Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
1. Here is one way
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 01:19 AM
Nov 2017

Strict libertarians are consistent to a fault. They don't believe in any government interference in any private activites. This includes government giveaways and favorable treatment for corporations.

Wall Street uses government to create rules favorable to itself. Strict libertarians believe there should be no rules at all, in part because some people will inevitably use government to favor themselves.

Wall Street got a government bailout. Strict libertarians think the government should have let the banks go under, regardless of the consequences.

I use the term "strict libertarians" to distinguish them from the people who are only libertarians when it comes to helping the poor, but are okay with corporate welfare.

BigmanPigman

(51,430 posts)
2. I have read your post 4 times
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 01:42 AM
Nov 2017

and am still trying to wrap my head around it. Give me time, I am a slow learner.

Doesn't that make it the definition of hypocricy when you boil it down? How can you support both? Also, how can a truly Libertarian society exist? Is it sort of like how can a truly communist society is supposed to somehow function on a long term basis? That also leads me to ask how/why someone like Rand Paul is both a Libertarian and a member of the GOP. I know...too many questions.

Your reply is one that will have me asking many questions in the future. THANK YOU!

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
3. Ok, no problem, I have butted heads with Libertarians, and even read Atlas Shrugged
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 02:26 AM
Nov 2017

Okay, so strict libertarians are against ALL government interference in the private sector. That means no welfare, no government healthcare, no regulations, none of that. You don't work, you don't eat. Can't find a job? Sorry, maybe a private charity will help you.

But also, that means corporations don't get any special breaks either. Oil companies don't get incentives to drill for oil. Banking is not restricted to government chartered and insured institutions. Banks and auto companies don't get bailouts. They go bust and millions lose their jobs? Sorry, maybe you can check with that private charity again.

So its not hypocrisy, it's perfect consistent. Libertarians believe if it weren't for government interference, we wouldn't get huge nasty corporations mistreating the little people. After all, if you had a choice between a nice, well run bank and a mean, disorganized bank, who would you bank with? So the good banks will make money and the bad banks will go bankrupt. At least that's the theory. So you can support Occupy Wall Street as a libertarian because you want those big nasty banks to go bankrupt and leave only the good banks, the ones that didn't mistreat their borrowers or make bad investments. Makes a certain sense too.

How can a truly libertarian society exist? Well libertarians assume that each person, rationally making their own selfish decisions, will inevitably create the best possible outcome. It does have a certain logic to it. After all, you know more and care more about yourself than any government bureaucrat ever could. So who best to make decisions for you? If you've ever taken an intro economics course, you learned about "homo economicus" the perfectly rational person who always makes the rational decisions. Economists recognize that's just an abstraction, but libertarians think it's real.

In the real world, people are irrational. They do dumb things like not wearing seat belts, so now we have laws requiring seat belts. It's irrational that a possible $50 fine changes behavior more than possible death.

In the real world, there is the tragedy of the commons. It's rational to use up resources you don't have to pay for. That's why libertarians don't believe in global warming. It's the ultimate tragedy of the commons. Nobody can own the air, so we all get to pollute it for free. Admitting global warming is a problem means admitting there is something that individual rational decision making can't solve.

Why is Rand Paul a Republican? Easy. He wants to get elected! Libertarians on the libertarian ticket go no where. But on the Republican ticket? He gets major party help and they are happy with him as long he isn't too much of a pain in the ass about trying to stop corporate welfare.

BigmanPigman

(51,430 posts)
4. I think I am beginning to understand...there
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 02:36 AM
Nov 2017

is a lot to digest. Thanks for your patience with my ignorance!

BigmanPigman

(51,430 posts)
18. That word came to me when I started to digest the info.
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 05:27 PM
Nov 2017

How is it different than anarchy? They believe in no govt and rules so I guess Libertarians are slightly above that in that they will accept some form of government and rules as opposed to none at all.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
19. Libertarians believe in a government that enforces laws that protect order and private property
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 07:58 PM
Nov 2017

Anarchists believe that government is unnecessary and that the means of production would be controlled by collectives and communes.

In practice, if government power is weakened beyond a certain point, then you get organized crime and/or warlords running the place.

Response to struggle4progress (Reply #6)

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,483 posts)
7. Another way to look at it is through the psychology.
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 05:16 AM
Nov 2017

Marylandblue explained the mechanics of it well, but I also see libertarianism as a mental disorder. Libertarians such as Rand and Ron Paul, along with many Republicans, show little empathy or sympathy for their fellow man and so could be classified as psychotics. Many Repugs such as Trump show clear signs of being outright psychopaths.

Out of curiosity years ago around the start of the Iraq war, I read up on Libertarianism after stumbling on the web site antiwar.com (because I was anti-war). The site turned out to be a hotbed for Libertarianism. The more I read, the more it hit me that these guys are extremely naive, and totally in denial of the human condition (primarily in the area of human emotions).

When I read the philosophy, the phrase "no way in hell this will work in practice" keeps popping in my head, so it's completely pie in the sky thinking. Personally, I refuse to waste my time reading Ayn Rand novels.

These are three of their web sites, but be forewarned - it may make your head spin. Like GOP policy, much of it is dressed-up to seem normal!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/
https://www.cato.org/
http://www.antiwar.com/


 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
8. Short version is they see big government and big corporations in the same light
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 08:25 AM
Nov 2017

And believe that the two have become so intertwined and dependent upon each other that they are really just two branches of the same tree at this point, especially Wall Street and DC.

I have some libertarian friends and we get in long philosophical debates and discussions sometimes. Sometimes they win me over, sometimes I then buy usually we still disagree.

One common trait of them, no matter what degree to which they are libertarians, is they don’t trust people in government to do what’s best for the people but rather to, in the end, do what is best for themselves and government. When I scoffed at this one of them pointed out that’s the same attitude I have about people in big corporations, and that human nature doesn’t change because of the source of your paycheck. I’ll admit that’s given me a different perspective, and if you sit back and realize that they feel the same way about government as we do about corporations that helps you understand where they come from.

 

RhodeIslandOne

(5,042 posts)
12. The big difference is government is ultimately accountable
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 09:38 AM
Nov 2017

Accountability in the corporate world usually ends with a padded golden parachute.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
15. And that is where they disagree and we debate a lot
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 10:04 AM
Nov 2017

They will say- “are they really accountable?”

Here is the argument I get from them, and sometimes it’s hard to argue with.

When people don’t like things they vote, and politicians who don’t get re-elected are not really held account, they go on to a nice career in the corporate world, academia or lobbying. Aside from them and that very minimal version of accountability who is actually held accountable when government fails? Most people who screw up in government don’t get fired, and usually a person in government who acts not in the public’s best interest still has that job later.

They bring up the VA, where very, very few people have been actually held accountable or fired because they failed to the people they were meant to serve because they were acting in their own best interests instead of the public’s/patients. And how senior VA leaders got caught manipulating the system to defraud the VA of hundreds of thousands of dollars in relocation money and were ultimately not fired.

And I’ll be honest- it’s hard to argue with many of those points. We say there is accountability in government, but is there really? If the VA denied or delays my health care because the workers there wanted to get perfomance bonuses so they cooked the books am I able to hold them any more accountable than I am a private insurer who denies my care to make higher profits? In theory maybe- in practice recent experience says no.

 

RhodeIslandOne

(5,042 posts)
17. As far as politicians go....
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 10:29 AM
Nov 2017

....if they get voted out it’s none of my business what they go on to do, as long as it’s not my dime paying them. It’s the person replacing them I care about and that they don’t endorse the same bad policy, etc.

The problem with libertarians is they generally refuse to participate in government other than gripe and therefore don’t help to hold people accountable in cushy jobs. Instead, they deem EVERY government worker a lazy bum and advocate dismantling the entire system rather than fix the leak.

HAB911

(8,811 posts)
11. I considered myself an Ayn Rand Objectivist
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 09:30 AM
Nov 2017

in my youth. Then I went forth into the world, and now I laugh at myself of then

Voltaire2

(12,625 posts)
16. Occupy started in 2011. That was six years ago.
Sat Nov 18, 2017, 10:09 AM
Nov 2017

I can't figure out how somebody who was dead for about two years could support Occupy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question:How can an indiv...