3 ms·

"Suing it". Sure, me as a small-time citizen with not much money in this libertarian utopia will have the power and money to sue a massive corporation who insta

by piva00 4y ago

"Suing it". Sure, me as a small-time citizen with not much money in this libertarian utopia will have the power and money to sue a massive corporation who installed a factory to dump their toxic waste unto me. It doesn't account for massive differences in power, there's nothing in libertarian philosophy which takes into account that a multi-trillion dollar corporation will, always, have absurdly more power than any citizen or small collection of citizens. Suing someone/something is not a magic bullet, in your utopian libertarian world you'd have to pay lawyers for that. You'd require lawyers that want to work with you instead of large corporations, corporations which would be free to blacklist any lawyer working against them to work for them. Not taking into account that these corporations can just slowly dial up the inconvenience to communities they'd like to push out, are you gonna sue them multiple times? What exactly do you expect that your powerless minimal government be able to do if you win a trial against such actors, to fine them? If they can just pay the fine, over and over, and they calculate those fines are just a cost of business that will be paid off by ROI, is that ok? Or do you expect the government to take action and shutdown a company that's constantly breaking the law? I simply cannot understand why you really believe that suing a massively more overpowering force in a libertarian world is achievable, not only achievable but required to keep a balance of... Power. It's absurd.

commoner 4y ago
What do you think a "libertarian world" is, and how would that differ from an "authoritarian world"? Libertarianism vs. authoritarianism is a spectrum, and nobody in this discussion has advocated for eliminating legal systems or law enforcement. In general, libertarians support systems that are required to enforce property rights.
- piva00 4y ago
  If you want the extremes: Libertarian world = no control of the government over any aspect of the economy, no public ownership, only private property is a right, everything is negotiated through contracts between private parties in society. Authoritarian = almost total to total control of society by the government. Economy, customs, culture, speech. No dissent to the official government line of policies is tolerated, the people are completely controlled and submissive to the whims of the leadership. Decision-making is reserved to the political elites and the people have no voice in the process of it. One is an economic-political philosophy, the other is a political system of control, not sure why you want to compare both.
  - commoner 4y ago
    "Libertarian" is a relative term, just like "liberal" and "conservative". Someone who identifies as a libertarian does not necessarily desire an extreme libertarian world as you have defined it. For example, a libertarian can oppose civil asset forfeiture abuse and support the legalization of marijuana, while still accepting the status quo of allowing the government to regulate the use of public and common goods. When people say things such as "Libertarians don't account for externalities" and use a caricature of a "libertarian utopia" to attack libertarianism at large, it pigeonholes libertarians as extremists, and does not paint a realistic picture of how libertarianism actually influences politics every day.
    - piva00 4y ago
      I clearly mention those are the extremes, it's the first line of my comment. I'm aware that Libertarianism as a philosophy has much broader branches of it, that it includes by definition concepts of freedoms and autonomy. Unfortunately most of the interactions I have with self-identified libertarians (both in Sweden and in Brazil) go towards extremism. As much as most of the philosophies under the umbrella of Libertarianism aren't that extreme that's what I see in public discourse, it's a caricature. Libertarian thinking is also responsible for inspiring trickle-down economics, free market privatisations across the board and so on. These policies have been, at least, a mixed bag of results with plenty of it being failures (e.g trickle-down and privatisation of healthcare/education). We know, empirically, what the consequences of purely libertarian policies such as the ones brought by neoliberalism can be: monopoly/monopsony formations (i.e corporations mergers), empowerment of elites, diminished power of labour and so on. Libertarianism defers too much power to private individuals, without much regard to the power imbalances that will arise from its philosophy, just trusting that certain mechanisms will balance it all out. That's my main reservation with the philosophy as a whole.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > When people say things such as "Libertarians don't account for externalities" and use a caricature of a "libertarian utopia" to attack libertarianism at large, it pigeonholes libertarians as extremists, and does not paint a realistic picture of how libertarianism actually influences politics every day. Is it your contention that people are misrepresenting libertarianism as extremist out of ignorance or malice? Do you think that is unreasonable to view libertarianism as extreme because people who are 'real' libertarians are forced to run as Republicans, and because in the future the libertarian party is going to become more moderate and reasonable? I am trying to understand why you expect people to have a nuanced view of a political group that does not present itself as such, because you feel that it should or will be something else.

by piva00 4y ago

commoner 4y ago

What do you think a "libertarian world" is, and how would that differ from an "authoritarian world"? Libertarianism vs. authoritarianism is a spectrum, and nobody in this discussion has advocated for eliminating legal systems or law enforcement. In general, libertarians support systems that are required to enforce property rights.

piva00 4y ago
If you want the extremes: Libertarian world = no control of the government over any aspect of the economy, no public ownership, only private property is a right, everything is negotiated through contracts between private parties in society. Authoritarian = almost total to total control of society by the government. Economy, customs, culture, speech. No dissent to the official government line of policies is tolerated, the people are completely controlled and submissive to the whims of the leadership. Decision-making is reserved to the political elites and the people have no voice in the process of it. One is an economic-political philosophy, the other is a political system of control, not sure why you want to compare both.
- commoner 4y ago
  "Libertarian" is a relative term, just like "liberal" and "conservative". Someone who identifies as a libertarian does not necessarily desire an extreme libertarian world as you have defined it. For example, a libertarian can oppose civil asset forfeiture abuse and support the legalization of marijuana, while still accepting the status quo of allowing the government to regulate the use of public and common goods. When people say things such as "Libertarians don't account for externalities" and use a caricature of a "libertarian utopia" to attack libertarianism at large, it pigeonholes libertarians as extremists, and does not paint a realistic picture of how libertarianism actually influences politics every day.
  - piva00 4y ago
    I clearly mention those are the extremes, it's the first line of my comment. I'm aware that Libertarianism as a philosophy has much broader branches of it, that it includes by definition concepts of freedoms and autonomy. Unfortunately most of the interactions I have with self-identified libertarians (both in Sweden and in Brazil) go towards extremism. As much as most of the philosophies under the umbrella of Libertarianism aren't that extreme that's what I see in public discourse, it's a caricature. Libertarian thinking is also responsible for inspiring trickle-down economics, free market privatisations across the board and so on. These policies have been, at least, a mixed bag of results with plenty of it being failures (e.g trickle-down and privatisation of healthcare/education). We know, empirically, what the consequences of purely libertarian policies such as the ones brought by neoliberalism can be: monopoly/monopsony formations (i.e corporations mergers), empowerment of elites, diminished power of labour and so on. Libertarianism defers too much power to private individuals, without much regard to the power imbalances that will arise from its philosophy, just trusting that certain mechanisms will balance it all out. That's my main reservation with the philosophy as a whole.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > When people say things such as "Libertarians don't account for externalities" and use a caricature of a "libertarian utopia" to attack libertarianism at large, it pigeonholes libertarians as extremists, and does not paint a realistic picture of how libertarianism actually influences politics every day. Is it your contention that people are misrepresenting libertarianism as extremist out of ignorance or malice? Do you think that is unreasonable to view libertarianism as extreme because people who are 'real' libertarians are forced to run as Republicans, and because in the future the libertarian party is going to become more moderate and reasonable? I am trying to understand why you expect people to have a nuanced view of a political group that does not present itself as such, because you feel that it should or will be something else.