Libertarian Ideology - What's wrong with it?

[ParanoiA]

I've been a self described Libertarian for years, since my views seem to line up with that particular ideology more than the others. But there are some fundamental issues I have with it and I wondered if others are the same.

 

And, just for fun, I advise anyone to take this quickie quiz. Everyone I know that's tried this found they were more libertarian than they thought.

 

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

 

The problems I see about libertarianism, so far, is this idea of a privatized police force. I don't even see why I would have to formulate an argument to explain why that one sounds bad.

 

Also, I'm not cool with the complete abolition of welfare, because I think we should always support war veterans, the disabled and the elderly - but that's it. Charity can help those of us who fall down and need some help getting back up - not carrying us around like welfare does. Although, I did answer "agree" on that question in the quiz.

 

What do you all think?

[GutZ]

Centrist!

 

I guess naturally then I guess I believe that there is nothing absolutely wrong with any view, they all have their strong points. I think no matter what position you hold it will conflict with others making it impossible to have a perfect society. You could have a society that totally chaotic by choice and still have people preffering it. To me how a society runs is completely subjective, but the more people in the majority that are happy, the better.

[ecoli]

The quiz says I'm slightly left of centrist, but I've never felt much like a liberal. In fact, many of my foreign policy opninions are downright conservative. Is there a place for me out there?

[ParanoiA]

The quiz says I'm slightly left of centrist, but I've never felt much like a liberal. In fact, many of my foreign policy opninions are downright conservative. Is there a place for me out there?

 

Yeah, I have two conservative buddies here at work that got labeled left of centrist as well. I think it's the personal freedom issues that do that. If you answer the personal section all "Agree" and the economic section all "disagree" then you get a straight up liberal. The oppostie and you get a straight up conservative.

 

You probably are mostly conservative, but a little more open to personal freedoms??

[ecoli]

You probably are mostly conservative, but a little more open to personal freedoms??

 

Which almost sounds Libertarian unless you consider that I'm really that I'm not really economically conservative.

[Severian]

I got Centerist (40%, 30%).

 

The problem with libertarianism is that it equates the word 'good' with 'free-trade', i.e. practioners assume that something must be good if it is an outcome of free-trade. I disagree with this. I also disagree that the best thing for people is to give them what they want.

 

It always reminds me of the naturalist fallacy.

[doG]

I scored as a hard core Libertarian in the very top corner of the graph. I agree with all of the test statements.

 

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

[doG]

The problem with libertarianism is that it equates the word 'good' with 'free-trade', i.e. practioners assume that something must be good if it is an outcome of free-trade.

Where did you get that from? Trade should be free as in no tariffs on anyone that wants to sell their wares here.

[ParanoiA]

I got Centerist (40%' date=' 30%).

 

The problem with libertarianism is that it equates the word 'good' with 'free-trade', i.e. practioners assume that something must be good if it is an outcome of free-trade. I disagree with this. [/quote']

 

By free-trade are you referring to international trading mainly, or the free market?

 

I ask because I've heard it explained, and I don't necessarily agree with this, that if countries are tangled up economically, it decreases the likelihood of war to resolve conflicts.

 

However, I do like the idea of becoming a tax shelter for other countries in order to bring business into the states. The opposite of what's happening now.

 

I also disagree that the best thing for people is to give them what they want.

 

It always reminds me of the naturalist fallacy.

 

I've never seen that in the description of libertarianism. I think the point is that we don't infer what's the best thing for people - rather taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. But I can see where the self indulgence = naturalist fallacy. The thing is, that's subjective and people should learn that on their own rather than the government deciding for them.

[ParanoiA]

I scored as a hard core Libertarian in the very top corner of the graph. I agree with all of the test statements.

 

Wow. You're the real McCoy. I only "disagreed" with the involuntary military thing.

 

But when you really get into the platform ideology, you don't have any reservations with it?

[doG]

nope

[Severian]

Where did you get that from? Trade should be free as in no tariffs on anyone that wants to sell their wares here.

 

Why?

 

By free-trade are you referring to international trading mainly' date=' or the free market?

 

I ask because I've heard it explained, and I don't necessarily agree with this, that if countries are tangled up economically, it decreases the likelihood of war to resolve conflicts.

[/quote']

 

I meant a free market.

 

I've never seen that in the description of libertarianism. I think the point is that we don't infer what's the best thing for people - rather taking responsibility for yourself and your actions.

 

A free-market is one mechanism for distributing good and services. You may thing it is a good method, but others may not. Why do these others have to conform to your method of distribution?

 

A libertarian position is assuming that the free-market will provide people with the things they need, and the things that will make their lives better (if it doesn't, what is the point?). I disagree that it does.

 

I am not saying that things can't be regulated best by the free-market - I think many things can. I am saying that the free-market is not always the best method, and I think the people should decide what sort of society they want to live in via a democratic government.

[Sisyphus]

I don't have a problem with libertarianism, per se, but I do with most libertarians I've encountered. They are simply too inflexibly idealistic. The basic principle of libertarianism, that everything should be allowed if it does no harm to others, is an excellent guideline that should ALWAYS be kept in mind. However, that's exactly what it is: a guideline, not the religious commandment so many libertarians treat it as. In the real, grownup world, sometimes you have to be pragmatic. Private citizens are not allowed to build their own nuclear weapons (even if they don't use them!), and that is a good thing. The same with driving while intoxicated, even if you don't hit anyone...

 

The secondary principle, "government = bad," should be taken with a bigger grain of salt. A general guideline of "government ought to stay out of issues where nongovernment entities can function instead" is fine, but again, each issue should be studied individually and rationally. When you start attacking the government merely because it is the government, you've stopped being rational.

 

And the third principle, "free markets = good," is again, a guideline. In certain situations it can actually be counterproductive to the economy. When individual entities become powerful enough, they can influence the economy as a whole to the point where their individual good is actually at the expense of the overall good. Monopolies are the simplest example of this, but there are others.

 

Incidentally, I was 70% personal issues, 40% economic.

[doG]

Why?

Why should americans pay anymore to buy foreign products than domestic products? If foreigners can build something better or cheaper and sell it cheaper then there is no reason to add any fees to it just because it wasn't made here.

 

A libertarian position is assuming that the free-market will provide people with the things they need, and the things that will make their lives better (if it doesn't, what is the point?).

That's not my position, mine is stated above. A free market allows sellers and buyers to decide their own transactions without government punishing either by imposing tariffs, i.e. if the Swiss can build a better watch I should not have to pay them any extra for it so that they can pay a tariff on it.

[YT2095]

Conservative Right was mine (whatever that means?)

 

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 10%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.

 

although How anything with some semblance of clarity in resolution can be derived from a 10 question poll beats me!???

[Sisyphus]

Why should americans pay anymore to buy foreign products than domestic products? If foreigners can build something better or cheaper and sell it cheaper then there is no reason to add any fees to it just because it wasn't made here.

 

Am I correct in assuming that your position is based on what is fair and just, and not what is economically sound? I realize you probably think that the two coincide, but that's not the question. What if, for example, you knew for certain that free trade hurt the world economy? What if the example was extreme? What if not putting a tariff on that Swiss watch would cause the U.S. economy to collapse? Is there no point at which pragmatism weighs against idealism?

[doG]

Am I correct in assuming that your position is based on what is fair and just, and not what is economically sound? I realize you probably think that the two coincide, but that's not the question. What if, for example, you knew for certain that free trade hurt the world economy? What if the example was extreme? What if not putting a tariff on that Swiss watch would cause the U.S. economy to collapse? Is there no point at which pragmatism weighs against idealism?

 

The "what if" game? no thanks. I do not support any protective tariffs. Let manufacturers compete on an even playing field.

[Sisyphus]

The "what if" game? no thanks. I do not support any protective tariffs. Let manufacturers compete on an even playing field.

 

So you would cause a decades long global depression to avoid treating a Swiss watchmaker unfairly. This kind of thing is why I would never vote for a Libertarian.

[doG]

Try coming up with a real world example, if you can. You know that there would never be any depression over watches from anywhere. Why should americans pay more for a swiss watch just so the american watch maker can sell his cheaper watch for more money? I ssay let the american watch maker build a better watch or get what his watch is really worth, less money.

[Sisyphus]

Your refusal to answer is all the answer I need. The question, in essence, was "is there any point at all at which pragmatism (in this case, the health of the economy) outweighs idealism (in this case, economic fairness." The answer, apparently, is "no," which to me perfectly encapsulates the Libertarian proud refusal to understand more than one side of an issue.

[doG]

Why should the health of our economy depend on inflated prices for inferior goods? You sound like you're a proud union member.

[Sisyphus]

ZING! Issue dodge!

[YT2095]

indeed it is sisyphus, you failed to answer his question.

[Sisyphus]

I asked first....

[doG]

The only issue being dodged is the failure to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with the economy in the first place if tariffs are needed to protect it. That is not an idealist view but one of a realist. If our economy needs tariffs then we need to fix the problem instead of using artificial inflation to patch the symptoms. To me tariffs are the same as giving someone with an infection a cold bath instead of the antibiotics that they need. Now, why can't you come up with a "real" example instead of some ficticious scenario that could never happen? Where is there a real need to force americans to face higher prices for foreign goods in order to protect inflated prices for those domestic goods that can't compete otherwise? I really can't think of any but if you can, proffer it and we'll discuss it.