Question: How do Libertarians plan to keep a society Libertarian?
Posted by 3_Stokesy@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 80 comments
[removed]
Posted by 3_Stokesy@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 80 comments
[removed]
Anenome5@reddit
A centralized political system tends towards further centralization over time. This is anti-libertarian. But the reverse is true as well.
A decentralized political system tends towards greater decentralization, and this is extremely libertarian.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Well the US used to be very decentralised, and look where that led.
Anenome5@reddit
The US is at root a system of centralized power. You're just proving my point that a centralized system tends to further centralize over time, exactly, because the system we have is inherently centralized.
If he build a decentralized system, the opposite would result.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
That's just hindsight though, in the early days states were free to take different views on something as fundamental as literally slavery. The US was absolutely a decentralised system.
Anenome5@reddit
No it was a federal system. Always the structure placed the feds at the top with ultimate authority.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Well it is now, but it was a lot more decentralised pre-civil war.
What does a truly decentralised system look like to you?
My worry is Libertarians seem to assume that decentralisation leads to greater democracy and freedoms but that isnt always the case. Feudalism for example is incredibly decentralisedm
Anenome5@reddit
Yes, it was relatively more decentralized back then. But the system at root was always built with a centralized structure... and centralized structures always centralize further over time to gather more power to the center.
It was always going to happen. And the only solution is not merely 'more decentralization', but rather a system that is at root decentralized in nature, not just more decentralized.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
What about it's roots were centralised? I'm struggling to understand what makes the US an intrinsically centralised system.
JagerGS01@reddit
The Constitution is supposed to be what limits the power of the federal government. Obviously, it failed. In fact, if you read the history of our country, the like ten years between the issuance of the Declaration of Independence and the first Constitutional Convention is all it took for the path of our Country to get knocked in the wrong direction. One of our most liberty minded heroes, Thomas Jefferson, wasn't even able to make it back from Europe in time to have a say, and the old guard Torries and other supporters of having a strong central government caused the Constitution to be written more ambiguously than originally conceived e.g. the 2nd Amendment. Ultimately, centralized power is the opposite of individual freedom, whether it's capitalism, communism, or despotism, having some powerful central authority is what leads to tyranny. And since most Libertarians view Communism as an instant jump to centralization, you generally have immediate hostility for the idea. In theory, a more strongly written Constitution would protect the ideal Libertarian, or free, society, however you define that. Or even just a return to the Articles of Confederation. I think it's kind of moot at this point though. We are where we are now, and while uts good to have a guide post for the direction we want to go, we have pressing issues in front of our faces right now that, like you said, we can agree on and work together towards. Like this dumbass war and the corrupt ruling class.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Honestly I kind of agree with this. Were I American I would be demanding a new constitutional convention rn.
JagerGS01@reddit
Not that easy. Right now, we have morons in charge of the government. And initiating a convention would just let those morons rewrite the document how they see fit. The good run we had was due to the perfect alignment of opportunity to create a new country mixed with the perfect custodians who were forged from the hot fires of tyrannical oppression. As happy as I am to have my children live in a country as amazing as America, it is an unfortunate fact that the privileges of Americans do not result in the creation of people of high moral character nor above average intelligence and wisdom. We have the system we have, and we will do what we can to win back liberty. But it will be an uphill fight, and it will be a matter of luck that blood not be shed in the process.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Well, when I say a constitutional convention, I mean how the founders conceived of it where the states appoint representatives to do it. Ideally it should then be approved by a referendum.
JagerGS01@reddit
Still a gamble. The people love their bread and circuses here. The ideal moment has passed. It's fun to believe that a convention would solve things, but unfortunately, very few people in America have any interest in actual freedom, only moderated freedom.
cecarlton@reddit
Democrats want to control people. Democrat socialists want all their feel good things paid for on the backs of Americans. They want you to comply with anything the government says and does. Democrats aren't even smart enough to know that we don't have a democracy but a constitutional Republic. Y'all don't even know how immigration laws work and just want open borders. Open borders means no sovereign nation = goodbye country.
Libertarians want the us constitution, bill of rights, strong borders and the rest of you to f*ck off from shoving your crap down our throats. Stay out of our personal rights and freedoms!
We aren't even on the same plane as Democrats.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
This comment is confused and does not address the question.
KabosuCheemz@reddit
I used to be a Bernie bro, and then I grew up. Realized I didn’t want my money going to the people it typically goes to on welfare. If we had the demographics, culture and population of Sweden, it would work. But, diversity above all right?
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
But under libertarianism, large corporations buy up all the land and can charge whatever they want in various forms of economic rent, so your money just goes to them instead.
Due_Patience_7848@reddit
There isn't just one company charging rent in the US. It's economically impossible for a single corporation to buy every parcel of land since as supply decreases, land prices increase asymptotically. I can also tell you I'm not going to sell my property to anyone. Your imaginative scenario is only possible through government force... which is a result of democratic socialism.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
There doesnt need to be, there's absolutely 0 incentive for property companies to compete over rents when everyone can simultaneously Jack them and nothing will happen.
Due_Patience_7848@reddit
That's a lot of people that need to coordinate rent prices. Your argument works the other way too.
Sometimes it feels like a race to the bottom when you're competing against a corporation that can operate at a loss for years. Yeah maybe they'll put one person out of business but the consumers got a great deal for years. Then as soon as the greedy corporation brings their price up again, I'll be sure to rent out my property so I can take part in that economy. I'll build a whole apartment complex with my land, unless the government tells me I'm not allowed to.
What is this handful of companies that are coordinating rent prices simultaneously? I don't think they exist. I think you're mistaking inflation, zoning laws, and various other government inventions making prices high for corporate collusion.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
No, you don't need to coordinate prices. The incentives line up. There's no incentive for any of them to independently build more properties because all it will do is drive down the value of their own properties. So they keep housing in perpetual short supply and charge what they want for it.
It's only a race to the bottom in places like Japan where there is ample housing supply, but that's because Japan has other problems.
Adora77@reddit
I'm a communist and I have much in common with the local libertarians so I joined them. First things first, break up the corrupt duopoly.
I think it's inherently libertarian to allow any economic strategies be chosen by a group of people if they so desire, in that sense I don't see a purpose of "staying libertarian", especially economically, a goal.
Communists also want small or no government, with power as low and local as possible.
DravenTor@reddit
If the government is small, it can't be used as a weapon by large companies to maintain monopolies or crush competition with regulations. The stronger the central government, the more incentive for corruption. What we have today is more like corporatism than capitalism.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
But how do you ensure that the government remains small? Even the smallest of governments maintains a military and therefore a monopoly over violence, so I don't really see how this stops large companies just bribing the government into becoming more authoritarian.
IMO democratic institutions are the true safeguard against this.
DravenTor@reddit
Not really. You see it every day now. Governments pedal ideas that separate us and keep us arguing over stupid things mean while the government itself is homogeneous and self-serving.
If the government is decentralized, the federal government won't have half the power they wield over states and people. Again, there's no reason a company would bribe a government in the first place if it doesn't wield much power.
We never had a need for several regulatory boards and government assistance until after 1913 when the federal reserve came about, and it started creating financial crisis after financial crisis. And every time they did that, the federal government was sold to the American people as the solver of all their problems. So, the federal reserve's #1 customer, federal gov., got bigger. But they have also created a weaker population more dependent on assistance. The federal government continued to grow until it had jurisdiction in nearly every part of people's lives. We, the people, have unwittingly invested powers in the federal government they were never meant to have. Now, we have an unholy alliance between large corporations and corrupt politicians using each other to get rich.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I do agree the Government is trying to divide us and erode our freedoms and actually I agree that the decline of Federal, state-level political culture has contributed to atomisation that led to this. The trouble is, what I am saying is how do you keep the government decentralised in a world were businesses have low regulation, low taxes, low workplace protections etc.
The point I am making is that the state controls the military so the state is perfectly capable of taking whatever power it needs or want. Limiting the state to a few core competencies doesn't stop the state deciding that actually they aren't going to hold to that anymore. And in a world where businesses are more and more powerful it seems like all they really need from the government is permission and money. Palantir for example is perfectly happy to do surveilance on us, basically what they have been doing is paying politicians via lobbying to raise the tax money to pay them to do it whilst also selling the data.
The examples you listed are a good example of what I mean - the fed, the government creeping into more aspects of our lives etc did happen. Presumably the world was more libertarian before that. Libertarianism alone did not prevent it, so how do you prevent that from happening?
IMO the aim should be to create strong democratic institutions that can wield the state in the interests of everyone to keep corporate interests out.
brainwater314@reddit
Senators used to be selected by the state legislators, and therefore were incentivized to protect state power by curbing federal power. States then had to compete because citizens could easily move to another state. This is one of the reasons that federal power has expanded since the 17th amendment in 1913 that made senators be selected by a popularity contest.
arushus@reddit
Yup, i agree, this is the biggest factor in the out of control federal govt. Senators used to have an incentive to keep federal power in check. They no longer have that incentive.
DravenTor@reddit
The anarcho capitists would say private defense agencies, but I think the older idea of state militias keeps everything balanced enough that the federal government can't just overwhelm a single state with a congressional army.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I have heard of the private defence agencies argument the trouble is to me that looks worryingly like a cartel. Individuals need to pay for private defence to protect their homes, but realistically over time said defence contractors will divide into regions and their main customers will be businesses who may start offering discounts for their own employees. They then become the PMCs' primary customer base more so than individual clients. You're getting dangerously close to a system of protection money there.
As for the state militia idea I think that is a better idea I'm a big believer that government would be stronger closer to ordinary people, but I do worry the same things could come about just on a regionalised level, plus it is still difficult to stop the Federal government just taking more power for itself.
DravenTor@reddit
Well, that's where the checks and balances come in, right? As long as the government is smaller, it's more resistant to corruption and can function as it was intended.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Checks and balances are great, but they can surely only work on areas controlled by the government no? The Libertarian free market doesn't have checks and balances and Libertarians would prefer more of society be on the free market.
I have a slightly different interpretation - that a state level government fears its own population more because it is easier to organise a relatively small group lol.
DegeneracyEverywhere@reddit
Democracy makes government bigger, its what we've seen over the past 100 years.
Pre-democratic states were almost always smaller than what we have now, even if they were more authoritarian. There were some exceptions to this, like the Spanish empire, but it was the general rule.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
But that's not something to criticise democracy for in fact its exactly my point - a streamlined, minimalist state looks eerily like a feudal autocracy.
DegeneracyEverywhere@reddit
Did you forget what sub you're on? Democracy creating a huge bureaucratic government is exactly the criticism.
Live_Taste_7796@reddit
You cant. Its in the nature of a state to grow, regardless of size. That's why ancaps say the idea of a state isn't feasible without it going corrupt. Rule by one, the few, the many, doesn't matter it will go sour.
Weary_Anybody3643@reddit
By the privatization of armed forces and police or as menarchist think make government-funded strictly through donations no ability to tax on their own therefore forcing them to work for the people
Warrmak@reddit
Flawed, but best.
DravenTor@reddit
BTW, you already have democratic socialism at work today. It's pretty much the prevailing form of governance in America. What else is corporatism, if not the will of the people and the government being one unified body.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I mean Socialists do commonly say America has socialism for the rich in the forms of bailouts, subsidies, government protections etc but rugged capitalism from the poor who receive none of that.
Personally though I think doing that the other way around, the correct way, where the poor and ordinary people benefit from the system and the rich with the means are expected to pay for it is the solution.
My question here is surely in a Libertarian world which is essentially pure capitalism for both groups would devolve pretty quickly because the rich have the ability to take the benefits mentioned above on their own. How do you stop that?
DravenTor@reddit
They have more of an ability to "take" things when they ally with a strong central government. You're stuck in the mindset that the government is looking out for your interests. And it might if it were smaller and more localized, but when it's just one giant bureaucracy, it becomes it takes on a life of its own that is looking out for its own survival and interests.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
But the central government can always take things so long as they are the only ones with a military. The trouble is if they're not the only ones with a military the state just disintegrates into multiple other states. A state is practically defined by a monopoly over violence because people with guns don't like other people with guns in their vicinity.
I don't think the government looks out for our interests automatically by nature of being the government, I think that the government should look our for our interests and ordinary people should hold them to that standard. I think just minimising the government alone doesn't make people more free because private entities can easily fill the roles the government relinquishes or just pay the state to not relinquish them.
Ultimately the economy cannot function with the workers so I think that ultimately if the system works against them its on them to burn it, but I think the idea if a minimalist state where corporations have fewer restrictions doesn't leave room for ordinary people. Its why I ask how Libertarians ensure that the government stays small, its not like corporations arent financially capable of just funding violence to get their way, the reason they dont is because they contract the state to do it for them.
DravenTor@reddit
Non-aggression principle. You can still defend yourself, and all citizens should be armed and trained to ensure freedom.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Yeah but let's be honest here an individual with a gun, even a group of citizens with a gun, is not going to be any match for a highly trained, organised fighting force unless literally everyone voluntarily comes to the aid of the one person who is wronged.
TheKorndawg720@reddit
Every society will fight to the death if it’s for the preservation of their ideas and beliefs. This is why Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc has been a disaster because the people of the US don’t want to fight it and the people being occupied will give their life to preserve their nation.
TheDunzoWashington@reddit
Tell that to the US govt when we were in Iraq for 20 years. As long as they occupy not obliterate the populace, a civilian armed force is formidable
TheKorndawg720@reddit
The Free market is the ultimate checks and balance. The reason we are in this shitty predicament to begin with is because of the socialist and centralized government policies.
The federal reserve is not a institution that is for the people it only serves for the rich and powerful because they can outlast the inflation and the never ending printing of money that’s backed by essentially nothing but the US hegemonic power. It’s why there is so much need to control other nations especially the ME because you control the oil flow to your markets of control.
The socialist ideals of a centralized governance of “the people” is and always has been a farce because it only entrenches bureaucracy and oligarchs that feed the people the scraps off their table. All the while the people get taxed out their ass because in reality “taxing the rich” doesn’t actually reverse the issues we have in government it only dissolves the free market until it’s a caste system that only the uber rich can control which is the big three corporations being Black Rock, Vanguard, and SSGA that control 90% of the Fortune 500 companies. These three companies are not actually doing anything but being the “corpo” branch of government that funds most policies we see today and why we have been sending men and women to die for nothing for over 80 years.
The Free market alternative would lead to these companies failing largely as the free market is in many ways the best indicator of a society being an actual democracy. Why? Because in the free market the dollar has weight from the lowest of society to the highest the majority dictates what they decide is worthy to consume and if the other companies won’t follow suit or make a better product they die so a new one takes its place. This leads to the largest leaps in innovation, lower working hours for higher wages, the working class to afford “the American dream” of a house, cars, college, etc. without the boot of the government to take their liberties through “assistance” programs. We lower poverty to its lowest and bring them into the middle class while the top bracket is always up for grabs and doesn’t ever really get the power to lobby, corporatize, or have a massive influence on the population as a whole.
The voluntary militia is the most effective and humane form of military in the world. Personally as someone who served though I can see the draft being good as if it gets rejected (like in Vietnam) the government is forced to end it because the people fundamentally disagree with the war itself. Libertarians never want war unless it’s the last option on the table. When it is the option you have the best soldiers being those who fight to preserve liberty as the main serving ideology rather than anything else. It’s why WW2 for the US is the only actual fight worth having. (Though I argue we should have targeted the Taliban when we got hit, I don’t agree with the regime changes and we needed to get Bin Laden)
Alan_Turings_Apple@reddit
The crazy part is you don't even need to look that far back to see that large enough collections of capital do not need the governments help to create monopolies.
I love libertarianism, I love the idea of small government. But y'all just tend to ignore reality.
Where the hell do you guys think the terms guilds or cartels came from? The King wasn't enforcing regulations for those organizations to exist.
Siglet84@reddit
Who did those companies used to squash employee uprisings?
Alan_Turings_Apple@reddit
Depends on the era, sometimes with help from the state, sometimes not.
But since you used the word employee I think you mean in modern context, Corporations used private security most often so that reinforces my point. Have you never heard of Pinkertons?
Warrmak@reddit
The real question is, how do you keep an institution from achieving exponential growth without causing exponential growth elsewhere?
Not all growth is bad mind you, amazon has done more to control costs and create consumer value than most.
But preventing exponential growth appears to be the premise.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdMdboymT8
Same-Cabinet4193@reddit
Ideally the constitution of a nation would very explicitly mandate the government be tiny.
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
We might see the same problems, but the solutions client be more different.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I agree, and this is what I am asking about. Democratic Socialists think that a state can be used for good if it is governed by strong democratic institutions, I just don't see how minimising the role of the state alone prevents a slide into corporate authoritarianism.
TallImprovement830@reddit
You keep using the word “institutions” when describing the state. Remember the government is just a bunch of people.
“…if it’s governed by strong democratic institutions…” - swap democratic institutions with “strong believers of actually helping the people”. You can probably see how this seems unlikely at best. People are self-preserving. This is why congress doesn’t ban stock trading.
When you realize it’s just a bunch of other people telling you what to do and taking your money for their definition of the greater good, starts to make me realize maybe smaller government is better.
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
Thomas Sowell described this well when comparing United States and French governments. To paraphrase:
The French model (which is used by most of the world) expects that you just need to select the correct representatives and government will work well and fix problems. The US model assumes that all politicians are corrupt; therefore the only way to limit the corruption is to pit them against each other.
Given the high number of samples for the French model with no one finding that great government, I'm inclined to believe the premise of the American model.
The small government, free market solution isn't claimed to be perfect. It's just less bad than everything else.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I mean, I would argue looking at the current state of the US that pretty much everywhere in western Europe has managed a better model of government than the American model.
Like, I think Americans in particular underestimate this, but Europeans see America as being incredibly restrictive in the way it counts. Highly militarised police, massive military, ICE raids, extra-judicial police killings, poor working conditions, no protections against corporate surveilance etc.
But either way I think its unfair to say that outside of America people assume politicians arent corrupt or that it's all about picking the best representatives, at least that's not my belief. My belief is that the rich have the ability to buy the state, it's on the workers to ensure the state works for us instead. Violence should not be excluded as a method here, but simply minimising the role of the state will just lead to corporations filling that void, and whilst we can build democratic institutions around a state, and that includes a decentralised model. You need a constitution which truly represents how the people want to be governed and which only they can change. By contrast, the American constitution appears pretty much fossilised.
DegeneracyEverywhere@reddit
European police arrest people over tweets. They raid people's homes for livestreaming a protest. They jail people for insulting them.
Is any of this less bad because they're wearing bright yellow vests and not carrying guns?
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
So the whole Europeans arresting people for tweets thing is mostly bullshit. Idk what examples your referring to but ill give some common hoaxes:
The British Teenager who was supposedly arrested for tweets leading to that famous photo of two female police officers at his house. In truth, he wasnt arrested, and the officers were there investigating complaints that he was cyber-stalking and harassing his classmate.
The 'British people arrested for praying' thing. What actually happened here was exclusion zones for protests were placed around abortion clinics because protesters were harassing women on their way in and even blocking the entrances to them.
Marine Le Penn being banned from running to be President in France. I mean, she actually did just launder EU funds there are no notes here lmao.
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
Americans see most of Europe as a decaying relic of the early 20th century being overrun with third world immigrants on welfare. A place where you can literally be thrown in prison for wrongthink. What's your point?
Which does happen, even in Europe.
You're afraid of corporations running things, but they bribe, coerce, or mislead government - so they are already running things. Why would it be worse if you removed the middleman (government)?
Corporations don't force me to participate under threat of force (taxes, prison, etc). Government does, and who runs the government (rich and connected people) determines what I should and should not do.
Companies also can't do anything they want absent government regulation. If they do something significantly bad, it eventually gets exposed, and public opinion shifts against that company; it will lose money unless it makes changes. You also have lawsuits for damages. When the government screws up, there's often little consequence.
What you actually dislike is government which protects large and well-connected companies. shall government make that far more difficult.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
Americans are wrong about Europe I don't know what to tell you lol. Also since when did Libertarians suddenly become in favour of harsh border policies? That's the most anti-libertarian policy you can think of, give the government the power to treat immigrants that way that's how they'll treat you eventually. Also, in your idea of a series of limited states with low budgets and less power, do you think that'll be a world with more immigration or less?
Also, if need to just remind you America has a far higher immigration rate than Europe including from the third world such as Latin America. If Europe is overrun, America is dead. And in Europe most European nations dont allow immigrants to claim welfare. Also, no, people arent getting arrested left right and centre for wrongthink, again the US has been far worse for that under Trump. This view is just entirely wrong.
At no point in this did I say Europe was perfect either or that corporatism isn't a problem here. Im bringing it up because you mentioned that the rest of the world went for the French method as opposed to the American one and I'm simply challenging the notion that the American method yielded better results. I think this model is overly simplistic and rooted in American exceptionalism that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Like, for example this model completely ignores the influence of the British Parliamentary model which many European states are inspired by.
My point is the government is not predestined to be the middleman between corporations and Governance. Corporations in recent years have reduced it to such a role. An independent state protected by truly democratic institutions is more likely to be free of corporate influence than if you just diminish the power of the state. That does nothing to a) stop the government continue acting as little more than a middleman in the matters it controls and b) stop corporations just directly taking control over the matters the government privatises.
Where is the room for the people in this system?
DegeneracyEverywhere@reddit
Trump hasn't arrested thousands of people over tweets like the UK has.
Trump didn't ban the main opposition party like in Greece or like they're trying to do in Germany.
He didn't jail Biden and cancel the election like in Romania.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
The cases that your talking about in the UK are cases where someone has incited violence lol and yeah the president wont have been involved but people can and do get arrested for inciting violence in America.
Neither Greece nor Germany have attempted to ban their opposition party and Romania did not attempt to cancel an election either.
I agree overregulation can cause economic problems, but so can underregulation. EU regulation is a net positive.
Olieskio@reddit
Read Hans Hermann Hoppe, he goes over covenant societies and freedom of association, which in short is that you make contractual relationships with certain kinds of people. So you'd like people who aren't communists or democrats (his words) to fuck off and get off your property and that way you'd keep atleast your community Libertarian.
Kapitalism@reddit
Democratic Socialism seems like guided capitalism to me. True democratization of wealth rather than profit-only motivation. Conscientious capitalism would be the most powerful and ethical path given the current “-isms.” I think everyone needs to stop being “right” about policy and start being moral/ethical. Then we’d have more capitalism and more socialism benefitting everyone in a salient way rather than greedy superwealths making all policy.
BlimpGuyPilot@reddit
Libertarians miss one simple point, human nature. Plenty of libertarian ideals I agree with, but I would never agree with a libertarian government. It will devolve back into human nature for power, humans have never just live and let be in all of our history
Live_Taste_7796@reddit
As long as you have a state, you wont be able to keep it libertarian.
BunnyThrash@reddit
By arming themselves
Loominardy@reddit
I’m not going to respond to every detail in the post because that would take a lot of time so l will just respond to this one.
Not true. The reason that the banking crisis happened is because the Fed manipulates interest rates which encourages malinvestment into the economy. When Central banks hold interest rates below their natural market level, it induced businesses to borrow and invest in long-term, capital-intensive projects that are not supported by real savings. When banks run out of money to loan, the credit expansion stops, interest rates rise to their natural level, revealing that many projects are unprofitable and this leads to an inevitable bust. It is not caused by an unregulated market and I feel like this is often the scapegoat for most issues that occur in the economy.
Since you are reaching out to libertarians, you seem pretty open minded, so I recommend that you read more into the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
iroll20s@reddit
By teaching our kids that all rights matter, not just those that you agree with and compelling people to do anything is wrong.
I might agree with democratic socialists on a few topics, but the why is very different. The ‘how’in they approach policy is pretty much the antithesis of my beliefs.
blasticon@reddit
Libertarians don't have to have solutions. Modern libertarianism is controlled opposition that has never and will never govern, so it only needs to be against things and not for things. Stop asking stupid questions.
Key-Brilliant9376@reddit
Libertarians believe in actual individual freedom and that's the core principle. We believe that government is the root of tyranny and oppression. Socialists (Communists, "Democratic Socialists," National Socialists, etc.) all believe that government is a tool to be wielded to force people to live for the "greater good."
We couldn't be any more different.
Martorfank@reddit
I don't really see were we are similar AT ALL. On the topic of war already is one, almost all ideologies are against them, what matters is the reasons and the context behind said opposition. Most libertarians would stand with wars done for defending one self or another, of course there is the discussion on taxes and spending resources on people across the world, but most are capable of understanding that there are things that can't be solved through dialogue. On the topic of surveillance, I'm sorry, but that's a straight-up lie, every single thing you guys defend, preach and vote for only leads to it more and more, with multiple excuses as to why that's a good thing.
On the last topic, monopolies wouldn't really be an issue in a society without a state/government to ensure their power through subsidies, regulations, benefits and bail-outs.
This is something that I will always find fascinating. People are aware of the pornographic relationship between states and corporations, yet it only tries to destroy private businesses. I understand and agree that any company that engage in those type of deal to be amoral and disgusting, yet why nobody ever does the same with the state? I don't understand why people complain that companies can become corrupt but not the state, almost like assuming that's how things should be. Let's destroy the one that not only makes our lives better but also got there by actually doing a good job before getting corrupt and not the other that has always being incompetent and only takes from us.
The problem is government control, so let's give the government more control! That will teach them! Yes, a bully is a problem, but more it is the teacher that not only allows said bully but encourages it and protects it.
AldruhnHobo@reddit
Not anything I can do to fix anything, and stay off my property! 😁
Anen-o-me@reddit
Decentralized political systems tend to become more libertarian over time.
Centralized ones tend to become less.
Phaylontis@reddit
I think the issue you are having is your framing. From a libertarian perspective, demsocs don't mind war or surveillance by the state as long as it is used by the state against ideologies or governments the demos disagrees with. Libertarians are against all government surveillance and all offensive war.
Libertarians believe individual rights are the basis of a society. They do believe in positive rights, like the right to be protected by a military and the right to be protected from those who break the law. Democratic Socialists believe that individual rights come after the well-being of the demos. Due to the positive rights that infringe on individuals' rights,
What you are missing from 2008 is that the only reason those banks and companies could get that large was due to over-regulation. Libertarians are not against the regulation of the economy, but they believe that the federal government should only regulate currency. There is some argument about state and local regulation of private institutions and regulation of foreign trade in libertarian circles. libertarians don't think the government should help a company or a bank if they are going bankrupt, but maybe in a defensive war context that would change.
I think the biggest thing to understand is the difference in mindset. History has shown that the less the national government is involved in the regulation of industry or banking, the less power the wealthy have to manipulate the market, which is why in earlier times in the US they resorted to illegal enforcers like pinkertons or the mob instead of the police or the army.
Interestingly, the nortic countries, often held up as the pinicle of Democratic Socialisim, strongly say that they are not Socialist. In actuality, they have fewer economic regulations than the US and, as a result, have a freer market. I suggest you really look into those systems yourself as they are often misrepresented.
Now , to answer your question. By decentralizing market power, the wealthy will have a much more difficult time gaining control over the entire system. They could probably get a few cities, or maybe a state, but maintaining that power when market forces would punish their inefficient use of capital would be quite difficult over the long run. Libertarians know that the rich and powerful want more control, and that if you try to mitigate that through a central power, it is only a matter of time before that power is bent to the will of the wealthy. So, the only way to ensure that they don't gain power on a grand scale is to decentralize power as much as possible. There are some more nuanced discussions amongst libertarians about the legal structure of corporations and the power that they hold, but no libertarian that I know thinks they should be given the rights of people.
3_Stokesy@reddit (OP)
I think that's a strawman on us, I do not know a single democratic socialist who is supportive of government surveillance or any of the wars America has started in the last few decades. Maybe your mixing us up with Liberals.
I dont at all think individual rights come after wellbeing I think that wellbeing and rights go hand in hand. A man in the desert dying of thirst can do what he wants, but he isnt free. Basic needs being met is therefore a necessary precondition of freedom.
I think it is difficult to say overregulation caused the bailouts. Underregulation 100% caused the crash though. For example, Reagan privatised the credit rating agencies which were over rating sub-prime mortgage bonds because they knew it would attract more business from their competitors. Had that not been a factor the rating agencies would have downgraded the subprime mortgages and that would have been less of a problem. A decision to bail out a bank is not regulatory, in fact if anything bailing a bank out unconditionally is incredibly unregulated.
Like I said, what the US should have done is used taxpayer money to buy up shares in the failing banks to nationalise them and provide the necessary cash injection, then once they turn a profit, use the profits to recoup the money spent and then resell the banks to the private sector.
As such I dont think it follows at all that the rich have more power over a highly regulated banking sector, as per the evidence above I think its quite the opposite.
If your talking about the nordic model, which I also think is a good idea btw though I'd go further, what the Nordic model shows is that the policies I am suggesting work for the economy too. They get away with less regulation because they have robust welfare states. For example, in Denmark if your fired the government pays your full salary and there are aggressive retaining programmes. This means Danish companies can be much more flexible even than the average US company in hiring and firing. These countries also have have some of the strictest regulations against corporate lobbying and low corruption rates which requires government resources to maintain.
Your point about decentralisation is predicated on the assumption that the free market remains decentralised but history shows us that isnt the case. Acquisitions, mergers, purchases always trend towards increasing monopolies over time. And again, businesses won't be passive in this, inevitably you'll respond by saying that rhe government helps enforce these monopolies, and they do, but they do so because these corporations have the ability to do. I fail to see how libertarianism prevents this kind of situation. Perhaps the most worrying symptom of this is that Libertarianism seems to be very popular amongst oligarchs like Elon.
bl0rq@reddit
Hire Jeremy Kauffman as our PR agent.
AutoModerator@reddit
REMOVED: due to a large amount of brigading, we are temporarily restricting posts from drive-by users. If you are unfamiliar with our beliefs or ideology, take some time to lurk, or do some research. Do not message the mod team, this will be reviewed when we have time. Messaging the mod team asking us to approve this will result in an automatic denial and potential ban as we will assume you are a clanker sending automated messages.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.