating a libertarian agenda will make your life WORSE.

and it also depends on what you imagine a more libertarian country would be like. what actual changes you wish for.

[The USOT]

Economically, history has shown intervention as necessary. Now this does not mean that free markets are bad or failures, but that stimulus in certain areas and protection of those most vital to the wellbeing and freedoms of others need to be sustained.

It also has a false dichotomy on freedom. It is often the case that compromise must be met to ensure different kinda of freedom.

Anyone here for instance could assure 100% economic and political freedom. All you would need to do would be to revert to a primitive lifestyle.
You would however have a freedom that is incredibly vulnerable, limit your freedom of resource, limit your freedom of lifestyle etc.

Now of course this is the more extreme end, the point is that libertarianism does not (in its classic sense) guarantee freedoms to the same extent that a non libertarian system (one that can compromise and adapt) can.

Indeed. I know this is strange coming from me but... at the request of my Bishop, I'm reanalyzing my libertarian philosophy. "Recognizing ideals is a beautiful thing, Tito... but ideals are uncompromising and lead to dangers to the soul. There is only one ideal that cannot be compromised. The ideal of Jesus Christ. The State may be, as you say, anti-christ, but it is here to stay. Wouldn't you agree that we should, therefore, do our best to cultivate the least anti-christ-like State possible for the good of those who cannot or do not adhere to our ideal? Should we not, as Jesus did, dip our hands into he filth and trust that His Grace, His Love, His Word will allow us to remove them as clean as when they went in? I admire your zeal, my son. But you should not allow it to alienate you from the society you are responsible for."

Well... shit. What the fuck am I supposed to say to that? Thanks, your eminence.... thanks for making more sense than me.

I must say I had a bit of a giggle reading that. I didnt see the begging g of the bishops conversation so it sounded like you were saying that to me. Was very odd, especially when it sounded like you called me Tito

[Distruzio]

Indeed. I know this is strange coming from me but... at the request of my Bishop, I'm reanalyzing my libertarian philosophy. "Recognizing ideals is a beautiful thing, Tito... but ideals are uncompromising and lead to dangers to the soul. There is only one ideal that cannot be compromised. The ideal of Jesus Christ. The State may be, as you say, anti-christ, but it is here to stay. Wouldn't you agree that we should, therefore, do our best to cultivate the least anti-christ-like State possible for the good of those who cannot or do not adhere to our ideal? Should we not, as Jesus did, dip our hands into he filth and trust that His Grace, His Love, His Word will allow us to remove them as clean as when they went in? I admire your zeal, my son. But you should not allow it to alienate you from the society you are responsible for."

Well... shit. What the fuck am I supposed to say to that? Thanks, your eminence.... thanks for making more sense than me.

I must say I had a bit of a giggle reading that. I didnt see the begging g of the bishops conversation so it sounded like you were saying that to me. Was very odd, especially when it sounded like you called me Tito

Lolz.

[Distruzio]

That's a convenient sidestep, but doesn't change the fact that I was born with a bad hand and I am yet a libertarian. You're making poor generalizations.

well no he's not. you may well be one of those people imagining that if we went libertarian you would end up on top. surely you don't think that advocating a libertarian agenda will make your life WORSE.

and it also depends on what you imagine a more libertarian country would be like. what actual changes you wish for.

Indeed. It does depend upon which libertarianism I identify with and from which direction I wish to implement it.

And yes, he is making poor generalizations.

[Indira]

The idea that privatising everything tends to screw over the poor far worse than it does the rich. Can't afford to pay the police? They won't protect you. Can't afford to have all your children educated? Then you doom those who aren't to ignorance and poverty. A company makes an unsafe product? Who's going to hold them to account when they have the money to own the law? That's just off the top of my head

[The USOT]

I must say I had a bit of a giggle reading that. I didnt see the begging g of the bishops conversation so it sounded like you were saying that to me. Was very odd, especially when it sounded like you called me Tito

Lolz.

I realised I kinda sidestepped the issue though. So do you reckon you are going to end up have an "ideal" and a "pragmatic" standard on your current views?

[Blasveck]

So, Libertarianism:
An ideology that, typically, can be described as pro-free market, pro-civil rights, and anti-tax. A classical liberal, essentially.

Personally, I do believe that Libertarianism is the best ideology to follow to have a free society. I believe that it is the best way to organize a society with voluntary contributions and minimal governmental intrusion.

So, NSG, what's your thoughts on Libertarianism? Do you subscribe to the ideology? Do you not? If you do/don't, why?

(And if you have nothing to add to the discussion but "Lolbertarianism is STOOPID", please don't bother posting.)

[Regnum Dominae]

Moderate libertarianism is great, the insanity spewed by the LP and ancaps is not.

If you want specifics, I would call myself a globalist neolibertarian with some liberal leanings.

[Vazdania]

So, Libertarianism:
An ideology that, typically, can be described as pro-free market, pro-civil rights, and anti-tax. A classical liberal, essentially.

Personally, I do believe that Libertarianism is the best ideology to follow to have a free society. I believe that it is the best way to organize a society with voluntary contributions and minimal governmental intrusion.

So, NSG, what's your thoughts on Libertarianism? Do you subscribe to the ideology? Do you not? If you do/don't, why?

(And if you have nothing to add to the discussion but "Lolbertarianism is STOOPID", please don't bother posting.)

I love Libertarianism......but I must ask, don't we already have a thread on this?

Yes I'm libertarian.

The state must be restrained.