Why do libertarian types like Oligarchy & Corporate rule?

War and genocide predate government. Government is, to me, a necessary hedge against corporate power. What is the libertarian's hedge? Please don't say we don't need one as that would ignore history.

Somalia is a great example of a libertarian state. The pirate economy is thriving.

Even if you're right (as a side note, I don't think it would make the philosophy any less repugnant), libertarians as a group self define, and you can't say they don't associate their ideology with Rand, even if that association is a based on misinterpretation on their part.

 

No, its not. Having no functioing government and private sector is not libertarian.

Russia is a good example of socialism though.

 

Well it depends on who is defining libertarian, now doesn't it? It is not viable for you to say that self defined libertarians haven't repeatedly advocated what essentially is anarcho-capitalism. Somalia is a great example of a state in anarchy. It is the closest, by far, to that vision.

So I am not confused moving forward, please tell us how YOU define libertarianism. That way we can talk about both your vision of the ideology and Tea Party/other self defined libertarians vision of the ideology without confusing the two.

Russia (and I think you meant the Soviet Union) is an example of why communism and socialism together are not desirable, or probably more accurately why communism sucks. Democracy and socialism are a totally different story, whether or not you ultimately believe some absolute capitalist state would be better.

 

Somalia still has a government that abuses its citizens and isn't respectful of private enterprise. Pretty much the opposite of libertarianism.

Sure, there are extreme views out there, just like there are for any political philosophy. My view is basically fiscally conservative ans socially liberal. If it can be done by the private sector within the rule of law, then it probably should be.

 

Uh, no. It didn't have a functioning government for over a decade, and the new government in place since 2012 is barely functioning. That's a great place to start when you propagate the idea of almost no government (the first half of the equation). Don't have any idea what you're talking about in terms of respecting private enterprise, there certainly is not a high level of regulation and oversight - please elaborate.

Correct but would you say your version is close to the majority of self identified libertarians? I wouldn't.

Socially liberal meaning gay marriage, dope smoking etc is ok. NOT socially liberal meaning you'd use tax money to help starving people, the sick, the old etc, right?

 

Yes there are many libertarians who associate their ideology with Rand but having known several people who claim to be Objectivists those don't identify with libertarians and often criticize libertarians for taking an essentially amoral attitude.

My point isn't to advocate for Rand except in the Devil's sense but adding some depth to what seems a very simplistic categorization. I've read, studied, debated Rand with the Objectivist society and I agree that it is a very flawed philosophy. That said there are some parts of it that are appealing and valuable. The idea that one is ultimately accountable to one's own ego and vision has a very romantic appeal. In many fields an uncompromising pursuit of personal achievement on one's own terms is necessary to advance both the field and society. Consider where we would be if most of the creative and industrious didn't pursue their callings single mindedly.

 

Yes, I just wanted to point out that while libertarians might not be interpreting Rand correctly, they are in fact aligning with their understanding of Rand, and so de facto with Rand. If most of the self identifying libertarians like Paul Ryan view Rand one way, Rand scholars another, we're talking about the former, not the ladder.

 

In defense of libertarians yes Somalia isn't an example. Libertarians still accept government as being necessary but limited to protecting personal and property rights and enforcing contracts.

I will also say though that if we take that at face value that would still be very problematic. The biggest issue I have with libertarian thought is that it fails to understand or include in it the nature of the commons. A government as limited as just to protecting personal and property rights and enforcing contracts would run into a lot of problems and is impractical in the real world.

Really? You are doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing with libertarian and throwing up an example for criticize that doesn't relate to the true meaning of the economic system.

 

I am fine with a certain amount of support. What I don't support is government control of private industry and convoluted programs that attempt to help the poor but just traps and disincentivizes them.

Different versions of a guaranteed minimum income have actually garnered support from libertarians, both present and past.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/19/time-for-a-guaranteed-income

Surprisingly to some, they were joined by many libertarians. The list of intellectuals who have made cases for a guaranteed minimum income over the years includes such laissez-faire luminaries as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Charles Murray.


As far as Somalia's "economy":

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/2014-global-agenda-for-economic-freedom
Six of the top 10 fastest-growing economies worldwide are in Africa, and more than one-third of African countries boast annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates of more than 6 percent. Yet, despite these positive growth trends, most African countries continue to suffer from endemic corruption, limited property rights, and highly restricted business and labor markets. Africa is a diverse continent with varying challenges and opportunities. In the “freedom from corruption” indicator of the Index, the divergence in individual country scores could not be more apparent, with scores ranging from Botswana at 61.2 (of 100) to Somalia’s meager score of 15.9. Corruption scandals continue to plague the continent. In Malawi, for instance, over a period of six months in 2013, $30 million of government revenue was lost as the result of corruption and payment loopholes.

 

the problem is some libertarian types are fixated on the notion that money is what drives this process so they default to allowing the free market to reign--- when "money=creation" is not a rule that applies for many great builders---Erdos, Turing, Salk, Tesla, the architects of open-source software etc. etc.

 

OK so you would support taxation for every citizen to have a guaranteed income?

And? It has a high level of corruption. What does that do for your point? It has, now, minimal government. It has, now, an economy. It is, now, the closest state to the libertarian ideals of limited government and unhindered (by the government) corporations. It is the closest state to that vision, and it isn't pretty.

 

maybe on the first. There are downsides.

Its not just corruption. There is nothing free about their economy. Pirates or no pirates.

 

I like how the debate has turned fairly mature. Kudos to everyone involved.

I think with size and number comes a need for government to balance the table. I once read a blog on the pareto power rule distributions of the internet. The internet itself is a great example of an uncontrolled, market of fairly free choice. Because it was largely unregulated and its participants at the time came from savvy industrialized consumers, plotting the rise and fall of websites seem to be apt in how that market would turn out. As the topic would suggest, 10-15% got all of the traffic despite other potentially appealing choices.

Now does that mean I'd advocate keeping myspace or mini government sponsored itunes alive? There is some difference to this. Mainly that the internet is instant, so choice isn't bottlenecked by physical barriers of entry. So no, but if there's an industry that provides a utility service, I think regulatory arms like the FCC should prevent smaller companies from being swallowed up by another company's larger market cap when competition is already scarce.

Diverse and varied competition should be a pillar against oligarchy, yet with competing pressures abroad, that has been thrown the wayside as now national champions are competing with other national champions. That equation has long since been skewed, yet political acceptance of relaxing regulation comes with the promise of competition. For local locked consumers, the reality is far different.

I'm not saying more government or its ills, like regulatory capture, doesn't affect all of us, but I think libertarianism and its political influence has been running away from the problem of said ills by not addressing the scalability issues of large populations and is in fact making it worse.

 

Libertarianism can be simplified to: "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff"

Not sure that describes Somalia.

 

"all is fair in love, war and markets?"
"only the strong (or devious) prosper?"
"every man for himself"

You know two thing that seems to be overlooked by 'libertarians: are 1. the collaborative advantage of human society where the sum is greater than the parts. Shared information, shared burden, common infrastructure and shared advantages are what have elevated humans from hunter gathers to the well fed, well protected civilization we are. and 2. everything about the human condition is relative i.e. if we paid little or no taxes to governmental organizations we would have to pay private enterprise a fee for every governmental service, You can't say you would be richer or more profitable if you had to pay for private security, private toll roads, pay all the fees it would take to have airports, safe foods, safe medicines. It's just kind of a pipe dream.

 

I'm not too clear on these designations, but isn't corporate/oligarchy basically what libtertarianism is all about? If you limit government and place more power to people, then obviously the richer, more powerful people gain more influence. If you go back to historical days when government was more fragmented and exerted smaller influence than they do today, the nobles/landowners held great power while peasants wielded almost no power.

I generally don't talk American politics in real life, so I could be wrong in how I'm viewing Libertarians. But this is what makes the most sense, no?

 

Very true but keeping this in the context of Rand, Randian heroes aren't just driven by money. Howard Roark was willing to work for free to just see his vision fulfilled.

My own understanding of libertarian is that there is nothing wrong with people striving without the motivation of monetary gain but if they want it then they should be entitled to it. Rand's view is that monetary gain is what should society rightfully owes to the creators. So while Roark was willing to work for free it was society itself that was immoral for not rewarding that gain.

As far as my own view Salk, Turing and etc.. are to be admired but I don't think we can count on people like that to be the main drive for society. It's a fact that monetary incentive is one of the main drivers for human achievement. I have no problem with someone getting well rewarded financially for doing something that advances society.

 

How does this power manifest itself?

 

Collaboration is a wonderful thing, when it's voluntary. Interaction and exchange does not occur without a perceived mutual benefit.

When it isn't voluntary, "conscription" is a better way to describe it.

Again, if you want to refute a point of view, you should restate it in a way someone who holds that view would approve of. Otherwise you're just disingenuously setting up straw men to knock down.

 

I'm assuming you're referring to the more anarcho-capitalist libertarians with your statements here (whom I would consider a small minority of all libertarians). But either way you're wrong about #1. I've never heard any libertarians railing against collaborative efforts in general, just the kind of collaboration that is forced upon the involuntary. Even in the anarcho-capitalist pipe dream world (I agree with you about that), there would be extensive collaboration via contracts.

Here is something I enjoyed reading from one of these anarcho-capitalists: https://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf. I thought it was really funny when he was talking about neighbors and businesses checking to make sure you have your anti-murder insurance up to date before they'll associate with you. And yet, he was actually advocating this type of system.

The best defense of a state-less world I've heard came from Robert Higgs (http://mises.org/media/8028/The-State-Is-Too-Dangerous-to-Tolerate) and I still wasn't convinced.