It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kedfr
However, a sense of libertarianism does run deep in mainstream American politics; much of the constitution is libertarian in nature and the right to gun ownership; free speech etc reflects this. Of anything, libertarians are the true inheritors of Adam Smith - they are not merely laissez faire economists but they are laissez faire politically too: people should be allowed to life their lives without government intervention.
Originally posted by TrueLies
How beautifully said... Like a nice romantic novel right before bed... (not that i read any lol, but hopefully you get my point)
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
To me its, you either democrat or republican. There is no inbetween. Liberals are conservatives. Conserivatives are Liberals. Liberal people should become democrats and conservatives should become republicans. Not that hard.
Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Libertarians are neither liberals nor conservatives.
They are what might be called "weak anarchists."
By this I mean that their basic values are those of anarchists (government is bad)
...but they're not willing to go as far as real anarchists and abolish the whole danged thing.
They're also generally not willing to acknowledge being anarchists (even weak ones)
...and so come up with theories like that "initiation of force" nonsense. A lot of libertarians say they're against initiation of force, but it's not true, because libertarians do believe in enforcement of property rights, and that involves the initiation of force. Unless and until somebody -- either the property "owner" himself or the government on his behalf -- initiates a threat of force against anyone except the "owner" trying to use or walk off with "his" stuff, no property exists.
I guess libertarians convince themselves that natural resources and other people's work come fully equipped with title deeds or something.
Actually, I've never been able to figure out why they believe this, except wishful thinking.
The agreement in part between libertarians and both liberals and conservatives comes about because both of the latter groups want restraints on government in some areas.
Liberals want government restrained where it might directly interfere with the rights of the people. Conservatives want government restrained where it might interfere with the privileges of the wealthy, especially their personal power to make others obey their will.
Libertarians want both of these, and deceive themselves that personal power doesn't exist...
...and the government is the only threat to liberty,
...thus pat themselves on the back that they're the only real friends of liberty 'cause they're the only ones that want government cut back across the board.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse"Minarchist" is the proper term.
Libertarians don't believe that "government is bad." They . . . believe that government should be kept as small and powerless as possible, so as to head off potential abuse.
The person who tries "to use or walk off with "his" stuff" has initiated force.
That person is attempting to exert his/her will and to subvert the will of the property owner. Any response to that initiation of force is simply a response.
As for "other people's labor," (misconception number six) libertarianism doesn't even concern itself with such a concept.
ALL labor belongs exclusively to the person doing that labor, and is theirs to grant as, when and under whatever terms they might decide.
Leftists, who every day become less and less "liberal," in the classical sense, have no problem at all with the government interfering with the rights of the people, so long as they're not rights that they value.
Libertarians not only KNOW that personal power exists-- libertarianism is predicated on its existence.
Government, in and of itself, is not a threat to liberty. People who misuse the power of government are the threat.
To go back to the personal power thing-- libertarians recognize that personal power exists-- our goal is to limit personal power to truly personal power by eliminating the current opportunity that power-hungry people have to bend the power of government to their will and to effectively add its power to their own.
If everyone had the access to capital property that would allow them to support themselves through their own labor without serving someone else's profits, it would even be true, i.e. all contracting to work at a job would be genuinely voluntary. Since that's not the case, it's false.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Libertarians don't believe that "government is bad." They . . . believe that government should be kept as small and powerless as possible, so as to head off potential abuse.
Which means they believe that government is bad. But also that it serves unavoidable functions. The term is "necessary evil."
The person who tries "to use or walk off with "his" stuff" has initiated force.
No. The first use of force -- and thus the initiation of force -- lies in the defining of the stuff as property. It isn't "his" stuff until this is done.
...there is no property in nature; property is an artifice of civilization, created by force and maintained by force.
As for "other people's labor," (misconception number six) libertarianism doesn't even concern itself with such a concept.
That's exactly what I meant. It doesn't, and it should.
ALL labor belongs exclusively to the person doing that labor, and is theirs to grant as, when and under whatever terms they might decide.
Nice theory. If everyone had the access to capital property that would allow them to support themselves through their own labor without serving someone else's profits, it would even be true, i.e. all contracting to work at a job would be genuinely voluntary. Since that's not the case, it's false.
Leftists, who every day become less and less "liberal," in the classical sense, have no problem at all with the government interfering with the rights of the people, so long as they're not rights that they value.
Rights: freedoms enjoyed equally by everyone.
Privileges: freedoms enjoyed only by a few, e.g. those who can afford them.
Do not confuse the two, please. When the government interferes with privilege, that is not infringing on anybody's rights; actually, it's protecting them.
Libertarians not only KNOW that personal power exists-- libertarianism is predicated on its existence.
No, libertarianism is predicated on the existence of political power, not personal power. Political power is the ability to influence law and government policy.
Libertarians (rightly) see political power as a potential danger to liberty. They apparently, and wrongly, see it as the only such danger, and tend to see restraints by the state on personal power as an infringement on liberty, rather than the protection of liberty that they are.
Government, in and of itself, is not a threat to liberty. People who misuse the power of government are the threat.
The key word in the passage to which this is a reply is "only." If you wish to add a "potential" in there -- so that the passage becomes "libertarians believe that the only potential threat to liberty comes from government" -- that's fine.
To go back to the personal power thing-- libertarians recognize that personal power exists-- our goal is to limit personal power to truly personal power by eliminating the current opportunity that power-hungry people have to bend the power of government to their will and to effectively add its power to their own.
If you believe that that, by itself, would suffice to restrain personal power, then you believe, as I said above, that political power is the only potential threat to liberty. Because what you've described here is political power -- in service to personal power, but political power nonetheless, in that it consists of influence over the state.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse"Government" is nothing more than a tool, and as such can neither be good nor bad.
There is no "initiation of force" in the simple assertion that the property that I have rightfully gained through my labor is mine.
I have not taken it from anyone by force or the threat of force
I'm not sure which country you live in, but in most of the world, all contracting to work at a job is genuinely voluntary. When I'm looking for a job, I apply, people interview me and they might or might not offer me a job. If they do, I find out what the hours will be, how much work there'll be, what the job entails and what it pays, then I DECIDE to either accept the job or not. It's an entirely voluntary process
I was in no way confused. Leftist authoritarians have no problem at all with the government interfering with the RIGHTS of the people, so long as they're not rights that they value.
No-- political power IS law and government policy. The ability to influence law and government policy is personal power.
The invasion of Iraq and ousting of Saddam Hussein has been billed as a move to "protect our liberties." Do you believe it to be so?
The fact is that without the power of the government to add to their own, there's just not that much power available to individuals. Without the power of government that is available to him, George Bush would be just another reformed alcoholic failed businessman heir
Libertarians DON'T believe that the ONLY threat, potential or otherwise, to liberty comes from government. We believe that the threat comes directly from individuals, and that government is simply the tool that they use to impose their will on others.
You contradict yourself-- "influence over the state" is obviously PERSONAL power.
But when the state is empowered nominally to limit the power of individuals and to address the disparity in personal power, the result is ALWAYS that people with personal power use that power to "influence" the state in order to further their own interests
You cannot use government to limit the abuses of the people who own the government, and any attempt to do so simply grants the government more power with which those people can abuse us.
Bob, you're playing semantics games here...
The rich have a disproportionate influence on the government, but nobody "owns" the government. Our democracy is not, as yet, dead. In any case, if they did "own" the government, what would be the point of trying to limit the government's power? Could they not reverse that process as well?
The truth is, history shows that your statement is not correct. The government HAS been used successfully to limit personal power and to enhance liberty.
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
This whole thing started with your issues with libertarianism, and in pursuit of your point you have played a continuous game of semantics. You have defined "personal power" and "political power" in such a way as to imply your notion that the power of government is potentially good
I'll call the power inherent in a government-- the power that exists simply because of the sheer volume of laws and regulations and administrators and offices and property and weapons that a government controls "potential power." Then I'll call the power that individuals hold, in and out of government, simply "power."
The thing that libertarians want to do, quite simply, is to diminish the potential power of the government. The reason for this is quite straightforward and is only really countered by your idealistic "well, it could be different" of:
Actually, history has shown that such limitations, imposed fairly, only exist in the infancy of a government, if then. In most governments in which there has been an overt and above-board attempt to limit personal power (the USSR being a prime example)
I understand your idea, but it simply will not work.
The simple fact is that society accepts the notion of "property" and ignores the deep concepts behind it in much the same way, as you say, as a fish ignores water. It's just there.
Regardless of the philosophical underpinnings, society has decided to recognize the idea of "property," and with that recognition comes the idea of "mine." This property or that property is "mine." We have agreed on certain ideas regarding what can legitimately be referred to as "mine" and what can not.
Tyrannical governments impose their power, in part, by decreeing that nothing can be "mine" and that all belongs to the state.
On a personal note-- I apologize that, particularly in my first response to you, I treated you rather disdainfully.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The only thing implied by the terms as I have used them is that the two are conceptually distinct: that one may think in terms of the power wielded by one person over another, as distinct from the influence that a person has on the state.
Actually, what our disagreement boils down to is whether or not what I have called "personal power" actually exists. If it does, then use of the power of the state to restrain it becomes arguably (although not automatically) a legitimate use of law.
I'll call the power inherent in a government-- the power that exists simply because of the sheer volume of laws and regulations and administrators and offices and property and weapons that a government controls "potential power." Then I'll call the power that individuals hold, in and out of government, simply "power."
These terms imply what you want to assert, namely that all power comes from the state.
We might acknowledge that the state's power represents the potential for abuse in the hands of a dictator
...and that should maybe scare us into making sure no dictator comes to power (if we really needed such a goad -- and in times like these, perhaps we do).
But there is also power being expressed outside those limits, derived from the control of capital resources by a relatively few.
I'm not talking ideals or potentials here. I'm talking actual history, and no, I don't mean the history of the bleeding Soviet Union! A much better example is what was done in the U.S. economy from the 1930s until the 1980s (and is still done to some extent), and also what has been done in Europe. We do not have to speculate. We do not have to theorize. We do not have to resort to ideals. We need only look at what has happened and when and why.
Actually, history has shown that such limitations, imposed fairly, only exist in the infancy of a government, if then. In most governments in which there has been an overt and above-board attempt to limit personal power (the USSR being a prime example)
No. It's. Not.
I don't actually think you can have such a program absent democracy and public accountability. But whether that's so or not, the Soviet Union certainly isn't a "prime example" of anything except a new aristocracy replacing an old one. Now, I'll grant you that the limiting of personal power is central to Marxist theory. But nobody who has really studied Marxist theory considers the Soviet Union (or any other allegedly Communist state) an application of that theory.
I'm not talking about anything radical or extreme here, and maybe that's where the confusion lies.
If... there were really no dispute about the matter, then there would be no such thing as a welfare program or a minimum wage, or Social Security, or required overtime pay, or workplace safety regulations, or legal recognition of the right to join a union, or student loans or grants. All of these represent attempts to redistribute wealth, all have been controversial and some still are, and most if not all of them are opposed by libertarians.
...the theory of "initiation of force" is what is used to justify a position that rejects all attempts to redistribute wealth.
Tyrannical governments impose their power, in part, by decreeing that nothing can be "mine" and that all belongs to the state.
True, and I don't recommend going to that extreme. If that's what you think I'm advocating, then it's no wonder you consider me an impractical idealist. But that only means you've misunderstood where I'm going.
[The state's power] represents potential for abuse in the hands of anyone with an unhealthy desire for power-- it doesn't need to be a dictator.
And further (though peripherally) I would argue that Marxist theory has never been applied in the real world because it cannot be, since it depends on an entirely unnatural refusal among each and every person who administers the state to abuse the enormous amount of power that they have been granted.
Absolutely. All of those schemes rely on the idea that my property-- that which I work eight hours a day, five days a week to earn, should be given over to other people.
There is no greater assault on my liberty than to take that which I have earned through my own effort and sweat and give it to somebody else. They didn't earn it-- I DID.
My employer AGREED to hire me, and I AGREED to work for him.
I do the work that is required of me entirely through my OWN effort, and in return he pays me. That money is MINE.