As Jill Pyeatt wrote the next-to-last time we did one of these:
At Independent Political Report, our mission is to post articles about independents or alternate parties. From time to time, however, an interesting article comes around regarding the philosophy of libertarianism or anarchy, both of which are topics which many of our readers have interest in. This thread is dedicated to those articles.
Feel free to add something you may find that fall into the categories of small “l” libertarianism, or anarchy.
Another way this thread could possibly prove useful is to direct tangents that spin off into arguing over anarchy that arise from arguments in the comment threads of articles not directly related to this topic and direct them here once they go past a few rounds of back and forth.
And now, some videos, which may or may not be related to this topic depending on the reader’s perspective:
If you have time, check out the discussions in the previous instalments:
And the original.
In case it’s not obvious from the title, this thread is about small l libertarianism and anarchy, meaning the philosophy, not the political party of the same name. We have plenty of other threads on IPR to discuss partisan politics. However, if you feel moved to discuss allegedly libertarian candidates running in the establishment parties, this can be a good thread for that topic.
Just wait til Jan 1 because jumping months changes the url.
Sure, why not?
Think an open thread for this topic serves a useful purpose here, Should we start a new one for 2016?.
http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/how-kurt-russell-found-libertarianism/
Wow, this thread is a blast from the past… I forgot all about it. We’ve had some posts on the regular open threads that may have been more suited for this one.
http://www.libertyconservatives.com/libertarian-debates-bernie-sanders-supporter/
jp, thanks for the link. As for this D’s parting question:
“[Between] Hillary, Jeb, or Bernie—who would libertarians feel most comfortable with, for four more years?”
None is the easy answer. Least uncomfortable is hard for me. Most uncomfortable would be Bernie, since I don’t think he could do the job. And, I’m sorry, he is an avowed socialist. That he has some OK positions on non-economy issues is great, but so did BHO. He’s not an executive.
Hillary is competent, but there’s something very dark there, something very off with her judgment.
I rooted for W in 00, and man was he ever a disaster. I really could not root for either in 04. I rooted for BHO in 08, as I feel McCain is way too unstable. Romney in 12, mostly because I have a bias against incumbents.
So, with great hesitation: Jeb, given that choice. I saw him on CNBC about 3 years ago, and they asked him what his morning reads are. Of his top 3 was Cato @ Liberty, which kinda surprised me.
When I vote, I only vote L, for the record.
I don’t know if this deserves to be its own article, since it seems to be small ‘l’, but this definitely will be of interest to IPR readers.
https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/bernie-sanders-first-libertarian-sociali?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=55f874dfe4b044f0aa9c3d82
Agreed with Peron on this one. And the wedding cake thing has been distorted in the media too. The actual issue is that the wedding cake business disclosed the private contact info of the gay couple they refused to do business with to media and public discussions and got them peppered with threats, including of having their kids taken away, but people only talk about the rights of the business owner. I think Peron may have been my source on that one as well.
This is the best article I’ve seen on the ridiculous drama going on in Kentucky. I can’t find a clear link to the LP for this writer, so I’ll post it here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/the-phony-martyrdom-of-ki_b_8074338.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
It’s definitely teapardatarian. Fusionist, if you want to be nice about it.
And if that’s not bad enough, Trump will apparently be joined by other “libertarian” conservatives, like Marco Rubio and Allan West. Sounds more like FascismFest!
That is indeed absurd. Maybe someone can ask him about his abuse of eminent domain and use of corporate welfare.
Theater of the Absurd:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/trump-speak-freedomfest-vegas-saturday
I just stumbled upon this song on YouTube and I thought that it would be appropriate for this thread, so I’m posting it here.
FOZZY – One Crazed Anarchist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9aKjbRIJ_k
Langa, actually, I stand by my assessment of RP2’s words. Makes sense to me, since his emphasis is on 4A.
I assure you I lose no sleep over bazookas in the subway. I do use extreme examples to highlight the weaknesses of NAPsolutism.
RP2 makes a great point there…2A is not the only right in the bill of rights.
Don’t be obtuse. The point of his comment was clearly to suggest that Republicans should stop wasting so much energy fighting against gun control. Of course, in reality, most of the Republicans in DC are far too quick to support gun control.
Then again, I’m probably wasting my own energy explaining this to someone who apparently lies awake at night worrying about the possibility of people packing bazookas on the subway.
L: Can you really imagine Ron Paul pandering to gun grabbers?
me: Read the article. Saw nothing about gun grabbing. RP2 makes a great point there…2A is not the only right in the bill of rights.
Well, even though we may have a different emphasis, I think we are basically on the same page: Tax reform is a good idea, but it should not be accepted as a substitute for a more comprehensive overhaul of fiscal/monetary policy.
I agree that spending should certainly not be swept under the rug. We need cuts, not revenue neutrality, and hopefully we will hear concrete spending cut plans from these candidates and others.
I agree about borrowing and inflation. I agree about hidden taxes. I hope to hear plans from candidates about debt reduction and monetary policy reform.
However – hopefully you will agree that the insane complexity of the tax code, and the special favoritism it gives to the well-connected, is a legitimate issue in and of itself, although far from the only issue, and not the biggest one we have.
Spending is the more important issue vis a vis taxes, but the complexity and intrusiveness of the tax code is a legitimate issue in and of itself, as is the mounting debt, as is the crushing tax burden and the massive red tape binding down the economy, and the massively tilted playing field (in favor of large, politically connected and established players with friends in government).
I agree with all this. The problem is that all too often, “tax reform” is used by politicians as a way to sweep the spending problem under the rug. In fact, they often tout their tax plans as being “revenue neutral” — as if that’s a good thing. But even if their plan includes actual tax cuts, I would still argue that if those cuts are offset by more borrowing/inflation, they are, at best, no more beneficial than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In fact, they might even be worse, as these forms of “hidden taxation” are more painless to the taxpayers, and thus, encourage more reckless spending, with no worries about any potential public backlash.
Spending is the more important issue vis a vis taxes, but the complexity and intrusiveness of the tax code is a legitimate issue in and of itself, as is the mounting debt, as is the crushing tax burden and the massive red tape binding down the economy, and the massively tilted playing field (in favor of large, politically connected and established players with friends in government).
Of course social/civil liberties and foreign policy issues are important too, lest anyone thinks I am suggesting otherwise. Taxes are just one issue, but they are an issue. The tax code would be the world’s longest joke, but it’s not funny at all to the multitudes it ensnares and destroys, often for running afoul of some obscure provision or interpretation of bureaucratic chain of reaction they couldn’t possibly have foreseen or imagined.
Well, as you know, I’m not the biggest Gary fan, but in general, I would also take him over Rand.
But I think any discussion of taxes without also discussing spending is a complete waste of time.
On balance, however, since taxes are far from the only issues, I still prefer Gary over Randal and it’s not even close.
On taxes, until he comes up with something better, I’ll advise him to copy Randal’s plan if it’s the only way I can get him to drop any and all “fair tax” talk.
Rand Paul’s tax plan is certainly not perfect, but I like it a lot better than the “fair” tax, even if it’s just as a “starting point for a conversation.”
By the way, just like Gary Johnson, Rand also has his own tax scheme:
http://randpaul.com/rand-pauls-fair-and-flat-tax-op-ed?gclid=CIa10trxm8YCFYI7gQoddG8EKg
Notice there’s not a single word in there about cutting spending. What a shock!
For those people who think Rand Paul is a libertarian, or anything like his father, here’s Reason #3,648 why you’re wrong:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rand-paul-to-gop-it-s-time-to-move-beyond-the-second-amendment-20150618
Can you really imagine Ron Paul pandering to gun grabbers?
In a truly freed market, I don’t see accumulations of power as being likely, because it will be too rapidly moving and turbulent, without government propping up giant, lumbering, inefficient “too big to fail” politically connected players in many ways big and small, obvious and hidden. Without all the government imposed barriers to entry and success for new upstart businesses – barriers big and small, obvious and hidden – it will be far more difficult for the powerful to enshrine their power. Despite what most people on both the left and right think, big government does a lot more to prop up big business and the super-wealthy than to restrain them. And giving government even more power will only further build the walls that keep the poor and working class folks from rising up and becoming successful and the undeservedly wealthy from losing their positions of power. The best way to curb business and money influence over politics is by reducing the power of politicians over the economy or the rest of our lives. Large institutions may fight over influence and power, but they do far more to prop each other up versus the rest of us.
In a truly freed market, this wouldn’t be the case, because businesses would be competing for workers far more than workers would be competing for jobs. This would include a far easier path for workers (or the unemployed) to become entrepreneurs. And that includes the market for news and information.
There are a lot more diseconomies of scale than economies of scale. This is masked by government interventions in the economy and their secondary, tertiary etc effects.
That culture exists in a government-distorted market.
The question is what do you do about it? Further empowering the largest, wealthiest and most powerful monopoly to use more force in hamhanded ways strikes me as a very poor way to solve any actual or potential problems, and a massive failure at solving the issues you describe.
green: Therefore, as long as some players have access to billions in capital and others do not, the game/market is not “fair”. The rules of the game, from the outset, are rigged in favor of those who possess capital.
me: Seems about right in the short run. In the intermediate to longer run, there is turnover among the 1%ers. Some even lose it all.
G: The greater the inequality of property, the greater the likelihood of tyranny.
me: This is an interesting assertion. I would think it could be demonstrated quantitatively. Of course, we’d need to define “property,” “inequality,” and “tyranny” up front.
Any sources to back up your claim?
>Everyone games the market, since the market is a game. Supply and demand waxes and wanes, and market participants respond and anticipate in kind. I see nothing wrong with this. Why do you?
The injustice is the wealthy and connected pre-determine results or monopolize profits because of their access to capital that small business lacks. Therefore, as long as some players have access to billions in capital and others do not, the game/market is not “fair”. The rules of the game, from the outset, are rigged in favor of those who possess capital. . Consequently, their earnings in this market are not based on hard work, determination, or creativity. They are based on the government force that backs up their ownership titles to capital.
The unfairness of this scenario is analogous to how in some pro sports, like cycling and boxing, athletes who are already wealthy can buy the best trainers, doctors and drugs as well as buy off the regulatory authorities, and thus enjoy a built-in advantage over their competitors
>Yes, I see this as dysfunctional. This happens in socialist societies. too, although in those the government uses “capital” to steer resources toward the connected. It’s one of the many reasons I’d like to see the State be as small as possible, to minimize rent-seeking and extraction.
Attempting to limit the scope of government is hopeless as long as some people control billions worth of capital. There are some exceptions, like the Kochs, who want to limit government in some respects in order to increase their profits. But from the perspective of most billionaires, it’s in their interest to use government to maintain and extend their privileges.. Given the legal norms that give them ownership over all that capital, they have the power to control events. And they do. And will.
So if we think it through, we come to the same conclusion as most revolutionaries…..liberty and equality are related and/or interdependent concepts. If the government’s job is to protect private property (and this is the main job of most governments), then those with the most property under that regime will be the ones with the greatest interest in preserving it and using it to extract additional rent. The greater the inequality of property, the greater the likelihood of tyranny.
green: the wealthy use this wealth to not only 1) use capital reserves to game the market
me: Everyone games the market, since the market is a game. Supply and demand waxes and wanes, and market participants respond and anticipate in kind. I see nothing wrong with this. Why do you?
green: but also to 2) use capital to influence government to help them extract rent.
me: Yes, I see this as dysfunctional. This happens in socialist societies. too, although in those the government uses “capital” to steer resources toward the connected. It’s one of the many reasons I’d like to see the State be as small as possible, to minimize rent-seeking and extraction.
>Super affluence is not per se threatening. I don’t care if someone has a lot of money; I do care if they earn it through corrupt means or use it to hurt others.
Yet surely you concede that the wealthy use this wealth to not only 1) use capital reserves to game the market but also to 2) use capital to influence government to help them extract rent. So if the wealthy CAN do these things then why wouldn’t they do them? Is it in the self-interest of someone like the Koch brothers to deploy their capital, strategically, in order to create more profits down the line? How is this not a threat to everyone else, when everything (including justice) is for sale?
>The super rich can and do influence what government does, but they don’t control it unilaterally. The super rich very often disagree among themselves.
Basically all you are saying is that the US government and society is more of a polyarchy than a tyranny because the super rich are often at odds.
However, the super rich still run the show. And there is no effective check on their power, either congressional or constitutional. There is no effective democracy–what we have is a dictatorship of capital.
But I do take your point that some of the founders (including Washington) might have intended this state of affairs (aristocratic rule by the wealthy) from the start. I’m not a constitution fetishist–I agree with Jefferson that the people have a right to run their own lives and make their own lives and not be bound by the chains of the past.
green: Why can’t the defenders of so-called “free market” economics understand what’s perfectly obvious to ordinary Americans and to the Founders?
me: First, I’m not sure the Founders agreed. Robert Morris and George Washington were like the billionaires of today, by comparison.
While great affluence is “powerful,” it’s not the same power the government has. Governments can and do literally force a range of behaviors.
The super rich can and do influence what government does, but they don’t control it unilaterally. The super rich very often disagree among themselves.
Super affluence is not per se threatening. I don’t care if someone has a lot of money; I do care if they earn it through corrupt means or use it to hurt others.
If say Mark Cuban decided to cash out and just retire to enjoy himself, why do you have a problem with that?
Thanks for the link, A. Interesting discovery.
Ultimately Cospaia was a failure. Liberty there is neither perpetual nor firm.
The Andyland LZ should take notes on what not to do.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/the-anarchist-republic-of-cospaia/#more-9558
“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Usually this truism is deployed by the defenders of capitalism to decry the evils of government.
Yet these same defenders endorse the right of private individuals to own billions of dollars worth of capital. They defend the constitutionally-enshrined right of these individuals to use this capital to influence events, media, and political events and institutions in whatever way they desire.
Liberty of conscience and opinion is limited in capitalism because the owners of capital have the power, via their ownership, to discipline the minds of the workers trying to survive (eg work) inside this system. With enough hard work an individual can establish one’s own means of production, but the owners of capital have the means to destroy such small business via competition and price wars if it’s in their interest. And as we can see by examining contemporary corporate culture, it is indeed in their interest to monopolize as many profit and revenue streams as possible.
How can these norms lead to any other outcome than tyranny?
Ordinary people understand why this is fucked up. The founders understood why this is fucked up. Power corrupts. Giving private individuals legal title to billions of dollars of capital is a recipe for tyranny. Why can’t the defenders of so-called “free market” economics understand what’s perfectly obvious to ordinary Americans and to the Founders?
http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/11/16/the-law-according-to-the-somalis/
Here’s an excellent discussion of immigration;
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/libertarians-should-care-about-americas-ban-on-immigration
“This is all very amusing, but it really is a false dichotomy.”
It’s not a dichotomy at all, false or otherwise.
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/05/03/5-habits-of-highly-effective-radicals/
It’s not a dichotomy and was never intended to be read to suggest that it is. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
This is all very amusing, but it really is a false dichotomy. Probably a majority of libertarians are decentralists because they believe in the right to secession. With secession legalized, large nation states and even smaller ones quickly would break up into dozens of constituent cities, counties or regions. Networks and confederations with overlapping functions and memberships would deal with common legal, environmental, defense and other issues as they became relevant. In libertarian decentralism, independent political entities individuals should be allowed to choose the form of governance or non-governance they choose. As long as the entity does not agress upon its neighbors or their rights or grossly and obviously oppress its members, this is not of much to concern to surrounding political entities. Yes, we prefer all entities become as libertarian as possible as soon as possible, but education and nonviolent persuasion are the best way to attain that goal. Here are a few relevant quotes from libertarians:
Anthony Gregory: “The key distinction among varying kinds of libertarians should be seen as one in principle, not in esthetics. There are libertarians who champion freedom of association, decentralism, individual liberty, unfettered private property and exchange and peace, and then there are “libertarians” who want to make the government work more efficiently, who grant considerable exceptions to their anti-statism for the state to be used in a host of areas, who compromise on property rights and free association and favor government war.”
Charles Johnson: “But what is needed here is a more radical decentralism, dissociated from the humbug of ‘states’ rights.’… Nothing other than pure mysticism limits secession to states or provinces: provincial governments enjoy no more sovereign authority over their citizens than the federal government does, and the same principles that justify the withdrawal of states from the federal union also justify counties or cities withdrawing from state governments, and neighborhoods or individual citizens withdrawing from local governments, or from any government anywhere.”
Bill Kauffman: “My politics are localist, decentralist, libertarian. I am wholeheartedly in favor of such states as New York and California birthing smaller states wherein democratic self-government might better be practiced.” (James Ostrowski writes: “Bill Kauffman is a leading voice for libertarian decentralism, localism, or as he calls it, ‘placeism’.”)
Jeffrey Tucker wonders “Are you a decentralist libertarian or a centralist who wants to impose liberty (and ends up creating despotism)?”
Intnl Society for Individual Liberty describes how the “Louw/Kendall team launched a ‘Groundswell’ organization to promote the libertarian decentralist ideas” in their best selling book “South Africa: The Solution.”
Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com have copious articles promoting varieties of Rothbardian radical decentralism. And Karl Hess was often called a “libertarian decentralist.” More to come in an article I’m writing as I finally update my site Secession.net.
I prefer Ghana’s Kojo Antwi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0btvW865ZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJOuvEcarNs
Politics be no thief, it’s just a game
Everybody dey play em…
Oyinbo man go chop your dollar,
go take your money and disappear
politics is just a game, we are the loser, they be the winner
Yes, that would be accurate almost always.
That’s what some people claim LP stands for.
Shouldn’t there also be a Loser Party? Kind of Vermin Supreme meets Murray Rothbard….
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/winner-party-keeps-on-winning/
Meanwhile, the winners in the Democratic and Republican parties have successfully institutionalized this:
Sure sounds like they’re a model for Libertarians to emulate.
Damn!
Found yet another Monty Python video representative of the US Libertarian movement! This time, it’s representative of their strategic competence (Black knight):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
“For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility of every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities and talents with which nature has endowed them, and turn them to social account.”
-Rudolf Rocker
“Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of life into the straitjacket of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression is dead dogma, its physical form brute force. And this unintelligence of its objectives sets its stamp on its supporters also and renders them stupid and brutal, even when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly striving to force everything into a mechanical order at last becomes a machine himself and loses all human feeling.
It was from the understanding of this that modern Anarchism was born and now draws its moral force. Only freedom can inspire men to great things and bring about social and political transformations. The art of ruling men has never been the art of educating men and inspiring them to a new shaping of their lives. Dreary compulsion has at its command only lifeless drill, which smothers any vital initiative at its birth and can bring forth only subjects, not free men. Freedom is the very essence of life, the impelling force in all intellectual and social development, the creator of every new outlook for the future of mankind. The liberation of man from economic exploitation and from intellectual and political oppression, which finds its finest expression in the world-philosophy of Anarchism, is the first prerequisite for the evolution of a higher social culture and a new humanity.”
-Rudolf Rocker
In other words, anarchism is not so much about freedom FROM external influence as it is about freedom TO actualize oneself, which requires (economic and political) sovereignity and self-government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
…Well, maybe there’s one more video relevant to “organized” libertarianism in the USA, and its life-and-death struggle against itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
…If only Libertarian leadership was decided by “farcical aquatic ceremonies”
“…Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDVsprWRCQ
The only video you really need to see to understand the libertarian “Anarchy v. Minarchy” debate:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDVsprWRCQ&w=560&h=315%5D