2 ms·

Honest question from definitely-not-libertarian democratic-socialist. Isn't the main point of libertarianism a defense of private property, concentration of whi

by js8 5y ago

Honest question from definitely-not-libertarian democratic-socialist. Isn't the main point of libertarianism a defense of private property, concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? I think libertarianism is quite self-contradictory, because if we assume completely fair starting conditions (they historically never were) and assume that people are renumerated fairly (which is subjective and disputable), the system as a whole tends to accumulate wealth in hands of smaller and smaller number of citizens, if nothing else then by just random chance, and since the property ownership is sacrosanct, there is no mechanism which could counteract the accumulation. Then these people might use the accumulated wealth to oppress others, as a kind of oligopoly. This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process.

nicoburns 5y ago
If you generalise the libertarian principle to all large organisations and powerful individuals rather than just governments then it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
reedjosh 5y ago
> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention. I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. > This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process. And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.
- frenchy 5y ago
  > I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.
- js8 5y ago
  > But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt? > I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation). And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
libertarianism has some good traits like ending the drug war, respect for individual rights, and capitalism. Their approach swings to far in the other direction and believe that pure capitalism, a very sue happy populace, and minimal policing to protect property rights and individual rights is enough. They don't believe in regulations for the most part and only a very minimal military. Problems with this include minimal military->your country is over run within a generation or two, unlimited capitalism->money always flows up and the big guys don't give a damn about your rights and have the money to buy off the police. Very active judiciary to allow suing for infringement on property and individual rights --> the judiciary will be bought by the monopoly companies. It does not account sufficiently for all the money eventually working it's way up to the 1% and they essentially control everything and everyone else is a wage slave fighting over the crumbs of the 1% of wealth/pay left.

by js8 5y ago

nicoburns 5y ago

If you generalise the libertarian principle to all large organisations and powerful individuals rather than just governments then it starts to make a whole lot more sense.

reedjosh 5y ago

> concentration of which is eventually exactly the vehicle of oppression? But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. I believe even those on your side of the political spectrum believe that corruption is what prevents the people from properly benefiting from government intervention. I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. I believe you and I have like ideals, but I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. > This contradiction was actually pointed out by Marx, who predicted that end of capitalism (a revolution) will come out as a result of this process. And yet the Soviet Union is the system that fell.

frenchy 5y ago
> I believe both you and I want us to stop (or never have started) all the wars of the past 20 years. This is a very popular viewpoint, yet moneyed interests prevent this. Let's not rewrite history here. All of the American wars of the last few decades where very popular with (most) American voters when then they started. There's no doubt the American military-industrial complex had some role in manufacturing consent, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the will of the American voters wasn't critical to the political strategy of the government.
js8 5y ago
> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt? > I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation). And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

libertarianism has some good traits like ending the drug war, respect for individual rights, and capitalism. Their approach swings to far in the other direction and believe that pure capitalism, a very sue happy populace, and minimal policing to protect property rights and individual rights is enough. They don't believe in regulations for the most part and only a very minimal military. Problems with this include minimal military->your country is over run within a generation or two, unlimited capitalism->money always flows up and the big guys don't give a damn about your rights and have the money to buy off the police. Very active judiciary to allow suing for infringement on property and individual rights --> the judiciary will be bought by the monopoly companies. It does not account sufficiently for all the money eventually working it's way up to the 1% and they essentially control everything and everyone else is a wage slave fighting over the crumbs of the 1% of wealth/pay left.