Why Are There No Libertarian Countries?

Althea said:
Corporate/income tax system overhaul for one. Women's rights issues...specifically equal pay. Jobs bill that would use revenue from the thieves on Wall St.(via reform that is still being blocked by republicans) to make up for outsourced labor in virtually every manufacturing area.

That's for starters.
Click to expand...

And restructuring of our racist criminal justice system? There's a bi-partisan consensus against that. A minimum wage to keep up with productivity? $9/hr sure is progressive... under Tsar Alexander III. An end to the government enforcement of oppressive business models? Again, bi-partisan concensus. The increase (or even maintenance) of social programs like SS? Three cheers for privatization! Legislation to limit carbon emissions? Nah, public opinion is for democracy, the civilized elites. And turns it it was a Republican, George Shultz, who proposed that, not mainstream Democrats. An increase in corporate tax rates? I stand in awe that out socialist president can lower them. Legislation against outsourcing? How about election reform? Maybe a minimum income? Or even just for those raising children? Per chance, could your guys have stood against brutal dictatorships, and with budding democracies?


The way I see it, the Democratic Party is either serially incompetent, or outright malicious.
 
Rose Captain said:
Not really. Marx (when he was a Marxist) did want all of this, but only after a period of a workers' state. Which is why Marxism can't be called either libertarian, or an authoritarian.

The difference between this and the left libertarians is that they want to abolish all these things outright.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism begins with the belief that the individual cannot be free without having or being able to acquire property. That belief is also the basis for the Declaration of Independence.
 
Threedee said:
Libertarianism begins with the belief that the individual cannot be free without having or being able to acquire property. That belief is also the basis for the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just historically and theoretically wrong. And I think you need to recognize that if you're ever to engage in kind of meaningful discussion on the topic. Let me make this clear, because it takes a special kind of ignorance to take your kind of view: private property (as in the means to generate capital) is not a requisite of liberty. When the means to sustain life is held exclusively in the hands of corporate elites and sects of the bourgeoisie, those who don't fall into this category are forced to sell themselves to master to attain that means. Such language is inflammatory, but in no way an exaggeration; in this situation, the worker lacks the freedom to express himself within his work, lacks the freedom to use this work in a way that benefits him to the extent that it benefits society, lacks the freedom to cut ties with a master, lacks the freedom to govern himself how he chooses; quite literally, need and government are his chains. This is not liberty.

And you're not only wrong on principal - in the fact that the worker/capitalist relationship is highly authoritarian and enforced by the state -, but in a historical context as well. In Europe, the term libertarian was used to describe those on the left who wanted to achieve a stateless society. It was a category that included the early Marx, mainstream Marxists like Kautsky, Engels, Gramsci, and Plekhanov, and anarchists such as Kropotskin, Proudhon, Cafiero and Bakunin. So one can tear your argument to shreds just by looking at the writings of the some of the most prolific individuals of the past few centuries.

Personally (as an actual libertarian), just as a I don't believe democracy or libertarianism can't exist in the presence of chattel slavery, I find that they can't exist in the presence of private property.
 
You are wrong, libertarians do not denounce democracy, they just recognize that the people are mostly ignorant, and thus a threat to liberty. They are not anarchists, anarchists are anarchists.

A free person should have the right to buy a house and land, take out an IRA, start a 401k--with or without his employer's aid-- and enter into contracts without being lied to by people such as you who think he is hurting other people.
 
Sierra said:
Maybe it's because most people have empathy. That is something I see lacking in those who think they are libertarians.
Click to expand...

Yeah like the “empathy” the left has for poor people and minorities when they bribe their vote with socialist programs and harness them to reliance on BIG Nanny government and steal their incentive to be self-reliant, self-motivated, ambitious, productive and proud. Socialist/leftist are the neo-slave owners. “Yesa Massa Gobment!!!”

Like the “empathy” the fucking idiot left has for folks that wish to own the means to defend themselves when the leftist communist bastards promote gun laws and even confiscation of the tools of self defense.

Like the “empathy” the criminal communist left has when it joins up with the criminal fascist right and promotes America’s World Police Force, sending young Americans off to be killed, maimed and mentally destroyed in unconstitutional fucking undeclared wars.

Like the “empathy” left and right have for “supposed” free folks by promoting and enforcing a stupid fucking Drug War that creates massive tax free profits for criminal types and terrorist, corrupts politicians and law enforcement, incarcerates thousands of non-violent citizens and causes violence and murder in our streets.

Like the “empathy” the leftist bastards have for the unborn when they promote abortion factories and denounce State’s rights to prohibit such atrocities.

Like the “empathy” the leftist bastards in government have for the rights of folks that disagree with them when they send the fucking IRS after them to harass them.

Yeah! Like the fucking “empathy” BIG Nanny government has for the productive folks who are taxed and forced to finance the fucking BIG Nanny government and it’s socialist bribery programs that enslave the poor and minorities to a reliance on BIG Nanny government.

Yeah right!!! Y’all fucking leftist communist bastards are “empathetic” sons-of-bitches alright!!!!!! Tell that to some other moron stupid enough to believe it!!!!!
 
Threedee said:
While leftists have too much empathy, which would explain such movements as Stalinism and Maoism...
Click to expand...

Socialist have their own dictionary full of socialist definitions. It defines “empathy” as enslaving the minions and purging the military from time to time. It also defines “empathy” as “Gulags of reeducation.”
 
Classic Liberal said:
Socialist have their own dictionary full of socialist definitions. It defines “empathy” as enslaving the minions and purging the military from time to time. It also defines “empathy” as “Gulags of reeducation.”
Click to expand...

In my dictionary. kid, socialism means political control by the working majority rather than by a few rich pigs. Which states had that characteristic, please?
 
iolo said:
In my dictionary. kid, socialism means political control by the working majority rather than by a few rich pigs. Which states had that characteristic, please?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, like the old “socialist” Soviet Union, Socialist Communist China, Socialist North Korea and Socialist Cuba, right Goober???? “The Workers” there live in Shangri-La, huh?
 
Classic Liberal said:
Yeah, I know, like the old “socialist” Soviet Union, Socialist Communist China, Socialist North Korea and Socialist Cuba, right Goober???? “The Workers” there live in Shangri-La, huh?
Click to expand...

Crap. State capitalism, enforced by foreign capitalist interference: the state becomes a monopoly, often inefficient, capitalist firm. Let's get back to sensible discussion.
 
Threedee said:
You are wrong, libertarians do not denounce democracy, they just recognize that the people are mostly ignorant, and thus a threat to liberty. They are not anarchists, anarchists are anarchists.

A free person should have the right to buy a house and land, take out an IRA, start a 401k--with or without his employer's aid-- and enter into contracts without being lied to by people such as you who think he is hurting other people.
Click to expand...

Should a free person not also have the right to the best use of his potential? How about the freedom from the will of any authoritarian institution that serves no purpose in society?

What neo-liberals fail to account for is the incredible amount of power centralized in the upper levels of society. You see this just by reading the news: corporations writing policy, destroying the environment, forcing workers into deplorable factories, enforcing ideology, writing settlements for murder into their predicted expenses, exploiting third world nations. When you gear policy that removes one of the only institutions in a position to challenge this power, you cannot in good consciousness call yourselves a libertarian.

And I would stand to reason that unless this power is questioned, assaulted and torn down in its entirety, libertarian ideals will never be manifested on any significant scale. You find this theme running through practically all libertarian literature: that if there ever exists an institution of power that cannot justify itself in front of reason, this institution must be abolished.

As for the difference between anarchist and libertarian, this is very vague. I am a libertarian, but also to the right of many socialists (So a decentralist social democrat, of sorts.) I think you have to draw the line (which is almost always blurred) based on every individual's view on institutions. Like, personally, I want to gradually chip away at both the state and private sector, leaving only heavily democratic municipal councils, networks of cooperative firms, and a federal government with the role of performing task which both of the former do less efficiently - such as national defense, environmental reconstruction, minimum income, foreign aid, and the backing of struggling localities and industries. But there are also those who want to eliminate government entirely, along with money. So there are various extents of libertarianism - some of which can be considered anarchist, none of are capitalist.
 
iolo said:
Crap. State capitalism, enforced by foreign capitalist interference: the state becomes a monopoly, often inefficient, capitalist firm. Let's get back to sensible discussion.
Click to expand...

When were communist ever capable of a sensible discussion?
 
Rose Captain said:
Should a free person not also have the right to the best use of his potential? How about the freedom from the will of any authoritarian institution that serves no purpose in society?

What neo-liberals fail to account for is the incredible amount of power centralized in the upper levels of society. You see this just by reading the news: corporations writing policy, destroying the environment, forcing workers into deplorable factories, enforcing ideology, writing settlements for murder into their predicted expenses, exploiting third world nations. When you gear policy that removes one of the only institutions in a position to challenge this power, you cannot in good consciousness call yourselves a libertarian.

And I would stand to reason that unless this power is questioned, assaulted and torn down in its entirety, libertarian ideals will never be manifested on any significant scale. You find this theme running through practically all libertarian literature: that if there ever exists an institution of power that cannot justify itself in front of reason, this institution must be abolished.

As for the difference between anarchist and libertarian, this is very vague. I am a libertarian, but also to the right of many socialists (So a decentralist social democrat, of sorts.) I think you have to draw the line (which is almost always blurred) based on every individual's view on institutions. Like, personally, I want to gradually chip away at both the state and private sector, leaving only heavily democratic municipal councils, networks of cooperative firms, and a federal government with the role of performing task which both of the former do less efficiently - such as national defense, environmental reconstruction, minimum income, foreign aid, and the backing of struggling localities and industries. But there are also those who want to eliminate government entirely, along with money. So there are various extents of libertarianism - some of which can be considered anarchist, none of are capitalist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we took care of these concerns when we abolished titles and nobility. All that's left is people like you whining about how unfair life is, that people have an unequal distribution of talent and success.
 
Rose Captain said:
So there are various extents of libertarianism - some of which can be considered anarchist, none of are capitalist.
Click to expand...

Real American libertarians, (small l), are pure capitalist. We believe in purely free markets whereby the conduct thereof is controlled by America’s constitutional rights and principles and courts whereby true libertarian judges and juries protect the social, physical and economic environments through constitutional rule of law as opposed to a centralized BIG federal government regulatory system staffed by hordes of non-elected bureaucrats creating their own biased and prejudiced laws. We believe in a pure capitalist system whereby there’s no such thing as “Too BIG To Fail” whereby all private industry is totally & solely responsible for its own success or failure and all States are responsible for their own economic and social successes or failures and only mandated to operate within the confines of the National Constitution.

There is absolutely no correlation between American Constitutional Libertarianism and Anarchy. American Constitutional Libertarianism features constitutionally limited federal and State government each with particular powers and responsibilities authorized and or prohibited by the National Constitution.
 
As you should plainly see pure American Constitutional Libertarianism is in total opposition to what we see today as “Crony Capitalism” whereby centralized BIG federal government non-elected bureaucrats and crony federal politicians regulate the market place through favoritism, partisan-ism and bribery.
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, we took care of these concerns when we abolished titles and nobility. All that's left is people like you whining about how unfair life is, that people have an unequal distribution of talent and success.
Click to expand...

We took care of these concerns? Are you really going to tell me that every problem I - and almost every single renowned economist in the world today - have outlined simply do not exist? Look, threedee, abolishing titles and nobility did not mitigate the harm caused by corporate institutions of power - that's just insane. And while there's disagreement on whiter eliminating these institutions would be a good thing, their existence is an absolute factor in capitalist economics.

My grievances come not from a childish notion of fairness, but from the fact that I recognize these institutions to be oppressive. Some people are smarter, more physically able, and generally more adept than others. Nobody's denying that. What I'm simply saying is that when you allow a given society to be ruled by a perpetuating class of elites, you cause immeasurable harm to that society as a whole.

What we want is equality of circumstance, of political power, and of liberty, not of outcome; we want men and women to be free to exercise the most possible degree of control over their outcomes, and to be free from institutions that limit that freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top