SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by khallow
Given how often libertarians are mentioned here, I thought this would be interesting. And maybe there's some people with a lot more insight into what's going on.
A few months back (May 29), the national leadership of the Libertarian Party (the "Big L" political party, not the "small l" belief system) was taken over by a group called the "Mises Caucus". While their platform seems to be a mundane version of a normal platform.
In recent days, there's several state level "rebellions" which seems to indicate that the schism between the old guard and them isn't going away any time soon.
For me, they do seem to tilt at absolutist windmills rather than do stuff they want done - which is a common libertarian flaw. And the implicit emphasis on Mises economics is a huge problem for me. Their stance against vaccination and supporting Trump's allegations of election fraud seem pretty shifty.
OTOH, the previous leadership didn't seem all that interested in libertarianism. Maybe this will shake things up in a useful way?
So what are peoples' takes on this?
A few months back (May 29), the national leadership of the Libertarian Party (the "Big L" political party, not the "small l" belief system) was taken over by a group called the "Mises Caucus". While their platform seems to be a mundane version of a normal platform.
In recent days, there's several state level "rebellions" which seems to indicate that the schism between the old guard and them isn't going away any time soon.
For me, they do seem to tilt at absolutist windmills rather than do stuff they want done - which is a common libertarian flaw. And the implicit emphasis on Mises economics is a huge problem for me. Their stance against vaccination and supporting Trump's allegations of election fraud seem pretty shifty.
OTOH, the previous leadership didn't seem all that interested in libertarianism. Maybe this will shake things up in a useful way?
So what are peoples' takes on this?
What's happening with the US Libertarian Party?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 86 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Do not use if foil seal is broken.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2022, @04:54PM (49 children)
That the big 'L' Libertarians are (despite protestations to the contrary) not libertarians.
Rather, they variations on Anarcho-Capitalists [wikipedia.org]. That is to say, to some degree, lawless, might-makes-right narcissists who would create a new feudal system.
I suppose communities (sized smaller than Dunbar's Number [wikipedia.org]) whose members have relatively equal levels of resources could make such a fantasy work on that small scale.
But on any scale larger than a couple hundred people, this would quickly devolve into fiefdoms and tyrannical, feudalism-like structures.
As a left-leaning libertarian (small l), that sort of organization (as is advocated, at varying levels of implementation, by pretty much all right-leaning libertarians) at scales larger than a few hundred, relatively homogeneous folks, seems destined to lead to a reduction in liberty for most, with those who have the most resources dominating and exploiting those with fewer resources.
The solution, of course, is to focus on maximizing individual liberties mediated by strong government ensuring that the exercise of on individual or group's liberty does not limit or negatively impact the liberty of other individuals or groups.
Maximizing individual liberty at scale requires strong governmental, political and social institutions to ensure that those liberties are protected. This does not mean that the government owns the means of production, nor does it mean that the government creates a "planned" economy.
Rather, it means that the government makes sure (through contract/civil/criminal law and enforcement of same) that all individuals are treated fairly, equitably and equally, regardless of their circumstances.
For the "right-libertarians", this is anathema, as they generally believe that any exercise of power by an individual is acceptable, regardless of impact on those around them, as long as that power is exercised against those with fewer resources.
And so the folks who call themselves (in the new or old incarnations of the Libertarian Party) Libertarian are not really libertarians, but supporters of tyrannical, despotic rule by those with most resources -- oligarchy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2022, @07:11PM
Good breakdown of the current US libertarian facets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2022, @07:46PM
big 'L' Libertarians are "anarchists" that want police protection from their slaves.
Real libertarians, and liberals, (they're pretty much the same, in that they hardly exist, certainly not in the political realm), understand what true anarchism means, something we have to evolve into, since it requires a fundamental change in biology.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday September 19 2022, @03:04AM (46 children)
What really do you need a strong government for? If your people can't do most of their own "mediation" due to lak of capability or inclination, then you just don't have the conditions for libertarianism to succeed, left or right leaning. My take is that genuine liberty at the individual level requires an expectation at society and government level that the individual will act to protect their freedom. This can't be compensated for with a stronger government because that government will be made of the same sort of people with the same flaws in addition to serious conflicts of interest.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2022, @05:18PM
What do we need a strong government for? Have you seen what Republicans have been doing in some states? Doesn't matter, I do know you've been party to discussions about their fascist moves, so once again khallow is being a self-imposed moron begging the question.
Wait! Maybe we can solve all these political hot potatoes with a series of contracts!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2022, @07:59PM (44 children)
AC you replied to here.
Exactly. that's most of my point. Unless and until we have a society that will self-regulate to ensure equality and fairness for all its members, we will require strong government (one that reflects the will and values of the majority, with strictures that respect minority groups) and social institutions to create and maintain a society where folks are treated fairly and everyone has equal opportunities to succeed.
What we have now in the US does a poor job at that, but it's been getting better over the history of our nation. It seems we're backsliding a bit, but initiating societal changes that remove what few rusty guardrails we have won't make things better -- rather the opposite IMHO.
To an extent, yes. The problem comes in where those with more resources have a greater ability to protect their freedom than those with fewer resources. As the old saw goes, "All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others."
This isn't a new concept, nor is it particularly profound. We're not all clones. We have differing levels of ability (with a staggering array of facets to that term), intellect, social and economic resources. In a practical sense, that means we're not all equal. Rather the idea (again, not new or profound) is that, as a society, we should all be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Given the state of our society, the libertarian fantasy would fail to do so. And quite spectacularly, I reckon.
And more's the pity.
==============================
I initially misunderstood your point and wrote the following, which is relevant but not responsive to your comment. I'll leave it here anyway, as it bears on the issues being discussed and is worthy of consideration in that context
That's the premise for the "Worker's Paradise" predicted as the end-stage of Communism. That The People will come together to create a society that doesn't require much government, because everyone will be rational, fair and concerned with protecting the well-being of their fellow citizens.
What gets in the way of such an outcome is human nature. Any community larger than a hand-picked few hundred (and even then it's iffy) will have folks who are unreasonable, irrational, greedy, stupid and/or sociopaths.
It would be absolutely wonderful if we could create societies where everyone respects the rights and humanity of everyone else. A society where the least of us are treated with the same respect and have the same opportunities as the best of us. I would absolutely welcome such a society, as it could make life better for everyone.
Unfortunately, that's not how things really work. There are folks who would sell (or kill/beat/turn out) their own mothers for a nickel. There are folks who are irresponsible/incompetent who could cause the death of hundreds or thousands. There are those who would beat you half to death because they don't like the color of your shoes. Etc., etc., etc.
Because of this, we need strong governmental, political and social institutions to create and maintain (at least) a minimum of fairness and equality among people with varying levels of resources, intellect and ability.
That's certainly not to say that I recommend a Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org] type of society. Rather, I'd recommend a society that values the lives of all its members. One that provides an equal opportunity for folks to succeed.
That we can't even seem to do that gives the lie to the idea that in larger (more than a couple hundred) communities, we have the means, will and institutions to replace governmental roles like dispute resolution, addressing anti-social activities/behavior, helping those who are disadvantaged/unable to help themselves and a raft of other issues with private analogues.
From an aspirational and theoretical standpoint, I'm right there with you khallow.
But from a practical standpoint, it's just wishful thinking. And that's too bad.
Until we have the economic, social and individual structures/ability to treat everyone equally and fairly without needing an authority to enforce and maintain such equality/fairness, having elected representatives in a strong government that creates and maintains such an environment will be necessary.
Hell, we have that now and it barely works. Given the current circumstances, removing the minimal guardrails we have now will certainly make things worse, not better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2022, @09:05PM (36 children)
As ours does extremely well, though the vast majority remains in denial... So with that being the case, now what?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2022, @09:37PM (35 children)
That's about as vague as is possible.
Care to be more specific, or are you just metaphorically rolling up a newspaper and screaming "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!" because it eases your frustration without any effort?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @04:55AM (34 children)
You don't read so good, do ya?
"Gub'mint" is only as bad as the people that vote for (and reelect) it. It is a perfect reflection. You can't say "the government is bad" without saying the voters are bad. They did (and do) this to themselves... and now watch the denials fly! The truth is so ugly!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @07:24AM (1 child)
I guess the answer to that question is "no."
And more's the pity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @04:46PM
Your reading comprehension is that low, eh? Pity indeed...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @09:36AM (31 children)
For the US, this would be like claiming that a car with 200 million steering wheels (the typical number of voters in a higher participation election) can be perfectly controlled. I wish people would get some understanding of the limits of elections and voter control rather than spout garbage like this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:11PM (30 children)
According to you then, the brain would work better with only one neuron. If you don't recognize the role you/we play, we are doomed to repeat history again and again. You should try to be a Brain instead of 200 million Pinkys
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @08:26PM
You've confused which one is the genius, and which one is insane. Maybe you'll get it right, tomorrow night.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:30PM (28 children)
This model is broken on multiple levels. If humans were as smart as one neuron, voting wouldn't make sense. Brains have very tight coordination - communication on really fast levels of milliseconds. Democracies just don't have that.
And it makes no sense to attribute goodness and badness to neurons. That action occurs for emergent phenomena at a higher level. Similarly, it makes no sense to blame individuals for the emergent phenomena of societies and governments that they have no control (or perhaps one two hundred millionth) over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @07:00AM (27 children)
You are a master of learned helplessness
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 21 2022, @09:47AM (26 children)
If I expected to do everything via elections and such, I would be. It's worth noting here that I'm not the one claiming that societies are perfect reflections of single voters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @10:57AM
Khallow the Monomoron, only one functioning brain cell, and it is tuned to absolute freedom and fealty to great wealth! We need government to protect us from such monomania, and the government is us, with our two hundred million hands on the steering wheel, keeping khallow and his richies from trying to fuck over the country, and the planet, and those of certain body types.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2022, @07:19PM (24 children)
That's because you're in denial of responsibility for your personal choices. Single voters are united, their (and your) unity is what's being reflected, and like most, you are just passing blame. You are responsible for your misfortunes
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 25 2022, @12:29AM (23 children)
Why don't you establish that first rather than just say it? What does responsibility mean here anyway?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2022, @09:58PM (22 children)
You just need to accept the fact that you are a willing cog in the machine. Sometimes you need to be the wrench. That would be better than making excuses
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 25 2022, @11:27PM (21 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2022, @05:53AM (20 children)
But you don't think for yourself. You just make excuses for the corruption you constantly reelect.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 26 2022, @09:55AM (19 children)
I keep hearing that, but then here's your argument:
No, I don't. That's your bullshit speaking. The obvious rebuttal here is that we know how elections work and they are obviously weak control mechanisms at best. It's profoundly stupid to expect to handle everything in society through them, and then inevitably, blame the voters for failing to have the degree of control over the system that elections won't give. It's a dysfunctional argument that has no place in rational discussion.
Instead, go with stuff that works. For example, the corporation - both for profit and non profit - is a decent group organizing system that gets used everywhere. The Libertarian Party itself is one such organization. The media site I referenced, reason.com is another. SoylentNews is a third.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2022, @07:33PM (18 children)
If your effort to produce more excuses you conveniently ignore the pure animal psychology that drives you to follow the herd, and that with humans, it's a personal choice, even if it is subconscious and primal
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2022, @07:35PM
That should be, "In your efforts..."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 26 2022, @08:40PM (16 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2022, @11:03PM (15 children)
Then you are free to stop any time. And of course you use the typo to distract attention... Perfectly natural. You "do like they do on the Discovery Channel"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 27 2022, @12:04AM (14 children)
I'm not the one asserting stuff in the presence of counterevidence and just getting elections wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @06:37AM (13 children)
You have no counterevidence, you only have party propaganda
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 27 2022, @10:48AM (12 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2022, @10:14PM (11 children)
Again, you are saying nothing. Just making excuses
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 27 2022, @11:52PM (10 children)
At this point, you have yet to present even the slightest reason why we should care what you think of this thread. I certainly don't care about your meaningless insistence that facts and reasoning are somehow excuses and propaganda. That insistence just signals that you have nothing to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @05:36AM (9 children)
:-) You obviously care enough to write great volumes of text to "refute" what you claim is "nothing".
But I can do it with a much lower word count. Anyway, you're wrong and I'm right. That says everything
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2022, @11:32AM (8 children)
Now you have moved the goalposts from my alleged inability to think for myself. And what's the point of putting "refute" in quotes? In this entire discussion - journal and every comment in here - you are the only one to mention the word. So you aren't quote it nor even scare quoting it. This just illustrates your profound mental dysfunction.
Try doing it with zero word count next time. As to the latter claim, you have said nothing in support your claims here. That tells us who is more right. It's not the person claiming to "do it" with a lower word count and no rational argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @08:29PM (7 children)
Mother nature doesn't need my support. When you free your mind of the bankers servitude, you will will understand exactly. Up to now you just speak mumbo-jumbo
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 28 2022, @10:54PM (6 children)
Your argument desperately needs a lot of support. There's a one word description of your sort of argument that has no basis in fact or reason: bullshit. No scare quotes either.
I saw that movie too - when I was eight. I've grown up since. I discovered that cool narratives like that get their asses whupped by facts - such as how elections actually work and people act. I think what's most annoying about your bullshit is that you have no example anywhere in the real world of an election or democracy working the way you stated in this thread that it should. But I suppose that's my fault too, right? My mental failwaves are corrupting elections all over the place and time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2022, @11:44PM (5 children)
Your denials are very amusing, but the rules are unbreakable, you are always responsible for the choices you make. Everybody else is responsible for their own too
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 29 2022, @12:02AM (4 children)
"Rules"? Care to describe that?
LOL, I guess you've never heard of externalities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2022, @09:48PM (3 children)
"externalities"
Ah yes, the new euphemism for excuse... Oh well, keep 'em coming, I guess. All you have is nothing but a bottomless pit of excuses
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 30 2022, @12:09AM (2 children)
It must be a real chore to tell you anything you don't want to know/learn. If we look at the posts rather than just put the blinders on, externalities are the classic way someone dodges responsibility - by imposing cost on someone else.
Moving on, there's so much brain damage in your posts, I see, for example, that you conflate the collective choice of elections with the individual choice of a vote, speak in terms of "denials", "propaganda", and "excuses" completely abandoning good faith argument in the process, babble about "thinking for yourself" while demonstrating that you can't, bragging about a low word count when I point out the absence of rational argument, and constantly accusing me of voting for corruption when I don't.
My take is that you're just another clueless blowhard on the internet that heard some saying about elections when they were eight years old and have been forcing the world into that bizarre viewpoint ever since.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2022, @04:46PM (1 child)
Always fun seeing someone argue with you till you get angry. Keep on with your fantasies I guess, capitalism has gone so far off the rails now literally threatening the survival of modern society. Sadly you're so caught up in the propaganda you have a million *ahem* externalities to point at as if reality hasn't become glaringly clear. Being a naive member of the current rightwing death cult is not a winning strategy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 02 2022, @10:48AM
The greatest threat presently to modern society is Putin's nuclear force. It was built by a totalitarian government and since passed on to another authoritarian government. No capitalism involved - and no, state capitalism isn't capitalism.
Past that, we're doing pretty well with the best improvement in the human condition ever. That's the "going so far off the rails" of capitalism. I think we'd be challenged to find any other human tool with the success record of capitalism bad-mouthed as much.
I shouldn't be surprised that someone who can't get basic facts about elections right, fails in the same way with capitalism. Ignorance never is just one spot.
I'm not a member, naive or otherwise.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @12:45AM (6 children)
The problem here is what happens when those folks are in charge of our strong governmental, political, and social institutions? By making them strong, we create far greater opportunities for them to oppress us than if they were private citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @03:40AM (5 children)
Fair enough. Money has far too much influence on our politics (and hence, our governance), which isn't new and is definitely a big problem.
But how would that change if we were to go the big 'L' Libertarian Party way? Those with the most resources would dominate there, too.
The difference is that as far as the government is concerned, there's an opportunity to change that. That wouldn't be easy, since our institutions have been moving to encourage that river of filthy lucre rather than discourage it.
In the big 'L' scenario, there would be no opportunity for change, except the "free market" which will, of course, be dominated by those with the most resources.
I'd rather have an opportunity (even a small one) over none at all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @08:49AM (3 children)
The problem isn't money - it's power. Money just happens to be a form of that. For example, over the past couple of centuries there has been a steady stream of bureaucrats with considerable unaccountable power, and more or less democratic and/or public benefit mandates.
Some have been relatively positive like post-war infrastructure builders in Japan (Shinji SogÅ [wikipedia.org] who was the force behind the creation of the bullet trains or the early MITI [wikipedia.org] (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) leaders). But a bunch have been negative in impact (such as US examples: Boss Tweed [wikipedia.org], William Mulholland [wikipedia.org], or J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org]). And then there's been the truly heinous, such as Nazi Germany's Theodor Eicke [wikipedia.org] who among other things organized the concentration camps that killed so many people in the Second World War.
Every one of these found some way to subvert the checks and balances on their power. Sogo borrowed money from the World Bank to make the bullet trains resistant to budgetary control by the government. MITI exerted more than four decades of control over the entire Japanese industry that continued through to the collapse of the Japanese real estate market at the end of the 1980s. Boss Tweed ran the New York City Tammany Hall political machine and had immense private wealth and influence in addition. Mulholland ran a very independent Los Angeles Water Department. This ended when one [wikipedia.org] of the dams in his system collapsed killing over 400 people. Hoover was notorious for being a ruthless power not beholden to any US president. It was rumored that he had a vast amount of blackmail material and may have in turn been blackmailed by the Mafia about which activities he was frequently blind. And Theodor Eicke insured that the primary control bureaucracies of the Third Reich, the secret police/surveillance, the Gestapo, didn't have sway inside the camps.
There's a lot of people with those resources and they would not be unified in their interests. One big thing missed here is that democracies all have separation of powers. Nobody does everything even in a niche. There's always some check on that power. The business sector is another such separation of powers. That we can complain about the power of money is a demonstration of this separation of powers in effect.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:25PM (2 children)
*yawn*
Just some weird jumble to try and convince people that money isn't really the problem (spoiler, it is) paired with some crap about private business being another check on government. You really love the oligarchy, but most everyone knows that about you by now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:25PM (1 child)
In other words, the above is a weird jumble for you have feelz about money. It annoys me when otherwise intelligent people go full stupid just because they can't come up with a rebuttal. Money didn't make my bureaucrats powerful. The state did.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it rather than just dismiss it. Everyone agrees that businesses are powerful. They aren't governments, have a diverse spread of interests, and can be sued. It's a considerable breaking up of all that power.
I guess you're not most everyone!
As to the barglegab about money, money isn't magic. It's very easy to defeat - take the money away and you just took its power away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @08:28PM
Which is the trick, after all.
Given that those who benefit the most from money in elections (incumbents), are the ones that need to change the process to remove the money, that's easier said than done.
And we've further enabled such shenanigans with stuff like the Citizen's United v. FEC [wikipedia.org] decision.
When money isn't a driving force in successful elections, we can have a broader selection of voices in our government, hopefully one that focuses on the needs of constituencies, not large corporations and the wealthiest among us.
This is a structural issue in our political system that needs reforming.
You say it's easy to do. What specific, actionable suggestions do you have for getting the money out of the political system?
N.B.: I'm not the AC you replied do, so please don't saddle me with the bullshit they're spewing -- it's not me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 26 2022, @09:59AM
For starters, you couldn't take over the government and automatically become the group with the most resources!