Is libertarianism too simple?

[William Wallace]

Spurred by Rumbo's thread about the internet and politics, where I saw several comments about libertarianism being a simple, fringe ideology. I want to recount my experience embracing libertarianism and see why people see it as simple.

My first interest in politics sprouted just after 9/11 and ensuing war on terror. Like many, I followed my parents' lead and embraced modern conservatism. As time went on and I learned more, I gradually became a libertarian. I first dropped my willingness to support war, then the anti-gay marriage stance, followed by rejection of the drug war. From that point I started looking at how different policy issues could be solved within this new framework I had adopted. That's certainly requires bias, and I won't deny it. But my point here is that nothing in this process was simple or reactionary. Delving into economics, for example, was time consuming and challenging. I read a lot of books and sought out discussion with different people, including folks here at dtf.

The short of it is that nothing about libertarianism in my experience seems oversimplified, though it's often wrongly boiled down to slogans. So what have you guys read or seen that makes you think it lacks explanatory power? By the way, it's indeed an extreme political philosophy in that it's different from the norm today. But that doesn't make it incorrect.

 

[rumborak]

I gradually became a libertarian. I first dropped my willingness to support war, then the anti-gay marriage stance, followed by rejection of the drug war.

Just as a side comment, those aren't particularly Libertarian stances per se. I have the same views, but I'm not Libertarian.

Libertarianism, at its very core, is fine really, in its attempt to maximize people's liberties. Where it start becoming simplistic is when it starts shoehorning everything into that framework, be it the idea that a completely free market will bring the most benefit to people, or that complete non-interventionism - and instead mere trading with other countries - is able to stabilize the world.
What adds to mt personal rejection of it is the also very weak theoretical underpinning. It has to dig deep in historical approaches such as Praxeology and the Austrian School that have long been rejected by academia (for many good reason), in order to justify its extreme approaches to things.
That kinda "fringe-digging" in the end invites a lot of kooks, and on some level you can sometimes interchange UFO theorists with hardcore Libertarians, with little observable difference. Government (i.e. the "Big Man") is blamed for just about everything, and an irrational "hard core" emerges that is virtually impervious to counter-arguments. There's a few members on this board I have put on a "do not engage" list for that reason. Tried several times, but all you get is to fathom the depths of their irrationality really.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I think Libertarianism nails it on most social issues, but falls short by not fully embracing the complexity of the economy and foreign relations. Poverty can't be defeated with Austrian economics and getting the government out of the private sector, which is something half the libertarians I talk to don't acknowledge (while the other half don't see other people's poverty as something they should care about). Likewise, foreign policy can't simply be traded away. Healthy trade relations certainly help keep the world a peaceful place, but it's I think it's a little bit naive to say that they guarantee it.

In a weird way, I'm starting to see parallels between libertarianism and communism. If it weren't for the recent popularity of people like Ron Paul, libertarianism, like communism, would just be another ideology increasingly popular with English majors and the humanities while becoming increasingly fossil-like in the eyes of political scientists and economists.

[MetalMike06]

What adds to mt personal rejection of it is the also very weak theoretical underpinning. It has to dig deep in historical approaches such as Praxeology and the Austrian School that have long been rejected by academia (for many good reason), in order to justify its extreme approaches to things.

The thing is, I generally have yet to see mainstream academia thoroughly and fully refute, much less at least incorporate the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying there aren't good arguments out there against it. It's just more like, Keynesianism is the established curriculum and that is just what people are taught and what is passed down without much question. I mean, in the economics classes I've taken, I've never heard a discussion of the Austrian school or it's views. You just hear about Keynes and are taught as if that's the only viable economic stance to promote, and I think the Austrians tend to do a more thorough, albeit more vicious job in dissecting the conventional wisdom. Basically economics isn't getting the full debate it should, IMO. That said, I think it's why libertarians tend to be more fervent; you have to actively seek reading material to get a good grasp of things, and it takes a lot more passion to promote your thinking when Fox and CNN aren't really out there for you. That filters away a large audience, because understandably most just want to come home after a long work day, turn on CNN, and hear what they need to hear and move on with their lives, rather than sit on Mises.org reading essays.

As for libertarianism being "extreme", I think the current amount of debt, foreign adventurism, spending, and general government messiness is extreme, but that same system that is, in a nutshell, giving us ever worsening results is still the "moderate", "normal" one, and if you fall outside of that Joe Biden-Mitt Romney spectrum of acceptable opinion, that ipsofacto makes you "extreme".

I went off on a tangent, but to address the OP, I shared a similar experience; it's been anything but simple for me.  But there are certainly a lot of people out there turning libertarian thought into slogans and soundbytes to garner a wider audience, which I guess is sort of an evil necessity.

[William Wallace]

What adds to mt personal rejection of it is the also very weak theoretical underpinning. It has to dig deep in historical approaches such as Praxeology and the Austrian School that have long been rejected by academia (for many good reason), in order to justify its extreme approaches to things.

The thing is, I generally have yet to see mainstream academia thoroughly and fully refute, much less at least incorporate the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying there aren't good arguments out there against it. It's just more like, Keynesianism is the established curriculum and that is just what people are taught and what is passed down without much question. I mean, in the economics classes I've taken, I've never heard a discussion of the Austrian school or it's views. You just hear about Keynes and are taught as if that's the only viable economic stance to promote, and I think the Austrians tend to do a more thorough, albeit more vicious job in dissecting the conventional wisdom. Basically economics isn't getting the full debate it should, IMO. That said, I think it's why libertarians tend to be more fervent; you have to actively seek reading material to get a good grasp of things, and it takes a lot more passion to promote your thinking when Fox and CNN aren't really out there for you. That filters away a large audience, because understandably most just want to come home after a long work day, turn on CNN, and hear what they need to hear and move on with their lives, rather than sit on Mises.org reading essays.

As for libertarianism being "extreme", I think the current amount of debt, foreign adventurism, spending, and general government messiness is extreme, but that same system that is, in a nutshell, giving us ever worsening results is still the "moderate", "normal" one, and if you fall outside of that Joe Biden-Mitt Romney spectrum of acceptable opinion, that ipsofacto makes you "extreme".

I went off on a tangent, but to address the OP, I shared a similar experience; it's been anything but simple for me.  But there are certainly a lot of people out there turning libertarian thought into slogans and soundbytes to garner a wider audience, which I guess is sort of an evil necessity.

Awesome post.

Poverty can't be defeated with Austrian economics and getting the government out of the private sector, which is something half the libertarians I talk to don't acknowledge (while the other half don't see other people's poverty as something they should care about).

It can and has. The problem is that people are unaware of the mechanisms by which it does, mainly increasing the purchasing power of people's money. On another note, I encounter morons who advocate progressive policies constantly. But I don't judge the ideas of Keynes or Krugman based on the idealistic suburban kids I met in college. I think people should return that favor to libertarianism.

[rumborak]

What adds to mt personal rejection of it is the also very weak theoretical underpinning. It has to dig deep in historical approaches such as Praxeology and the Austrian School that have long been rejected by academia (for many good reason), in order to justify its extreme approaches to things.

The thing is, I generally have yet to see mainstream academia thoroughly and fully refute, much less at least incorporate the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying there aren't good arguments out there against it. It's just more like, Keynesianism is the established curriculum and that is just what people are taught and what is passed down without much question. I mean, in the economics classes I've taken, I've never heard a discussion of the Austrian school or it's views.

To use a similar example, should Lamarckism be discussed in biology, in parallel to the theory of Evolution?
I think it's very similar with the Austrian School. To go into a bit of detail, one thing that really struck me about the Austrian School when looking into it was how much it was a product of its times. It emerged just around the time when progress was made by people like Ludwig Boltzmann on the mathematical treatment of gases and their equilibria (in order to quantify processes in steam and combustion engines). The Austrian School does exactly the same, only that its subjects aren't atoms or molecules, but people. To justify its conclusions in the same way Boltzmann did with atoms, they created the idea of the "rational agent", with the idea that just like atoms which flit through space and are directly influenced only by their neighbors, people too react reliably based on their direct environment.
From there the same conclusion as Boltzmann's could be derived: The total conglomerate will settle into an equilibrium when left alone, and in fact it will settle the fastest when completely left to its own devices. Ergo: Complete laissez-faire is the best strategy.
That is, in essence, to this day the stance of the Austrian School. However, as time went on, criticism mounted, especially because of the various assumptions that simply don't hold up. For example, the biggest one is, people aren't atoms. They react irrational, non-repeatable and often exhibit herd behavior. The next biggest criticism is, Boltzmann's solutions apply for stable systems, but they fall apart for systems that dynamically evolve. Which is what I would say human systems are essentially characterized by.
So, academia realized this, and moved on to more complex treatments of the subject. Keynesianism is btw a very broad oversimplification of today's economic stances. The "Keynes" part is really just the realization that dynamic economic and social system can indeed benefit from outside steering. This has been proven time and time again by economists.

rumborak

[rumborak]

One more comment: One thing that also raises a MAJOR, MAJOR red flag for me is the categorical rejection of Austrian School economist to use mathematics, simulations and statistical analysis and validation to evaluate their stances. They have come up with various justifications for their stances, but let's be frank, it's called "flying by the seat of your pants".

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

It can and has. The problem is that people are unaware of the mechanisms by which it does, mainly increasing the purchasing power of people's money. On another note, I encounter morons who advocate progressive policies constantly. But I don't judge the ideas of Keynes or Krugman based on the idealistic suburban kids I met in college. I think people should return that favor to libertarianism.

Where, and when? I'm almost certain that is highly disputable.

[William Wallace]

It can and has. The problem is that people are unaware of the mechanisms by which it does, mainly increasing the purchasing power of people's money. On another note, I encounter morons who advocate progressive policies constantly. But I don't judge the ideas of Keynes or Krugman based on the idealistic suburban kids I met in college. I think people should return that favor to libertarianism.

Where, and when? I'm almost certain that is highly disputable.

America and continually; but the period leading up to the progressive era is a good example. And whether it's disputed is not the point. It's recognized my many economists and supported by much academic research. Hence, it's not a crazy proposition.

[Scheavo]

Libertarianism is based upon the conception that humans are individuals.

It's wrong from the first step it takes, and provably wrong by everything we know about the human psyche and the human intellect.

[Perpetual Change]

It can and has. The problem is that people are unaware of the mechanisms by which it does, mainly increasing the purchasing power of people's money. On another note, I encounter morons who advocate progressive policies constantly. But I don't judge the ideas of Keynes or Krugman based on the idealistic suburban kids I met in college. I think people should return that favor to libertarianism.

Where, and when? I'm almost certain that is highly disputable.

America and continually; but the period leading up to the progressive era is a good example. And whether it's disputed is not the point. It's recognized my many economists and supported by much academic research. Hence, it's not a crazy proposition.

What? Things in this country were horrible for working people until labor unions came about, and libertarians hate those.

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure I'd say libertarians hate labor unions, but they certainly don't support anything that would mean they can actually exist.

And that was my response... poverty in America didn't end with the "free-market," it ended due to government intervention in the market place.

[emindead]

What? Things in this country were horrible for working people until labor unions came about, and libertarians hate those.

poverty in America didn't end with the "free-market," it ended due to government intervention in the market place.

Ah! the old, popular (and fallacious) interpretation of the "Industrial Revolution" and the notion that it was the government and unions that saved the average worker.

As it is common, there are two popular and fallacious views on this subject: (1) the romantic agrarian life lifestyle that existed on the eve of the IR. This goes that farmers laboured happily their farms while the women took care of their children. Out of nowhere appeared the greedy capitalist who built his unsanitary factory and packed it with starving women and children, and exploit them until their very last day. (2) The Industrial Revolution was a not so well thought system, but still really necessary in principle, because it exploited the workers so the capitalist could squeeze all the cents he could make (by doing nothing rather than managing). Only the "prolabour" reforms government and unions "perfected" this system and gave an end to the horrible exploitation, and yielded to the much higher standard of living citizens of the USA (it should be on all Western countries, but let's keep it focused solely on the US for the sake of the argument - it won't alter the point.)

As the paragraph above implicitly shows that fable, that is so very common in the "respectable" academia, is FALSE. It's a very strange stance to assume that Capitalists somehow had the power to compel workers to enter their factories; the workers did so because they viewed so as better than being the random pauper on the street, the malevolent thief or the common whore. This new factory system introduced in Britain (and later in the US) by the new capitalist institutions was vastly more efficient than the medieval guild and manorial system, which allowed the unprecedented explosion of population. The fact that millions of people were born during that time is because modern capitalism saved their lives; gave them wages when they didn't have jobs which brought food to the table and, let's not forget, allowed to buy medicine. Were the conditions in the factories tedious as it is expressed so brilliantly in novels like Mary Barton: Tale of Manchester Life or the Argentinian short story "Tinieblas" ("The Shadows", my translation)? Absolutely. The working conditions in the nineteenth century were wretched compared to later times.

These improvements, of course, were not brought magically by the signature of a decree or law of a bureaucratic figure, the government had nothing to do with this. Nor it was because of the fight many brave workers did to join forces and demand better treatment, pay and conditions from their exploitive bosses. No. These improvements were possible only because of capital accumulation, which raised the productivity of labor. That old and false doctrine of exploitation that many have the urge to jump on is most clearly exploded by asking for whom the factory workers toiled. Was it for the fine clothes of the greedy Capitalists? No. The answer is quite simple: Mass Production. Mass production creates products for the masses; the landed aristocracy did not buy the entire output of the factories (why would they? They catered for the demand of their customers, the true "masters" of the capitalists.)

[Scheavo]

I never said that the market was not highly instrumental to the positive changes we say, only that the "free" market, as espoused by libertarians, was not responsible for the gains we saw - a distinction you seem incapable of making. All those factors you pointed to involve the market, not necessarily the "free" market of libertarianism. Labor unions, and this is a historical fact, did a lot to improve the life of the worker, and labor unions exist because the government intervened and helped them exist. Without the government to aid unions existence, they would have continued to be squashed, as they can still be today.

Additional things your theory has to explain:

1940's, 50's and 60's in America. A time of massive government intervention, and also a time of massive prosperity, so much so that it represents a "golden era" in peoples mindsets today.

Also, it has to explain modern day Sweden, Norway, and Germany; as well as their comparison to the modern day United States (which, last I heard, was the best example of a libertarian government in the world, according to libertarians).

*edit*

I just realized something...

If you try and bring up points in history when the market was much free-er than now, and the kind of effects it had on people, libertarians retort that the market wasn't free, that the government was involved, and that's why abuses were able to happen (if you try and bring up the late 1800's, you get a response about how unfree the market was, and how this lead to the problems people associate with the free-market). Yet, at the same time, libertarians (as seen above) try and use the same history to demonstrate the greatness of the free-market, and how it has been a great benefit to everyone. So, which is it?

it's a very strange stance to assume that Capitalists somehow had the power to compel workers to enter their factories; the workers did so because they viewed so as better than being the random pauper on the street, the malevolent thief or the common whore

I can't believe I let this go the first time...

No one I've seen has ever argued that the capitalists were able to compel the workers to enter their factories, rather that the conditions of society at the time compelled those workers to get a job, because those same persons needed money to feed and house their family. This is a fact of life libertarians ignore, and they act as if people choose to be hungry, choose to need shelter, etc. Many of these workers were immigrants, who came to America seeking opportunity. Sure, they found a job, but the capitalists didn't care about the individual worker, as they were easily replaceable. That's something libertarians also ignore, the power that the "job creator" has over the worker, because the worker is in a much more desperate situation.

[Perpetual Change]

Scheavo's got it. Em, the problem with your post, poetic as it is, is that you didn't answer me or Scheavo's actual questions, but made your own version of what those questions were in the first paragraph and then preceded to argue accordingly. That's a classic straw-man. No one is saying that the IR didn't help accumulate wealth, or that it wasn't in general more of a good thing than a bad one; we're saying (or, at least I'm saying) that there were still quite a few kinks in it that were not ironed out by the market itself, which led to some bad things that later fell to the area of governments to correct.

Also, I hope this doesn't come across as too dickish, but this thread really is the perfect example of libertarianism being too simple: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=30205.msg1177811#new

The fact is, there's a lot about libertarians and libertarianism that leaves it ill-suited for the modern world. The justification to roll one's eyes at poverty is one thing; an 18th century view of Intellectual Property is another.

[emindead]

I deliberately quoted the specific parts where both of you were going downhill. Sorry I didn't address the biggest lie in Scheavo's post, that, essentially, "humans are not individuals." How can anyone on Earth ignore reality in such a rude and irresponsible way and yet still make it through their mid-twenties BY THEMSELVES, with this frame of mind is beyond me. Alas, these are the days where anything can be published and still be taken as the word without caring if what is said is true or not.

Scheavo: you've made your argument time and time again on how, against common sense, against everything that it is true, that the intervened market, which I suppose is what you differ from the Free Libertarian Market (as redundant as it may sound), was somehow MORE successful than the latter. Yet still you ignore that after WWII ended and all the protectionist policies and rationalizing of food were lifted... BOOM!!! the market started its engine again and prosperity started to come back... again! The conditions in the US during the war were not heavenly! They were better than other nations during the war, sure! Not being attacked on your land sure helps a lot (I wouldn't want to be in Hawaii.) The next decades were super duper compared to the rest of the world, even with huge waste of money thanks to the Marshall Plan. Who was America competing against in the 40s, 50s and 60s? The squandered once nearly to be completely industrialized Paraguay attacked savagely by Argentina and Chile? No. We in South America were good because thank God we didn't have to fight the War, though we did declare it. Yet our still primitive industrial days were no match for the first Super Power. So in continental America we're not going to find the answer. Next: Asia? Japan's economy thanks to the devastating defeat was at the ICU (what made it rise afterwards? The Free Market!). China? Ha! No way. What about Europe? All the Empires that existed before the war banished! All that money wasted on soldiers and destruction brought an end to the British empire. The Blitzkrieg done by the Germans all that it brought was misery. The British were broke (and what a big stab in the back their people gave to Winston Churchill. Unforgivable.) Thank God that for the second time the winners of the war didn't want to destroy Germans industry (like Argentina and Chile did do with Paraguay, they haven't recovered since.) So during these decades you pointed out were no match to one nation that won the war and had its industry intact after it. The 40s, 50s and 60s were incredible times for the US since they could expand their industries without a problem because... who they were going compete with?

What saved Germany? What was the reason for this Economic Miracle? It's not a Miracle. It's not something that can only be explained by divine intervention. It was the market! I would like to point out this part of one good book made into documentary called Commanding Heights. If you want to watch it all, please do. It is not entirely pro-free market. It tries to expose the battle of ideas of Socialism vs. Capitalism. Returning to Germany, please watch only this part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=omIM4SF1oQQ#t=3006s

Phew, writing here is exhausting.

[Perpetual Change]

Em, you are not actually answering the questions anyone is raising. You are answering the questions you wish people were raising. Do you really not realize that is what you're doing? It is the epitome of fallacious arguing.

[emindead]

God, stop ignoring my counterarguments to the baseless remarks you come up with! It takes time to write, you know!

You don't want to address those? Which is the fundamental question I'm ignoring?

[rumborak]

What saved Germany? What was the reason for this Economic Miracle? It's not a Miracle. It's not something that can only be explained by divine intervention. It was the market!

The irony here is that you're using the concept of the market like a divine intervention  yourself, something I've seen Libertarians do numerous times.
Germany has always had much stronger enforced socialist ideas than the US would ever dare. To this day we have very strong labor unions, and 6 weeks of vacation!
What all your theories ignore is culture. Germans are committed to their public education system, yet another socialist idea. That's how we ended up with a highly educated public and the subsequent high-quality products that Germany is known for. Adam Smith didn't just fly by with his Invisible Hand in post-war Germany and made everything right; it was a combination of free market, AND the smart investment of public money into projects that would benefit all Germans.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

God, stop ignoring my counterarguments to the baseless remarks you come up with! It takes time to write, you know!

You don't want to address those? Which is the fundamental question I'm ignoring?

It's not the question that you're ignoring-- it's the fact you are actually trying to hold this conversation with yourself. You are making up positions that you think Scheavo or I have, and then batting them down. That is exactly what a Strawman is called. A couple posts back, you said I believe things about the Industrial revolution which I don't, and then when you refuted the viewpoint which I don't hold you acted like it actually proof that I was wrong with my initial statement, which you conveniently chose to switch out with a different viewpoint easier for you to argue against. I mean, jeez, you just did it again to Scheavo, too:

Sorry I didn't address the biggest lie in Scheavo's post, that, essentially, "humans are not individuals."

If you're not sure what you're doing, it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[William Wallace]

Good posts, emindead.

By the way, the argument that capital accumulation and increased efficiency are too simple as anti-poverty measures would be funny, if it weren't ridiculous. These are the forces that actually create the wealth that Unions demand and governments redistribute. The definition of "simple" is also bothering me. "Simple" seems to mean a market-based solution to a problem, because all rational people recognize the market is flawed. Round and round the circle the goes.

[Scheavo]

I deliberately quoted the specific parts where both of you were going downhill. Sorry I didn't address the biggest lie in Scheavo's post, that, essentially, "humans are not individuals." How can anyone on Earth ignore reality in such a rude and irresponsible way and yet still make it through their mid-twenties BY THEMSELVES, with this frame of mind is beyond me. Alas, these are the days where anything can be published and still be taken as the word without caring if what is said is true or not.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of modern psychology. We are not individuals, at least not as conceived up by libertarians, and we are also not very rational. Seriously, go study modern psychology. It's just packed full of examples of how you act irrationally, and of how you are not some 'individual.'

I have not made it through the mid-twneties BY MYSELF. I did it by getting a job, working for OTHER PEOPLE, and by buying food OTHER PEOPLE MADE. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for my family, and my society, which both educated me and took care of me, and still does. It is a ludicrous statement to say that anyone, at any time, has "made it by themselves." It flies in the face of every persons living experience, and is so extremely shallow and self-centered that it's disturbing.

*edit*

Oh by the way, the 50's also saw things like minimum wage, strong protection of unions, social security, and a HOST of other things you decry as not being a "free-market." So basically, what you're describing isn' the "free-market" as you would have it.

[Scheavo]

What saved Germany? What was the reason for this Economic Miracle? It's not a Miracle. It's not something that can only be explained by divine intervention. It was the market!

Okay, thanks for letting me re quote myself, to show you just how much you're ignoring my argument:

I never said that the market was not highly instrumental to the positive changes we say, only that the "free" market, as espoused by libertarians, was not responsible for the gains we saw - a distinction you seem incapable of making. All those factors you pointed to involve the market, not necessarily the "free" market of libertarianism. Labor unions, and this is a historical fact, did a lot to improve the life of the worker, and labor unions exist because the government intervened and helped them exist. Without the government to aid unions existence, they would have continued to be squashed, as they can still be today.

[Perpetual Change]

Good posts, emindead.

By the way, the argument that capital accumulation and increased efficiency are too simple as anti-poverty measures would be funny, if it weren't ridiculous.

If only that were the argument people are making. They're not "too simple" to be anti-poverty measures. They're too simple to be the sole anti-poverty measures, especially if you believe (unlike most libertarians seem to) that poverty is a problem that actually needs to be solved. You and emindead propping up 18th century strawmen to cut down with the 18th century parrallels to those positions you hold yourselves is a nice mental exercise, but it doesn't make you right, nor does it get anywhere by way of truth-seeking. You asked if libertarianism is too simple; this thread is pretty much why.

[rumborak]

Another comment on post-war Germany: You know what also really got Germany going? The Marshall Plan. A massive Keynesian scheme essentially. According to Libertarian theory that never should have worked.

rumborak

[emindead]

Let's grasp all the comments.

Why renounce the Liberal (in US terms) approach and become a Libertarian?

I was too young to understand immediately the repercussions of 9/11. All I can remember was that on that day I learned that terrorists existed and they hated the US. Why? I don't know until much later. I cannot say that for us the next decade was the gloomiest of all, but the continuous wars (both the US and the ones in my country as the US now sponsored the War on Terror) did bring a sort of... something's missing in my generation that is truly ours. The point is that indirectly the War on Terror did affect my generation and my country on a cultural level (some argue it was positive, we are no longer near to be called a failed State. The others ignore the amount of corruption and power my government started to gain; the biggest scandals on our nation's history are being uncovered as we speak - these were done in the last decade. Bush nor Obama give a single fuck that these crimes were most of the time sponsored by the CIA; Tony Blair didn't give a fuck that the M15 gave our government institutions the machines to spy on citizens, members on the opposition and the press.)

I was always interested in the Humanities at school, specially History and Politics; and languagues: English and Spanish. When studying Philosophy I felt I had the urge to promote Plato's Republic. The politician inside of me wanted to control and Plato gave me the great argument to do so. I was the typical naïve that wanted Universal Health-Care. Hey, Sicko "opened my eyes." People don't want to be their brother's keeper? We'll make them! It's for their best! We are one nation for Gods sake! The funny thing is that I really never liked Communism or Socialism but Capitalism wasn't so cool either. I kept this mind-set until I entered University.

2008 changed my perspective completely. The Markets were crashing and I remember watching C-Span while they were voting on the Bailout. Something in my mind said that if they approved it they would be cheating. This wasn't right. The votation didn't pass and I remember saying FUCK YOU, YANKEES! YOU FINALLY LOST IN YOUR OWN GAME! Then Bush managed to pass it.

This is when I knew I wanted to learn Economics. I asked my dad, a huge Keynesian, how the US overcome the Great Depression. I didn't know about the different schools, the battle of ideas or whatever. I remember that his response wasn't satisfactory but the name he gave to me changed my political/economical view forever: Ludwig von Mises. "A Keynesian recommending Mises?" I later thought. The only reason, however, why I remember that name was because that at that time I was obsessed with Germany. They lose two wars and are still a major world economy? I had to investigate this. Ha, also while browsing on different web pages Mises name started to appear more and more.

After doing a course on Germany in the 20th century at my Uni I now focused on the importance of freedom. Have you read that essay of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on East Germany vs West Germany? It's fantastic and eerie. Capitalism to me was definitely the answer. I left Germany behind and placed my eyes on the US. This time I read more on politics such as the war on drugs and prohibiton. After this I finally changed my mind on this issue and support its full legalization. To make a long story short all these difficult issues were constantly adressed here at DTF. Jobe, WW, Abraham Clarke (sp?), Rumborak, Scheavo... all helped to form excellent debates. I even remember when I was against Jobe's views on banning smoking in closed spaces DTF helped me a lot.

The point is that the process to become a libertarian took me three years. I started to change my Platonic view to a more Aristotelian one. I changed my mentality from "I want people to do this" to "I want to do this." Instead of making people do things, do things my self. Stopped messing on other people's business and focus on mine. Individuality. Life is simpler since I became a libertarian, but this does not mean libertarianism is too simple. Libertarians do go to the core of the problem, individuals, the rest, the papers I had to read on Uni that are pro-the-same-mentality-that-is-still-reigning-today only focus on "what is right," a very bellic approach. God, I hate Realism.

[Nick]

I think that in the mainstream libertarianism is definitely too simplified, but I think that is part the media's fault, and part the fault of idiots and anarchists associating in some ways with libertarianism. I think it's as complex an ideology as any if you get to the core of it, and it's a core I agree with. I believe people have liberties that the government should not trample on, and over the course of history I've seen too many examples of what happens when governments, whether my own or others gain too much power over individual freedoms.

[Perpetual Change]

I think that in the mainstream libertarianism is definitely too simplified, but I think that is part the media's fault, and part the fault of idiots and anarchists associating in some ways with libertarianism. I think it's as complex an ideology as any if you get to the core of it, and it's a core I agree with. I believe people have liberties that the government should not trample on, and over the course of history I've seen too many examples of what happens when governments, whether my own or others gain too much power over individual freedoms.

Like I said, libertarians have it nailed when it comes to individual liberties. They're less intellectually careful when it comes to the fact that others (whether they be people in different economic classes, or nations) can't be ignored. It's understandable because, after all, it's a ideology that puts the individual at the center.

Em, you're doing it again.

[emindead]

Em, you're doing it again.

No. I'm going in order. That's different.

[Scheavo]

I believe people have liberties that the government should not trample on, and over the course of history I've seen too many examples of what happens when governments, whether my own or others gain too much power over individual freedoms.

See, what differentiates me from a libertarian, is I also see how other people can also trample on the liberties of people. I think it's false to say that liberty = less government, even though it's quite obvious that more government will generally mean less liberty. The actual maximization of liberty requires a government, in certain area's and instances, to step in. It's not a dichotomy, it's not either no government or full-out-tyrannical government.

Social power, however construed, can hamper peoples liberties, and social power is not unique to the government. There will always be an attempt to centralize social power; greed, for lack of a better word, isn't going to go away. The Greeks nailed this thousands of years ago with their kyklos; anarchy does not remain a state of anarchy, and eventually, someone will come in and set themselves up as king.

And that's why libertarianism, as debated on this forum, as espoused by proponents of libertarianism, is too simple for me. It gets half of the equation right on, but it completely ignores the other half. Classically, the definition of liberty says that you are free to be who you are - so long as you do not infringe upon other peoples rights. Libertarianism too often ignores the exception, going so far as to treat the exception as a great threat to liberty.

What irks me about this thread, is the way libertarians seem to think that certain positions are theirs, and theirs alone. I'm no libertarian, but I think, and for pretty much the exact same reasons, that we should end the drug war, should massively reduce our empire and meddling in the Middle East, and that we are way too paranoid about "security" in general/we over litigate, over criminalize everything (to name a few examples). Reading the testimonies by the libertarians here, you would think that you have to be a libertarian if you think that our empire is ridiculous, or that the drug war is not only a ridiculous waste of money, but an overstepping of authority - which of course, you do not.

[Nick]

Well I think any variety of ideologies can obviously come to the same ends on certain issues at any time, and to claim any issue is solely belonging to one ideology is definitely dumb. I think certain issues can be championed by a certain ideology though. I don't think Libertarians think they are the only ones who espouse their particular view on certain issues, but when you make it a keystone to a political campaign or party ideology they obviously get swept into a camp in a way. I don't blame Libertarians for it, it's just normal filing of events.

And there is a reason I said that government is needed to do what the free market cannot. I know I may differ from staunch libertarians on this, but I believe government should provide a level field of opportunity because in many ways the free market cannot always do that. I do not believe however that it should provide equality in outcome.

[Perpetual Change]

Em, you're doing it again.

No. I'm going in order. That's different.

Great, but I don't see how that's relevant at all to the present discussion. In fact, sorry, but I kinda am getting the impression that this has just turned into English essay-writing practice for you. Which, again, would be cool, if it weren't under the guise of actually meeting the issues I and Scheavo have brought up.

[PraXis]

Libertarianism is logical, not "too simple." It values life, liberty, and property above all else, as opposed to the mob rule mentality. If this country stuck to libertarian principles (i.e. a limited Federal gov't which is the freaking law), we would not have such a large collusion of "big government" (or a nanny/police state) and big business (think crony capitalism). We are a Republic and people like me will keep it as such. There are millions of us, and we are armed and ready to defend our rights from tyranny. Fortunately, there is one particular candidate who receives more donations from our veterans, active military, and their families (compared to the other excrement) combined. He has also been the most consistent in his views and predictions the last 30 years.

Libertarian views can be summed up as such: You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not harm anyone else. However, if you harm yourself in the process (i.e. destroy your body with narcotics), you must accept the consequences. The ONLY purpose of the federal government of the USA is to protect liberty. That's it.

Remember this oath taken by ALL of our representatives:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

It's not "too simple" it is CLEAR as to the purpose of our Republic. Those who disagree are free to GTFO.

[William Wallace]

I have not made it through the mid-twneties BY MYSELF. I did it by getting a job, working for OTHER PEOPLE, and by buying food OTHER PEOPLE MADE. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for my family, and my society, which both educated me and took care of me, and still does. It is a ludicrous statement to say that anyone, at any time, has "made it by themselves." It flies in the face of every persons living experience, and is so extremely shallow and self-centered that it's disturbing.

Right, but you made it this by cooperating with other individuals. That doesn't mean we aren't individuals.  And of course, cooperation is a fundamental concept in classical liberalism. That's why it's such an efficient means of social organization.

Also, why can we trust governments to organize society for us if people are so irrational? I don't doubt that people are wired to make stupid decisions, but I'm genuinely interested in knowing how your political outlook overcomes such cognitive dissonance.

[Scheavo]

I have not made it through the mid-twneties BY MYSELF. I did it by getting a job, working for OTHER PEOPLE, and by buying food OTHER PEOPLE MADE. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for my family, and my society, which both educated me and took care of me, and still does. It is a ludicrous statement to say that anyone, at any time, has "made it by themselves." It flies in the face of every persons living experience, and is so extremely shallow and self-centered that it's disturbing.

Right, but you made it this by cooperating with other individuals. That doesn't mean we aren't individuals.  And of course, cooperation is a fundamental concept in classical liberalism. That's why it's such an efficient means of social organization.

I spose you can define "individual" in a way which I can accept, but it's not the kind of individual Emin displayed, where I "got here by myself." And liberalism I fully support, libertarianism takes it too far, imo. There's no reason government can't be cooperative, if instead of demonizing government, you honestly tried to make it work better, it'd be better for everyone. Instead, it's "the government sucks," and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, why can we trust governments to organize society for us if people are so irrational? I don't doubt that people are wired to make stupid decisions, but I'm genuinely interested in knowing how your political outlook overcomes such cognitive dissonance.

Ahh, there you go again.. becuase I don't think individuals can always organize themselves the best in a free-for all manner, that must mean I think government has to organize society, in every way, in all manners. There are really just some area's where I think this breaks down, I have arguments for why they break down, and I have arguments for what kind of response should be given. It's not nearly so "authoritarian" as you make it out to be, it's in fact, quite libertarian.

Also, it's the prisoner dilemma. Agents are not rational, but by talking, communicating, and working together, we overcome that irrationality. Now, without government in place, communication can easily dissolve, and so we're left with a more irrational solution than would come about through a democratic process. Two heads are better than one, as the old saying goes.