Rugged Individualism, Libertarianism, and Social Darwinism

Destacado
I will give Libertarian some credit. Most ideologies perceive government as a legislative engine (i.e. the government exists to create and implement just laws). In contrast, Libertarianism and its anarchist cousins see the government as institutionalized, overwhelming violence used in service to the preservation of personal power. That position disturbs me. Yet it’s accurate. The primary objective of any politician must be the acquisition and preservation of his power. And what is power? So-called “soft power” can involve verbal communication, mutual trust, an internal impulse to act “justly,” but all of these can be ignored or perverted. Only overwhelming violence can make someone do as you say. Or at the very least it can give the next guy you ask a reason not to disobey.

With such a view of government, it’s no wonder why Libertarians strive to shrink or destroy the jackboot of governmental power. Where they fail lies in their refusal to realize that the jackboot cannot be destroyed. Even those who realize this still believe we can all agree to leave the jackboot unfilled. No, power will always exist, and there will always be someone willing to utilize it to benefit them and their own.

This is the reason why so many on the Alt-Right were formerly Libertarian. They saw that the only way to keep the jackboot off their neck was to put their own foot in it. Eventually every Utopian faces the same devastating impediment. To achieve his Utopia, he must become powerful enough to create it. Yet in his quest to acquire that power, he will become the very thing he has fought so hard to defeat. Thus is created an endless tragedy playing out for the amusement of gods and the powers above.
 
Euphues Evenlede dijo:
I will give Libertarian some credit. Most ideologies perceive government as a legislative engine (i.e. the government exists to create and implement just laws). In contrast, Libertarianism and its anarchist cousins see the government as institutionalized, overwhelming violence used in service to the preservation of personal power. That position disturbs me. Yet it’s accurate.
Presiona para expandir...

Without at least some partial monopoly on the use of force, as well as the actual ability to exert force, something quite simply is not the government. Without the ability to enforce laws, they're unworthy of the name of laws. They're just suggestions. Anarchism is one response to that, and simply says that such monopolies on force are inherently bad and intolerable.

(How after eliminating the government they would prevent coercion and violence from uninhibited even worse actors is generally left as an exercise to whoever is forced to listen to one of these fools.)

Libertarians are more often what are called minarchists, in that they have the conception that some government functions are absolutely necessary. They would limit government only to those vital functions and none else.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Libertarians are more often what are called minarchists, in that they have the conception that some government functions are absolutely necessary. They would limit government only to those vital functions and none else.
Presiona para expandir...
Anyone can support the laws they view as necessary and oppose the laws they view as unnecessarily harmful. Libertarians are not unique in this regard. They might believe 90% of the government to be unnecessary, but this is a difference in quantity and not quality. 90% of the government may very well be unnecessary. Even so, in order for a politician to implement the 10% he views as necessary, he will have to concede parts of the 90% that he does not in order to build a viable coalition. Libertarianism remains on the fringes due in large part to its refusal to incorporate broader policies that could create a larger coalition for them at the cost of additional government. While I admire Libertarians for their consistent devotion to the Non-Aggression Principle, politics is fundamentally pragmatic. Purity-spiraling will result in political irrelevance.

Though I suppose Libertarianism would no longer be Libertarianism if it didn't purity-spiral over minimal government and the NAP.
 
Hey, I found the libertarian utopia
burned-city-wallpaper-1.jpg

Ah, so free of government corruption.
 
Ruminous dijo:
I'm not a libertarian, but I think that libertarian utopianism is often used as a straw man to ignore the libertarian critique of our current society. The burgeoning police state. An unaccountable intelligence community practicing mass surveillance. Endless overseas war. An executive branch with dictatorial powers. Bureaucracy that stifles innovation and creates pointless overhead expenses. Social safety nets that have been implemented in a way that bolsters the dynamic of the poverty trap. All of these are rational causes for concern addressed by a movement that I too often see lambasted with "muh roads" memes.
Presiona para expandir...

Well said.

I do consider myself a libertarian. I don't buy into the utopia, and I don't think that libertarian goals are very practical with the population densities we have. But I buy into it as a way to push back against those things you mentioned.
 
I am of the view ideals should be used to criticize society and generate reform. Not as a basis for a society. Marx was critical of capitalism and this generated reforms. His Utopia was a nightmare when implemented as a basis for a society.

The same for libertarian line of thought. Fuck no a pure an cap society is possible. Yet the concerns of libertarians are valid.
 
A lot of the same institutions that exist in Clown World would exist in Libertarian World, except dealing with them would be voluntary. You'd have a choice of contractors to empty the bins at your house, rather than the local government demanding money off you so that they could do it. You'd pick the company that would provide the best service at the best price, and maybe whole streets or towns would club together to negotiate a better price for a bulk deal or something, and appoint some people to manage the contract, and then you've got what looks like a town council except that nobody is forced to deal with it. That would be my libertarian utopia.
 
polonium dijo:
A lot of the same institutions that exist in Clown World would exist in Libertarian World, except dealing with them would be voluntary. You'd have a choice of contractors to empty the bins at your house, rather than the local government demanding money off you so that they could do it. You'd pick the company that would provide the best service at the best price, and maybe whole streets or towns would club together to negotiate a better price for a bulk deal or something, and appoint some people to manage the contract, and then you've got what looks like a town council except that nobody is forced to deal with it. That would be my libertarian utopia.
Presiona para expandir...

Then you have that 5% of complete scumbags who would just refuse to pay for any of this, have piles of garbage on their property, which would attack rats and other disease vectors, so even if you were responsible and kept your own shit clean, you'd still be subject to plague and vermin from the people who didn't.

So at some point, there are still going to be antisocial people who will ruin it for everyone else.

It would in general be better if you did have a choice in some kind of marketplace, or at least better than what you have in a lot of cities (especially the NY/NJ area) where you have one crooked Mafia-run operation that bribed the locals for a monopoly.

You're still going to have the free rider problem, or even worse, the problem where one person fucking up a local hygiene issue poisons everyone else.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Then you have that 5% of complete scumbags who would just refuse to pay for any of this, have piles of garbage on their property, which would attack rats and other disease vectors, so even if you were responsible and kept your own shit clean, you'd still be subject to plague and vermin from the people who didn't.

So at some point, there are still going to be antisocial people who will ruin it for everyone else.

It would in general be better if you did have a choice in some kind of marketplace, or at least better than what you have in a lot of cities (especially the NY/NJ area) where you have one crooked Mafia-run operation that bribed the locals for a monopoly.

You're still going to have the free rider problem, or even worse, the problem where one person fucking up a local hygiene issue poisons everyone else.
Presiona para expandir...

That problem exists in the current system, where the government tries to use force to make people pay. If someone is being a nuisance, you would sue them. And yes, private courts existed before state ones.

Nothing is perfect, but please don't be that tiresome bore who demands every little imaginary issue gets solved before you'll even contemplate a life without Daddy Government standing over you meddling in every aspect of daily life.
 
I ran across this old article. The opening paragraph is insane:

The pre-1914 world saw no immigration issues or policies, and no real border controls. Instead, there was free movement in the real sense; there were no questions asked, people were treated respectfully and one did not even need official documents to enter or leave a country. This all changed with the First World War, after which states seem to compete with having the least humane view on foreigners seeking refuge within its territory.
Presiona para expandir...

It's just completely wrong. There was the Chinese Exclusion Act and there were physical tests at Ellis Island.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo