The Enemy is ALWAYS the State.

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The Enemy is ALWAYS the State.

If you are libertarian like me, I'm sure you are used to people misunderstanding your views.

Depending on the issue at hand, I will be blasted or praised by the traditional liberal or conservative ideologues.

For example, on one day I may come out in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry and enjoy the same priveledges and rights as any other couple. For this, I'll be praised by liberals and blasted by conservatives.

Another day I may say that affirmative action programs are simply reverse discrimination and really only serve to furthur disenfranchise the very people they are designed to benefit by creating a State mandated scheme of victimization. For this, the conservatives applaude, and the liberals think me an insensitive and racist or sexist bully.

What is typically lost in such issues is WHERE I'm arguing from, and why. My enemy, as it has always been, is the State, the Powers That Be.

Libertarians advocate freedom from oppression, and oppose State programs which benefit a select few at the expense of others - regardless of the perceived utlility of it.

Forcably taking from one to benefit another without consent is WRONG. Period. It doesn't matter how much or how little you have, and shouldn't. Denying a person the right to ingest any substance they wish to in their own home is equally wrong. As is denying any person priveledges based on something as inconsequential and petty as sexual preference.

So, yeah, you'll see me advocate capitalism and free trade, but you'll also see me get pissed off when the government bails out a failing mortgage firm or airline. I'll get equally pissed when the government proposes to bail out homeowners who bought estates they clearly couldn't afford on adjustable rate mortgages.

So let it be clear. I'm NOT necessarily pro-business. I'm NOT even necessarily pro-equality (this simply follows from my philosophy). In the end, what I realy am is ANTI-STATE.

In any situation, you can typically count on the libertarian in the room to side with personal liberty and against the state.

I case that was not clear enough, I think this article sums things up fairly well:

The Enemy is Always the State, by Lew Rockwell:

http://mises.org/story/2988

 

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Well as I can tell humanity

Well as I can tell humanity has only ever really come up with 2 types of government (through some people pretend their are more)

 

Rule by the minority we generally ends up being the rule by the one, or tiny elite which generally tends towards corruption with no checks on power (dictatorship)

or

Rule by the majority no matter how stupid (democracy)

 

No matter how flawed democracy is its about the best we have until someone comes up with something better. Having 51% of the population want to shoot,imprison torture etc the other 49% is not ideal but its still better than having the .00001% wanting to do the same 99.9999%

 

And please no bullshit about redefining words America, the UK , Australia etc are DEMOCRACIES (they have other characteristics but if you elect your government no matter what the electoral system is you are a democracy, you don't need referendum on every issue to be one)

 

And before some right wing Americans start redefining words a republic is a government whose head of state is NOT a monarchy,  China, Syria, Vietnam and America are all republics (despite only one being a democracy)

Australia, Canada, UK are not republics (despite all being democracies)


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Jonno, I suggest reading

Mr. Jonno, I suggest reading Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, where it mentions life in a totalitarian utopia where the inclination to behave is controlled, as opposed to human behavior.  It's an idea I'd like to see tried.

 

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote:Mr. Jonno,

Family_Guy wrote:

Mr. Jonno, I suggest reading Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, where it mentions life in a totalitarian utopia where the inclination to behave is controlled, as opposed to human behavior.  It's an idea I'd like to see tried.

 

 

 I did a little internet search and apparently it has been tried. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two

Scroll down to "Real world efforts" for a list of Walden Two inspired communities.


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
Whose liberty?

Family_Guy wrote:

Libertarians misuse the term 'freedom' to mean 'leave me alone'.  Freedom is knowing that you're safe and secure and able to live, within the constraints of the government, who is protective.  I think it's shortsighted at best and deliberately obtuse at worst to claim that the state is the enemy - the state is what makes us free.

I'm glad someone mentioned that Rothbard and many other Libertarians assume that everyone agrees on what "liberty" means and that it's obviously and undeniably good to have whatever it is. "Freedom" & "Liberty" are thrown around with the promise of utopia (sound familiar?) but they have a wide spectrum of interpretation. To some right-libertarians, they mean "Zero Aggression". Basically, as you said, "leave me alone". It fails to see that other people might have values other than simply "liberty". Libertarians often tell me that liberty will lead all other values you might have into being. I'm not so sure.

Here are a few works to enjoy from the other side of this subject, if anyone is interested. I should also point out before I dive in that I'm aware, as should you be, that libertarianism as often used is synonymous with "right"-libertarianism (e.g. the LP, typically pro-captialism) but there are also so-called left-libertarians (typically anti-capitalism), including anarcho-communists, mutualist, agorist etc.:

Anarchist FAQ - What other types of anarchists (the communist kind mostly) have to say about "anarcho"-capitalism (i.e. Rothbard's clan) The rest of the FAQ is great reading also. Pretty impressive work, whether you buy it or not.

Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson's fictional portrayal of libertarian "anarcho"-capitalism taken to the max. Is this how it might look?

Why Libertarianism is Mistaken - A published academic examination of the incoherence of founding libertarianism on negative rights and liberty.

Contempory Political Philosophy - Great book for comparing the many ways people arrive at concepts of a good society. Covers libertarianism.

Another Critique of Libertarianism

What's Wrong with Libertarianism - philosophical take. As "rational responders" we should remember to treat political philosophy with the same eye that we do gods. Let's not slip up in the name of zealous cries for "freedom". It's a touch too much like religious zeal. Light on the logic, heavy on the promises.

Self-Ownership, Freedom & Equality - A non-libertarian take on what freedom and liberty are.

Anarchy in Somalia? - So is this the proof or is this not really a fair view of anarchy as cite #6 claims?

As to Rockwell, I found the article to lack any compelling reason to think the state is always the enemy. He speaks of it as if it is self-evident. He offers no evidence as to why the policies that make the state undesirable actually make life worse. To paraphrase Jeffery Friedman, just demonstrating failures of the state doesn't result logically in the conclusion that non-state society would be better. It could just as easily be a different state that hasn't been tried. I see him campaigning for Ron Paul. So should I assume that Rockwell expects that Paul's first order of business as President would be to dissolve the state? Something tells me not.

 

Instead of a Blog

Think this can't work? - Think again.

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Why of

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Why of course local communities / municipalities  can survive without the heavy hand of the State, one need only look to the African Nation of Somalia.  There are numerous independent municipalities that are self-governed ( by war lords ) and who easily operate without the oversight of any type of Federal Government ( because their isn't one. )

The Feudalism (war lord) argument is one I really like against Libertarianism. If no one's guessed by now, I'm one of those assholes who likes to argue a point just to see where it goes. The patent inevitability of fiefdoms in a libertarian system is the second greatest hit against it, as far as I'm concerned. (The biggest is the Reagan administration's attempt to implement laissez faire economics - it's not an argument, it just looks bad.)

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
There may be small governmental / procedural differences between each individual municipality but the citizens of each have found a system to resolve their differences with other local municipalities.   They kill each other.

Yeah, but they wear helmets with feathers and say things like "m'lady", right? Oh, they don't? Weird. That's probably where they're going wrong, then.

But seriously, you're absolutely right. I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of fiefdoms, to be honest.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
( ps, a real world example from the pages of history where people from an individual municipality are solving their own problems without the interference of a central government. )

Any I could think of would be from feudal systems, and somewhat legendary.

Also ...

Because I've been dying to quote Pogo since the thread started: "We have found the enemy, and it is us!"

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:The

HisWillness wrote:
The Feudalism (war lord) argument is one I really like against Libertarianism. If no one's guessed by now, I'm one of those assholes who likes to argue a point just to see where it goes. The patent inevitability of fiefdoms in a libertarian system is the second greatest hit against it, as far as I'm concerned. (The biggest is the Reagan administration's attempt to implement laissez faire economics - it's not an argument, it just looks bad.)

Indeed. But the response I usually get from anarchists is always something along the lines of "well, yeah, but there are other factors in play with something like Somalia that are screwing with the ideal model of what anarchy should be. In real anarchy..."

I'm always at a loss as to how anarchists plan to keep everyone focused on this ideal. It seems to me that anarchy can only work with groups of people all ideologically motivated to keep the spirit of the experiment alive.

Le Guin's The Dispossessed, which I just finished reading, paints a picture of an anarcho-communist society. It was obvious to me that this society only worked because everyone in it had an almost religious zeal for the philosophy (espoused by an initial leader of the movement). They were drilled with stories of how awful the old world was. I imagine that's just about spot on if a society like that would actually come about and survive peacefully. It would need complete isolation from other systems, a homogeneous psychology/ideology and a few generations to filter out anyone who remembered how to live life any other way.

I'm giving anarchy a chance to convince me, primarily by immersing myself in the Anarchist FAQ. If the convincing argument isn't there, it isn't anywhere, I figure. I have my doubts but there is a lot of theory and information to cover. Anarchists are of course not opposed to organization just hierarcical organization and oligopoly.

Rothbard admits that he believes we should have universally agreed to laws and an enforcement mechanism for them but then fails to explain why this is not the "State". He feels that by spliting the enforcement up into smaller bits it makes all the difference yet the laws remain universal. To me, all that accomplishes is perhaps more turnover in the judges and juries (perhaps a good thing) but does change the nature of the beast. At that point, are we just playing word games?

Instead of a Blog

Think this can't work? - Think again.

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  "Guys, hold your fire

  "Guys, hold your fire ...stop shooting !!!    Lew Rockwell is making a speech on TV right now !!!"  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ( Sorry Y_N_5,  I couldn't resist the urge to put a caption with this picture.  No offense )


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:My

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

My enemy, as it has always been, is the State, the Powers That Be.

Don't forget the Bogeyman.

Seriously though I wanted to mention something that I think is important about the idea of "Liberty" and assuming that it comes from staunch individualism, which is essentially what most libertarians stand by, whether it's the Rand or Stirner variety.

I think the idea of individualism can suffer from the same lack of consideration for "externalities" that is often found in free-market apologetics, where the benefits are measured but some costs are ignored. For example, it is assumed that everyone out for their own good (while not violating the liberty of others, naturally) will lead to the best possible world. However, I keep thinking of the guy standing in the crowd. To better his view he will stand on his toes. But if everyone has this idea, no one is better off because now everyone is standing on their toes.

To put it another way, if we are all working hard as individuals it may bring us statisfaction but if would be a mistake of ignored costs to forget that we might actually be forced to work harder than we would like just to keep up with others. In other words, what we assume would be liberty might actually turn into the exact opposite. We could become slaves to our own need to stay afloat in a rising tide of competition. Rather than doing what we want, we might be forced to do what we have to do, well beyond the point of contentment and efficient utility. There doesn't need to be a Powers That Be to take your liberty away.

Instead of a Blog

Think this can't work? - Think again.

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction