5 ms·

There nothing "freedom" about some sole family owning the only water supply generation after generation or whatever dystopian scenario that libertarianism likel

There nothing "freedom" about some sole family owning the only water supply generation after generation or whatever dystopian scenario that libertarianism likely would bring about. In practice it's just a dismantling of democracy in favour of feudalistic power through wealth and property.

lovich 5y ago
No don’t you see, by virtue of the free market, someone will innovate around the need for water! Then they will hold a monopoly over necessary resources for a few generations until someone innovates around them. You have to realize it’s a good thing to see others go without just to make sure I never have to share my excess wealth /s
vlunkr 5y ago
That's a nice strawman you've got. I think what you're describing is anarchy.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  What exactly in essentially removing the state but keeping private property precludes this scenario?
- vidarh 5y ago
  The origin of libertarianism is Dejacque, who considered Proudhon of "property is theft" fame to be a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian" for not going far enough. He was an anarcho-communist and the first publisher of libertarian political texts. Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger, and e.g. people like Rothbard very intentionally tried to find common ground between what he saw as the anti-authoritarian parts of the left and the right, but was largely rebuffed by the left, where left-libertarians, many of whom are anarchists, saw the right-libertarian obsession with property rights as fundamentally incompatible with the goal of maximising liberty.
  - infamia 5y ago
    > Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger How can you make this claim when Frederick Bastiat was a contemporary of Dejacque's? Many of today's leading libertarian-minded thinkers (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.) consider Bastiat core to their beliefs and you can hear Bastiat's writings echoed in their works.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      I can make this claim because Dejacque was the first to use the term to describe an ideology (here is the very first use [1], and here's a page on Dejacque's newspaper Le Libertaire[2]), and because when the term was introduced into right-wing anti-authoritarianism it was with explicit knowledge that it was co-opting the term as it had then been used for a century by the left. Libertarianism as such was founded as a rejection of "moderate" anarchism, and a more extensive rejection of authority than that of Proudhon, along with an absolute rejection of property rights as oppressive. That he was later adopted by some right-wing libertarians does not mean he invented libertarianism. Many people toyed with similar ideas. Dejacque was the person who gave it a name and promoted it as an explicit ideology. You'll also not that Bastiat did not take things nearly as far as Dejacque did. E.g. Bastiat argued in Justice and Fraternity even for limited state provided welfare, so he did not even go as far as many right-libertarians. But whatever the size, he argues for a state, not the total dismantling of the state, which was the origin of libertarianism. As such, Bastiat looks libertarian to right-libertarians because they took left-wing libertarianism and gutted the commitment to liberty of Dejacque to add in state restrictions on liberty to enable property, and in doing so shifted the ideology far to the right. But he's far less libertarian by its original definition than e.g. an anarchist like Proudhon. To left-libertarians he's just another statist. [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Libertaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Libertaire
      - infamia 5y ago
        Bastiat was a so-called right-wing libertarian in all but name only. Rothbard borrowed very liberally from Bastiat (no pun intended). I don't recall reading anything like state provided welfare in Justice and Fraternity. It has been a very long time since I've read it, but that sounds antithetical to some of his other writings which I've re-read more recently. I would be curious to see the specific passage. To my knowledge, communal arrangements (like Dejacque seemingly favors) have not proven practical outside of relatively small communities.
- idroveatrain 5y ago
  If it's not evident, the conception and enforcement of private property writ large is established by governmental coercion. Thus monopolization really only occurs through that force, and is also the predominate competitor for monopolization. You've got a silly proconception that mankind is endemically neurotic. Virtually every interaction you make throughout the day is self-organized, I'd conjecture the vast majority of it is done without direct, indirect, or conditioned coercion, and unsupervised. Multiply this by 7bn. That is to say that most all hierarchical authority isn't even preventative, and is almost exclusively reactionary, which further extends into reasoning that the "order" promised by the institutions is largely illusory outside of the directives offered, which could just as well be derived through any other system.
Geee 5y ago
Dystopia? The wealthiest and most successful nations are built on the principles of classical liberalism / libertarianism.
- vidarh 5y ago
  On which of them? Classical liberalism and libertarianism, be it left- or right-libertarianism are nothing alike.
  - Geee 5y ago
    Libertarianism upholds the same principles of individual liberties. Libertarianism is also the closest thing to what's called liberalism internationally. In the US, liberalism was renamed to libertarianism.
    - handrous 5y ago
      You'd have to be using these terms in a non-standard way, for that to be true. Some common forms of libertarianism are under the umbrella of liberalism, or part of its family, if you like, but they are not identical.
      - Geee 5y ago
        This explains the connection to classical liberalism and the confusion of these terms pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States#Mid-20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S... You see that historically libertarianism follows directly from classical liberalism. They just changed the name.
        handrous 5y ago
        Classical liberalism is a retrospective name for one thread of liberalism. It does not—and this is important—encompass all liberals before some date, but one branch, influenced by a set of thinkers and writers who are also counted among the influences of other branches. It has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism and the broader thread, in context, is traced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism One point that may make the distinction clear is that in this sentence, from the article you linked: "During the mid-20th century, many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as libertarians." The "Old Right" were opponents of Roosevelt, who himself sits at the base of the branch of what the "Liberalism" entry calls "Modern Liberalism"—but both are under the tent of liberalism, as were others then and earlier whose views did not line up with libertarianism. Liberalism was not renamed libertarianism, even just in the US, and that's certainly not what's meant by liberalism internationally.

lovich 5y ago

No don’t you see, by virtue of the free market, someone will innovate around the need for water! Then they will hold a monopoly over necessary resources for a few generations until someone innovates around them. You have to realize it’s a good thing to see others go without just to make sure I never have to share my excess wealth /s

vlunkr 5y ago

That's a nice strawman you've got. I think what you're describing is anarchy.

cloudfifty 5y ago
What exactly in essentially removing the state but keeping private property precludes this scenario?
vidarh 5y ago
The origin of libertarianism is Dejacque, who considered Proudhon of "property is theft" fame to be a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian" for not going far enough. He was an anarcho-communist and the first publisher of libertarian political texts. Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger, and e.g. people like Rothbard very intentionally tried to find common ground between what he saw as the anti-authoritarian parts of the left and the right, but was largely rebuffed by the left, where left-libertarians, many of whom are anarchists, saw the right-libertarian obsession with property rights as fundamentally incompatible with the goal of maximising liberty.
- infamia 5y ago
  > Right-wing libertarianism is about a century younger How can you make this claim when Frederick Bastiat was a contemporary of Dejacque's? Many of today's leading libertarian-minded thinkers (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.) consider Bastiat core to their beliefs and you can hear Bastiat's writings echoed in their works.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    I can make this claim because Dejacque was the first to use the term to describe an ideology (here is the very first use [1], and here's a page on Dejacque's newspaper Le Libertaire[2]), and because when the term was introduced into right-wing anti-authoritarianism it was with explicit knowledge that it was co-opting the term as it had then been used for a century by the left. Libertarianism as such was founded as a rejection of "moderate" anarchism, and a more extensive rejection of authority than that of Proudhon, along with an absolute rejection of property rights as oppressive. That he was later adopted by some right-wing libertarians does not mean he invented libertarianism. Many people toyed with similar ideas. Dejacque was the person who gave it a name and promoted it as an explicit ideology. You'll also not that Bastiat did not take things nearly as far as Dejacque did. E.g. Bastiat argued in Justice and Fraternity even for limited state provided welfare, so he did not even go as far as many right-libertarians. But whatever the size, he argues for a state, not the total dismantling of the state, which was the origin of libertarianism. As such, Bastiat looks libertarian to right-libertarians because they took left-wing libertarianism and gutted the commitment to liberty of Dejacque to add in state restrictions on liberty to enable property, and in doing so shifted the ideology far to the right. But he's far less libertarian by its original definition than e.g. an anarchist like Proudhon. To left-libertarians he's just another statist. [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Libertaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Libertaire
    - infamia 5y ago
      Bastiat was a so-called right-wing libertarian in all but name only. Rothbard borrowed very liberally from Bastiat (no pun intended). I don't recall reading anything like state provided welfare in Justice and Fraternity. It has been a very long time since I've read it, but that sounds antithetical to some of his other writings which I've re-read more recently. I would be curious to see the specific passage. To my knowledge, communal arrangements (like Dejacque seemingly favors) have not proven practical outside of relatively small communities.
idroveatrain 5y ago
If it's not evident, the conception and enforcement of private property writ large is established by governmental coercion. Thus monopolization really only occurs through that force, and is also the predominate competitor for monopolization. You've got a silly proconception that mankind is endemically neurotic. Virtually every interaction you make throughout the day is self-organized, I'd conjecture the vast majority of it is done without direct, indirect, or conditioned coercion, and unsupervised. Multiply this by 7bn. That is to say that most all hierarchical authority isn't even preventative, and is almost exclusively reactionary, which further extends into reasoning that the "order" promised by the institutions is largely illusory outside of the directives offered, which could just as well be derived through any other system.

Geee 5y ago

Dystopia? The wealthiest and most successful nations are built on the principles of classical liberalism / libertarianism.

vidarh 5y ago
On which of them? Classical liberalism and libertarianism, be it left- or right-libertarianism are nothing alike.
- Geee 5y ago
  Libertarianism upholds the same principles of individual liberties. Libertarianism is also the closest thing to what's called liberalism internationally. In the US, liberalism was renamed to libertarianism.
  - handrous 5y ago
    You'd have to be using these terms in a non-standard way, for that to be true. Some common forms of libertarianism are under the umbrella of liberalism, or part of its family, if you like, but they are not identical.
    - Geee 5y ago
      This explains the connection to classical liberalism and the confusion of these terms pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States#Mid-20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S... You see that historically libertarianism follows directly from classical liberalism. They just changed the name.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Classical liberalism is a retrospective name for one thread of liberalism. It does not—and this is important—encompass all liberals before some date, but one branch, influenced by a set of thinkers and writers who are also counted among the influences of other branches. It has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism and the broader thread, in context, is traced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism One point that may make the distinction clear is that in this sentence, from the article you linked: "During the mid-20th century, many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as libertarians." The "Old Right" were opponents of Roosevelt, who himself sits at the base of the branch of what the "Liberalism" entry calls "Modern Liberalism"—but both are under the tent of liberalism, as were others then and earlier whose views did not line up with libertarianism. Liberalism was not renamed libertarianism, even just in the US, and that's certainly not what's meant by liberalism internationally.