6 ms·

American libertarianism is about excluding the government from as much as you possibly can. Mass surveillance of a states citizens if practically the antithesi

American libertarianism is about excluding the government from as much as you possibly can. Mass surveillance of a states citizens if practically the antithesis of that.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. For example, it's wrong for the government to surveil all its citizens but fine for a private company to do so, even if the end result makes life just as untenable (e.g. unable to get a job/housing because of credit checks, get access to healthcare because of pre-existing conditions). Given the trajectory of American democracy, it's hard to look at libertarianism as anything other than an ideological ruse to dismantle all the protections preventing an authoritarian Capitalist state.
- hammocks 10y ago
  >I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. That's not really the libertarian mentality. It's closer to something like, any power (or just about any power) in the hands of a state with a legitimate monopoly on violence is unacceptable. That mentality then manifests itself in policy proposals in a number of ways including decentralized military and police power (states rights, militias, second amendment, etc) as well as limited powers within jurisdictions, especially federal.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  The difference is very very simple: the government has the legitimized use of force. Private corporations don't. A private corporation can't force me to do anything. Only the government can. If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. I'll also point out that your comments about libertarianism seem to be misguided. Libertarians are the first to defend constitutional rights, because those rights include core, fundamental libertarian tenets, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like seeing them mischaracterized.
  - zzzeek 10y ago
    > A private corporation can't force me to do anything. unless they are paid to be the local police force. > If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. then they would bring much larger guns. > I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.
      - zzzeek 10y ago
        nonsense. Let's go to libertarian land. There's no government for internal affairs. We live in a town. Are there any police? No police? Really? Of course there are police. The townspeople got tired of all the poors breaking into their houses and shops and whatnot, didn't feel like all individually standing outside holding guard all night, got together to pool their money and hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into. And that police force is easily corruptible by the wealthiest members of the town who decided they don't like you very much. It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.
        muninn_ 10y ago
        This has nothing to do with libertarianism nor serves as a coherent critique of it. In fact, some of your points are things that we see readily in governments today. As an example, many corrupt police officers exist in many government systems, including western countries. A critique of libertarianism based on such things is not well thought out.
- jikachu2 10y ago
  The government asserts its authority over you whether you like it or not. Any association with a private company is voluntary in nature. You can choose not to use that company and take your business to a competitor. It's not that it is necessarily "fine for a private company to do so," just that you have the ability to opt out.
- kiliantics 10y ago
  You're spot on. The original use of the term libertarian actually referred to socialist anarchists who were not only against the unjust power of the state but also against other forms of authoritarian power structures like the capitalist economy and social stratification by gender, race etc. Nowadays they have to go by left-libertarian or libertarian socialist (or just plain anarchist). I don't know how "Libertarian" came to mean what it does now but it is a very incoherent ideology for exactly the reasons you point out and it probably continues to exist due to powerful interests in the "ruse" you mention too.
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
So it's about freedom to do whatever you want, like make a immoral product and sell it. After all it's not Palantir that's doing the surveillance. They're just making a product and selling it. I guess I don't see this personal responsibility morality angle of libertarianism as it's been explained to me by Americans. It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals. Libertarians believe in restricting actions. They just think having the government do it in all cases is an overreach and harmful. If citizens want, through free speech, new mores, and free association, to eliminate tobacco addiction, that's not a big problem. In contrast, having the government throw people in jail over cigarettes is not acceptable.
equalarrow 10y ago
This is why I don't get Thiel. He's obviously smart, but his actipns are anything but libertarian in my mind. Just look at some of his biggest creations and investments: 1. Palantir - big database crunching and querying for some Of the worst parts of govt; NSA being the biggest offender. 2. Facebook - collects (and is sadly just given) massive amounts of consumer data for selling ads. 3. Paypal - a 'great equalizer' in payments as long as they decide your account is legit. If you get caught in their 'bad' filter, you loose access to your funds, which migjt take down your entire business. At least Musk is trying to better humanity. If, as a libertarian, he wanted govt out of the common mans lives, then why invest and build tools/platforms that take away people's freedom to transact and live lives of true freedom? He's done the opposite in my mind. Nothing he has built, in my mind, betters himanity like Musk has.

American libertarianism is about excluding the government from as much as you possibly can. Mass surveillance of a states citizens if practically the antithesis of that.

alphonsegaston 10y ago

I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. For example, it's wrong for the government to surveil all its citizens but fine for a private company to do so, even if the end result makes life just as untenable (e.g. unable to get a job/housing because of credit checks, get access to healthcare because of pre-existing conditions). Given the trajectory of American democracy, it's hard to look at libertarianism as anything other than an ideological ruse to dismantle all the protections preventing an authoritarian Capitalist state.

hammocks 10y ago
>I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. That's not really the libertarian mentality. It's closer to something like, any power (or just about any power) in the hands of a state with a legitimate monopoly on violence is unacceptable. That mentality then manifests itself in policy proposals in a number of ways including decentralized military and police power (states rights, militias, second amendment, etc) as well as limited powers within jurisdictions, especially federal.
muninn_ 10y ago
The difference is very very simple: the government has the legitimized use of force. Private corporations don't. A private corporation can't force me to do anything. Only the government can. If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. I'll also point out that your comments about libertarianism seem to be misguided. Libertarians are the first to defend constitutional rights, because those rights include core, fundamental libertarian tenets, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like seeing them mischaracterized.
- zzzeek 10y ago
  > A private corporation can't force me to do anything. unless they are paid to be the local police force. > If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. then they would bring much larger guns. > I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal. you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.
    - zzzeek 10y ago
      nonsense. Let's go to libertarian land. There's no government for internal affairs. We live in a town. Are there any police? No police? Really? Of course there are police. The townspeople got tired of all the poors breaking into their houses and shops and whatnot, didn't feel like all individually standing outside holding guard all night, got together to pool their money and hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into. And that police force is easily corruptible by the wealthiest members of the town who decided they don't like you very much. It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.
      - muninn_ 10y ago
        This has nothing to do with libertarianism nor serves as a coherent critique of it. In fact, some of your points are things that we see readily in governments today. As an example, many corrupt police officers exist in many government systems, including western countries. A critique of libertarianism based on such things is not well thought out.
jikachu2 10y ago
The government asserts its authority over you whether you like it or not. Any association with a private company is voluntary in nature. You can choose not to use that company and take your business to a competitor. It's not that it is necessarily "fine for a private company to do so," just that you have the ability to opt out.
kiliantics 10y ago
You're spot on. The original use of the term libertarian actually referred to socialist anarchists who were not only against the unjust power of the state but also against other forms of authoritarian power structures like the capitalist economy and social stratification by gender, race etc. Nowadays they have to go by left-libertarian or libertarian socialist (or just plain anarchist). I don't know how "Libertarian" came to mean what it does now but it is a very incoherent ideology for exactly the reasons you point out and it probably continues to exist due to powerful interests in the "ruse" you mention too.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

So it's about freedom to do whatever you want, like make a immoral product and sell it. After all it's not Palantir that's doing the surveillance. They're just making a product and selling it. I guess I don't see this personal responsibility morality angle of libertarianism as it's been explained to me by Americans. It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals.

humanrebar 10y ago
> It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals. Libertarians believe in restricting actions. They just think having the government do it in all cases is an overreach and harmful. If citizens want, through free speech, new mores, and free association, to eliminate tobacco addiction, that's not a big problem. In contrast, having the government throw people in jail over cigarettes is not acceptable.

equalarrow 10y ago

This is why I don't get Thiel. He's obviously smart, but his actipns are anything but libertarian in my mind. Just look at some of his biggest creations and investments: 1. Palantir - big database crunching and querying for some Of the worst parts of govt; NSA being the biggest offender. 2. Facebook - collects (and is sadly just given) massive amounts of consumer data for selling ads. 3. Paypal - a 'great equalizer' in payments as long as they decide your account is legit. If you get caught in their 'bad' filter, you loose access to your funds, which migjt take down your entire business. At least Musk is trying to better humanity. If, as a libertarian, he wanted govt out of the common mans lives, then why invest and build tools/platforms that take away people's freedom to transact and live lives of true freedom? He's done the opposite in my mind. Nothing he has built, in my mind, betters himanity like Musk has.