3 ms·

Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well. Having originated with Rothbard in the 1970s, it's growing every decade pretty significantly. I'm a

by MCRed 12y ago

Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well. Having originated with Rothbard in the 1970s, it's growing every decade pretty significantly. I'm assuming you're not believing libertarians are pacifists, but since you brought it up in an example, the definition of libertarian is: "One who believes that the initiation of force is immoral". This was a pledge that the LP required all members to sign for many years. Note the initiation of force is immoral to libertarians, not its use in self defense, or in defense of another. I do invite you to come hang out in any place where libertarians gather. You'll find that they are nothing if not flexible, as half of them are anarchists, half are not, and none think that they all have to believe the same to work together. (half are pot smokers, half tee-totalers, half pro-life, half-pro choice (though they do agree government should be out of it) half are high tech, half are old school, etc.) This article, though, really has nothing to do with libertarianism.

eevilspock 12y ago
> "Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well." I think you misunderstand the test. It is not whether an ideology has a growing number of believers over an extended period of time (On that measure, Islam is doing far better), but how well it does when actually implemented (i.e. in practice not theory). The article is claiming that this story is an example of failure when implemented.
- MCRed 12y ago
  The article is essentially a fabrication.
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    Even if so, not nearly as much as the story of Atlas Shrugged and the tenants of Objectivism.
    - naturalethic 12y ago
      Atlas Shrugged is fiction, genius. Some libertarians are anti-Objectivist.
- tracker1 12y ago
  But the article is wrong.. most of my libertarian friends don't believe in no government, they believe in a minimalist one... this is a perfect example of where contract law should prevail, which is well within libertarian ideals. It's a matter of one party wronging another, not a failure of libertarian ideology. That which is actually not far from the ideals this country was founded on. The article itself is an opinion piece with a little bit of facts that don't at all support the opinion. I tend to be more pragmatic still... I feel that the role of a limited central government should be to ensure expected infrastructure to the greater community over time. That doesn't mean privatizing everything, or socializing it all either. It could mean reassigning roles when things aren't working.. it could mean staying the hell out, and it can mean relaxing regulations in certain ways. It really depends on the situation. For example, health care, I would have rather seen the resources government already spends in an open, competative non-profit insurance corporation. Then establish that as a baseline anyone can buy into... that would act as competition for other hmo's and insurance companies. FedEx and UPS compete fine with the postal service, though the USPS is fairly locked down with regulation, and could do with some ability to adapt without congressional approval. It really just depends on a given scenario. Rarely does the government taking over a function as a whole serve anyone better than some level of competition.
bane 12y ago
To be clear, my ding is not just against libertarianism, but against ideologies that set up shop on the endpoints of the axis that goes from "individualism" to "collectivism". Libertarianism, while not out on the cliff edge of individualism, at least has reserved seats for a great view of it. (I'm being very careful here not to call libertarianism an "extreme" ideology, because I don't think that's a fair assessment). There are highly collectivist ideologies way out on the other end of the axis that have entirely different, but equal structural issues (and before you say "communism" that's not necessarily what I'm thinking of). In either case, highly individualistic or highly collectivistic ideologies almost never survive sustained contact with more moderate, pragmatic outside groups. Survival of groups of like-minded end-point ideologists almost always require isolation-like implementation approaches because of this simple issue. Does libertarianism "work"? Hell if I know. I think most evidence points to it not working well over sustained periods. Most "pure" ideologies don't, and the more "pure" the ideology, the less likely it is to be able to sustain itself, even superficially, on the tenants of its core concepts for long. The world is just too messy and libertarianism is just not road tested enough to have figured out what really doesn't work and adjust. A fully implemented, fully sustaining, libertarian paradise would likely not be much like present day libertarian ideological tenants, but something more moderate in approach, and it might not even be superficially much different than regimes it would be replacing...the differences would be more in small details and guiding philosophy than in more noticeable things.

by MCRed 12y ago

eevilspock 12y ago

> "Ok, on that first test Libertarianism is doing quite well." I think you misunderstand the test. It is not whether an ideology has a growing number of believers over an extended period of time (On that measure, Islam is doing far better), but how well it does when actually implemented (i.e. in practice not theory). The article is claiming that this story is an example of failure when implemented.

MCRed 12y ago
The article is essentially a fabrication.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Even if so, not nearly as much as the story of Atlas Shrugged and the tenants of Objectivism.
  - naturalethic 12y ago
    Atlas Shrugged is fiction, genius. Some libertarians are anti-Objectivist.
tracker1 12y ago
But the article is wrong.. most of my libertarian friends don't believe in no government, they believe in a minimalist one... this is a perfect example of where contract law should prevail, which is well within libertarian ideals. It's a matter of one party wronging another, not a failure of libertarian ideology. That which is actually not far from the ideals this country was founded on. The article itself is an opinion piece with a little bit of facts that don't at all support the opinion. I tend to be more pragmatic still... I feel that the role of a limited central government should be to ensure expected infrastructure to the greater community over time. That doesn't mean privatizing everything, or socializing it all either. It could mean reassigning roles when things aren't working.. it could mean staying the hell out, and it can mean relaxing regulations in certain ways. It really depends on the situation. For example, health care, I would have rather seen the resources government already spends in an open, competative non-profit insurance corporation. Then establish that as a baseline anyone can buy into... that would act as competition for other hmo's and insurance companies. FedEx and UPS compete fine with the postal service, though the USPS is fairly locked down with regulation, and could do with some ability to adapt without congressional approval. It really just depends on a given scenario. Rarely does the government taking over a function as a whole serve anyone better than some level of competition.

bane 12y ago

To be clear, my ding is not just against libertarianism, but against ideologies that set up shop on the endpoints of the axis that goes from "individualism" to "collectivism". Libertarianism, while not out on the cliff edge of individualism, at least has reserved seats for a great view of it. (I'm being very careful here not to call libertarianism an "extreme" ideology, because I don't think that's a fair assessment). There are highly collectivist ideologies way out on the other end of the axis that have entirely different, but equal structural issues (and before you say "communism" that's not necessarily what I'm thinking of). In either case, highly individualistic or highly collectivistic ideologies almost never survive sustained contact with more moderate, pragmatic outside groups. Survival of groups of like-minded end-point ideologists almost always require isolation-like implementation approaches because of this simple issue. Does libertarianism "work"? Hell if I know. I think most evidence points to it not working well over sustained periods. Most "pure" ideologies don't, and the more "pure" the ideology, the less likely it is to be able to sustain itself, even superficially, on the tenants of its core concepts for long. The world is just too messy and libertarianism is just not road tested enough to have figured out what really doesn't work and adjust. A fully implemented, fully sustaining, libertarian paradise would likely not be much like present day libertarian ideological tenants, but something more moderate in approach, and it might not even be superficially much different than regimes it would be replacing...the differences would be more in small details and guiding philosophy than in more noticeable things.