5 ms·

Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

by ido 7y ago

WalterBright 7y ago
> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly about people being free to choose, and being responsible for their choices, as long as they aren't hurting others in the process. Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.
- dTal 7y ago
  The process of making sure people aren't hurting others is called "government" and "regulation", which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. They say things like "the FDA is stupid, the free market will sort it out" - when the FDA was created because the free market was killing people. Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a dog-eat-dog world where people with money and power consolidate more and more of it. This is "feudalism" and it generally results in a raw deal for the poor.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. That's conflating Anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians are not Anarchists. Feudalism is something different altogether.
    - mftrhu 7y ago
      > Libertarians are not Anarchists. Unless with "libertarians" you are referring to ancaps, this is just false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchi...
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        Libertarianism relies on government to enforce peoples' rights. Anarchism is fundamentally different.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  >Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more. At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    I'll just refer you to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_friedman_did_not_support_pinochet/ https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_f... (Ironically, you say Libertarian Friedman supported far right dictator Pinochet and the other reply says Libertarianism is for no government at all. Clearly something is amiss with these two criticisms of Libertarianism.)
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Eh, I’ll take Allende’s ambassador, Orlando Letelier’s, word on the matter over a bunch of apologists on a subreddit (who largely and laughably quote what Friedman and his buddies said was there involvement). Letelier was killed by agents of Pinochet for saying as much: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-economic-freedoms-awful-toll/ https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-...
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        What's your take on dTal's assessment that libertarians are for no government at all? If you have any evidence of advocacy for repression in any of Friedman's lifetime of his books, articles, or lectures, I'd like to see it.
        claudeganon 7y ago
        It seems a wrong conflation of Libertarianism and Anarchism. I already pointed you to one of Allende’s chief advisors identifying Friedman as providing the direct, ideological grounding for the Chilean coup, so I’m not sure what more evidence you want. What Friedman said in his speeches and wrote in books is not the sum total of his work and ideology. There’s also what he did, who he allied himself with, etc. He was remarkably consistent in denouncing his detractors as part of a “communist conspiracy,” while at the same time being remarkably callous about things like the apartheid regime in South Africa and the Tiennamen Square massacre. So I find appeals to him as some undaunted supporter of “freedom” specious at best.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  AnarchoCaps always came across to me as being based around "Free to choose... if you are rich"

Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

by ido 7y ago

Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

WalterBright 7y ago

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description? No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it. Libertarianism is mainly about people being free to choose, and being responsible for their choices, as long as they aren't hurting others in the process. Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.

dTal 7y ago
The process of making sure people aren't hurting others is called "government" and "regulation", which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. They say things like "the FDA is stupid, the free market will sort it out" - when the FDA was created because the free market was killing people. Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a dog-eat-dog world where people with money and power consolidate more and more of it. This is "feudalism" and it generally results in a raw deal for the poor.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. That's conflating Anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians are not Anarchists. Feudalism is something different altogether.
  - mftrhu 7y ago
    > Libertarians are not Anarchists. Unless with "libertarians" you are referring to ancaps, this is just false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchi...
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      Libertarianism relies on government to enforce peoples' rights. Anarchism is fundamentally different.
claudeganon 7y ago
>Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more. At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  I'll just refer you to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_friedman_did_not_support_pinochet/ https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_f... (Ironically, you say Libertarian Friedman supported far right dictator Pinochet and the other reply says Libertarianism is for no government at all. Clearly something is amiss with these two criticisms of Libertarianism.)
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Eh, I’ll take Allende’s ambassador, Orlando Letelier’s, word on the matter over a bunch of apologists on a subreddit (who largely and laughably quote what Friedman and his buddies said was there involvement). Letelier was killed by agents of Pinochet for saying as much: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-economic-freedoms-awful-toll/ https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-...
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      What's your take on dTal's assessment that libertarians are for no government at all? If you have any evidence of advocacy for repression in any of Friedman's lifetime of his books, articles, or lectures, I'd like to see it.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        It seems a wrong conflation of Libertarianism and Anarchism. I already pointed you to one of Allende’s chief advisors identifying Friedman as providing the direct, ideological grounding for the Chilean coup, so I’m not sure what more evidence you want. What Friedman said in his speeches and wrote in books is not the sum total of his work and ideology. There’s also what he did, who he allied himself with, etc. He was remarkably consistent in denouncing his detractors as part of a “communist conspiracy,” while at the same time being remarkably callous about things like the apartheid regime in South Africa and the Tiennamen Square massacre. So I find appeals to him as some undaunted supporter of “freedom” specious at best.
rorykoehler 7y ago
AnarchoCaps always came across to me as being based around "Free to choose... if you are rich"