-6 votes

Is Libertarianism A Failed Political Ideology?

As a philosophy - yes. Libertarianism is the only philosophy that works.

As a political - politicalism? Nope. Uh-uh.

Part of me thinks I might be wrong. Please help me understand why.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I do not think so

...but it has some serious flaws imo.

I would say from what I have witnessed here one flaw would be situational ethics and another would be selective enforcement. Both I have found very frustrating here.

When an injustice is done it must be treated as so. Theft is theft for example.

Justifying it as a mere business transaction or commercial agreement does no good.

Frankly I have been offended here in recent years regarding the cavalier and dismissive attitudes in various but not numerous instances with respect to questionable and at times criminal practices in order to produce desired outcomes and positions.

donvino

The LP was Failed

My comments from the other RP board on this issue from a few months ago:

The LP did not fail, it was failed, by an establishment in America that actively seeks to structurally marginalize and sabotage all alternative political movements, regardless of whether they operate with internal harmony, and regardless of whether they work outside or inside the two corporate-controlled parties. You do realize all the other third parties have also not gotten traction, whether or not there was infighting going on? Doesn't it strike you as strange that all of these parties have the same degree of trouble breaking 1% from election to election, across the entire US?

The bickering within a third party is a minor factor, at best, for why there has been no electoral progress for decades, despite great candidates fielded across those decades in all the states. It has much more to do with the fact that both of the major parties are controlled by major interests (big banks, big biz, big military contractors, big lobbies, etc) whose money and influence are used to create a phony 'mainstream' designed to keep real alternatives from power.

Those alternatives are structurally suppressed in the US system, where 95% of districts across the country are gerrymandered to ensure only hack Democrats and hack Republicans beholden to those interests gain and maintain power. Liberty movements within the big parties are consistently co-opted, in order to mostly neutralize their agenda from getting anywhere. The system is hardwired for the statists to prevail---that is why the LP and other alternatives do not succeed. Missing the mark, by complaining about their bickering, is like criticizing a rape victim for being bitter.

reform philosophy

I see libertarianism/anarchy as a reform philosophy - not a governing philosophy. It tells us what not to do and what to do less of but not what to do. That is why Ron Paul had difficulty articulating a governing philosophy.

flash mob

the underlying concept; take that and apply to existing group of people sans dancing.

you can dance if you want.

Not failed,

just suppressed.

Libertarianism and the freedom movement

have grown exponentially since 2007.

Everyone knows the FED is a private for profit corp.
Ask your Auto mechanic.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Like most philosophies, they

Like most philosophies, they only work if you practice them.

Is the Constitution a failed document? Only if it is ignored and forgotten.

Is America a failed nation? Only if her people abandon her.

Is peace a failed military strategy?

Is peace a failed military strategy?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Good question. But after we

Good question. But after we get over its superficial irony, we should consider the actual question. Do people who consider pacifism a military strategy achieve the goal of peace? If some people never resist violence and other people always exercise it, who will prevail? Is peace a good military strategy can be restated as "is non resistance a good non violence strategy?" - assuming not everyone adopts it? Well, is it?

are you asking me if I agree with Etienne de la Boetie?

are you asking me if I agree with Etienne de la Boetie?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

no

no

I don't know if

I don't know if libertarianism can be said to work without first giving it a concrete definition and then asking whether we can observe it in practice anywhere for a long period of time, and then define what it means to say it is working on the basis of some specified ends.

Lots of political ideologies work on paper, in the sense that they seem possible given their own premises. As political ideologies, they present their ends as a given, as value judgements, and that is not subject to or accessible to purely logical reasoning.

The scientific question would be - does the practical implementation of a libertarian scheme achieve the ends it sets for itself beforehand, in a stable manner? That's an empirical, historical question.

The second question, has it been politically successful, is dependent on the context of time and place. It is merely a statement of fact to state that it is not a working political strategy in US politics today. Few libertarians would even grant that the tea party are "real libertarians," and even they're just a faction of the minority party.

Whether that will change is the domain of valid predictions pro or con, as well as wishful thinking.

Libertarianism is not a political ideology

It's an anti-political ideology. It is a not totally anti-political but fundamentally libertarianism wants to use the least political force possible to achieve collective ends.

In this it is incorrect in that it assumes some political force is necessary. Collective ends cannot be best achieved, or ultimately achieved at all, with political means. But the intent is anti-political.

A political ideology is an ideology that embraces the political means, guns, as the way to effect change.

Libertarian ideology embraces guns as a way to guard against political means.

Faithkills, what you've just

Faithkills, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It was intended for someone

It was intended for someone more well read clearly, or who was at least capable of gleaning from context phrases like 'political means'.

If you can put together what confused you or what you think you disagree with I can try to help.

hey

are you tryin to use up all the italics?

I also try to use up all the punctuation and grammar

since most of you 3$BILL's tend to leave it unused and they accumulate and clutter up the place. I'm sorry if I'm talking to the one that does use it, I'll try to leave more for you.

Yes. It has failed...

so far.

Critical thinking is required in order to grasp libertarianism and we live in a country that is 95% cabbage heads.

So, we are the anti-santa claus...makes us perty unpopular.

.

Ask a question, get down voted. I don't understand.

Michael Nystrom's picture

That's how it works around here sometimes at the Daily Paul

I don't like it either.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I upvoted him, I hope the A crowd will too

Libertarianism is the chrysalis from which freedom will fly, if it ever will.

I don't think it was ever an end to itself. Humans will end as centrally planned hive or free, and soon. Technology will force the issue.

Sadly I don't think it's likely humans will be the species that achieves liberty. But there is still hope.

lol did you have a preferred

lol did you have a preferred species?

Yes, humans

I find myself partial to them for some reason.

I'm pulling for the home team, but too often I feel like a Cubs fan.

My take on Libertarianism in a few sentences.

Libertarianism is a lot like objective moral/natural law, it is both prudent, benevolent and rational, and human beings generally don't want to be prudent, benevolent or rational. However, infractions against morality are not reflective of a flaw in morality, but in a general moral depravity in the human race.

We don't consider laws against murder a failure every time they are broken, nor do we even entertain the notion of giving up on those laws. By the same token, libertarians should expect massive resistance to something as otherwise moral and rational as the principle of non-aggression and respond with a healthy balance of patience and, where appropriate, moral outrage.

Granted, I consider myself to lean libertarian more so than being all out, and I think that there are standards of civilized behavior and social decorum that cut against some of the more ridiculous examples of free speech/expression (I have no problem throwing the book at Pussy Riot for defacing a historic church), but I'd take the most extreme form of minarchism over the ridiculous mess pretending to be a government at present in the good ole U.S. of A.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

"I have no problem throwing the book at Pussy Riot for defacing

" a historic church"

What does that have to do with freedom of speech? It seems to me to be an issue of property rights, which, of course "extreme" libertarians support. You might consider reading a book called "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. It truly is "Drano for clogged minds."

It has a lot to do with it actually.

The concept of free speech is open-ended in the present political paradigm (largely because few people really care about property rights in the abstract), so regardless to what definition Walter Block is going on, defenders of vandals like Pussy Riot cite Free Speech as a defense. I suggest you recommend Block's book to the idiotic left-wingers who want Pussy Riot let out of prison yesterday rather than throwing your condescending metaphors about minds and clogs my way.

P.S. - I'm not in the business of "Defending The Undefendable" any way, because it's a losing argument. If we define our defense of liberty in its worse possible light, we shouldn't be surprised at our arguments are universally rejected.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Libertarianism is like working out

You have to DO it.

All the rest are just thinking-- opposite sides of the same coin -- control, power, theft, killing etc.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Is it a political ideology?

I guess it is. But political ideologies are all about exercising power over others.

Libertarians don't want to do that (generally speaking), so the ideology itself is handicapped in the political arena.

Like ice cream without sugar - it is generally rejected among all the other sweet choices.

- - - -

But I would even take issue with what you say as a philosophy: Libertarianism is the only philosophy that works.

Actually, everything works. Slavery, corporatism, socialism, statism. They all work. And in these systems, the ones on top enjoy the systems and the benefits they provide immensely. They use politics as a tool (a hammer) to maintain the status quo.

- - - -

Let me ask this question: What tools does Libertarianism as a political ideology have to combat the hammer of statism?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Errors in thinking or errors in fact?

"I guess it is. But political ideologies are all about exercising power over others."

Instead of grouping everyone into one group, it may be more precise to know that there are opposites within the supposed monopoly of force.

Your statement compares to a more accurate statement:

A.
"I guess it is. But political ideologies are all about exercising power over others."

1a
Criminals exercise offensive, destructive, power over others.

2a
Those who avoid criminals exercise defensive, productive, power over criminals.

The non-aggression principle is not a synonym for pacifism, and it can be understood that pacifism is a political ideology.

Quoting:
- - - -

But I would even take issue with what you say as a philosophy: Libertarianism is the only philosophy that works.

Actually, everything works. Slavery, corporatism, socialism, statism. They all work. And in these systems, the ones on top enjoy the systems and the benefits they provide immensely. They use politics as a tool (a hammer) to maintain the status quo.

- - - -

If the definition of "works" means works to destroy things, then the all encompassing (monopoly) definition of "works" is a further confusion along the same lines as confusing offensive power with defensive power.

A.
It works for those who make it work for them in every case.

1a
It works for those who use power to take power from those who make power.

2a
It works for those who use power to defend against those who take power from those who make power, so that those who make power can make power instead of having power taken.

Quoting:
"Let me ask this question: What tools does Libertarianism as a political ideology have to combat the hammer of statism?"

Please consider excusing my offensive tactic of invading and occupying this conversation, please, I do not intend to destroy the conversation, my intention is merely to offer, for your consideration, a competitive viewpoint that may help you answer your question.

My assumption is such that the question was asked with the intention of finding the accurate, competitive, better, answers.

Then the question can be answered from many possible viewpoints, which may work to construct an answer that is viewable from many sides instead of viewing NO ANSWER.

To combat the hammer of statism, it may be a good idea to dispel the myth that "statism" is in some way a bad thing.

So the first defense against criminals who perpetrate crimes upon the innocent (hiding behind 'statism' or 'Religion' or 'ideology' or just hiding behind lies/false fronts/false flags/false names/false legal fictions etc.), the first defense is to accurately identify the actual criminals by their actual crimes.

Who, exactly, is perpetrating which crimes, behind whichever false front, such as "statism," and what can be done to avoid further injury to anyone?

Trial by Jury worked well enough.

Government by consent worked between 1776 and 1788 in the former Colonies known as united states of America.

Are there people, somewhere, claiming that the slaves were asking to be enslaved, and that the jurors were nothing more than a MOB ruled by criminal, immoral, thoughts: aggressors all?

Joe

Yes, because It needs a name

Yes, because It needs a name change to something cool sounding.