NOOOOOOO! It can't be! Now who will represent America's Rugged Individualists and One-Man Islands? Who will lobby on behalf of the intolerably greedy? Who will legislate the laws that put the homeless and poor in work camps and soup kitchens?

/PROTIP: If you can kick out all the kooks, the Libertarian Party would be a nice new home for the reasonable-yet-fiscally-conservative Republicans.

The Great EZE: /PROTIP: If you can kick out all the kooks, the Libertarian Party would be a nice new home for the reasonable-yet-fiscally-conservative Republicans.

but the whackjobs need a home, too.

Protip: there's a whole range of political beliefs that can be described as libertarian, from socialist to conservative to anarchist.

Probably the extreme "DEREGULATE EVERYTHING OR BUSINESS DIES! NO FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION! ZOMBIE AYN RAND FOR PRESIDENT!" kind of libertarianism is farked and totally discredited, yeah. But, civil libertarians are still strong. The left and right have room to bond over not opposition to warrantless wiretapping, government officials being fired for political beliefs or sexual orientation, etc.

Abortions for some, American-flag painted guns for others! And copies of the Constitution for all!

The left and right have room to bond over not opposition

FTFM.

Scoobie: but the whackjobs need a home, too.

What party is Alan Keyes running on again? Ship them off over there. They can mark any state they win (HA!) with the color polka dot.

bobbette: Probably the extreme "DEREGULATE EVERYTHING OR BUSINESS DIES! NO FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION! ZOMBIE AYN RAND FOR PRESIDENT!" kind of libertarianism is farked and totally discredited, yeah. But, civil libertarians are still strong.

I agree with that...kinda. But sometimes a loudmouth fringe sector of a party is enough to take the whole thing down. I've invited to GOP here to elaborate.

Good luck with the civil libertarian thing, really. May that become the cool thing to do before it's too late.

bobbette: But, civil libertarians are still strong.

the only type of libertarian that counts imo.

i can respect the people who think the best way to accomplish the civil libertarian goals is through smaller government. in a lot of ways, i agree.

but i have never been able to get behind the people who think that civil liberties are best protected by letting them do whatever they want in the business sector (especially since it's almost always at the expense of others). as far as economics goes, the only ideology that i really approve of is the ideology of results, and there is just too much evidence that results can be improved through the government taking certain roles in the equation.

what really needs to die is market fundamentalism. the market is a great tool for accomplishing certain things, but it is not an all pervasive strategy, and it is not the magic bullet for every problem.

also wanted to add re: civil libertarianism...

the real death of the republican party will come (if not now, soon) because they have, more than anything else, marketed themselves as the party of social intolerance. and so long as the question is one of equal rights vs. intolerance, eventually equal rights will win.

the fact that the democrats have more keynesian economic views is almost a moot point.

Article author doesn't get it. To avoid government intervention, you can't have the government doling out money by fiat.

IMHO, this crisis isn't necessarily thanks to deregulation as much as it is to the monetary policies of uncoupling from a currency standard and subsequent deficit spending and expansion of the money supply. Easy (and eventually unsound) credit all around started at the top.

our half assed deregulation and government meddling in the stock market caused our problems and this guy wants to blame libertarians?

Libertarian philosophies have never been TRIED in this country (or any other for that matter) because NOBODY in government wants to get into power only to pull government out of people's lives. More government control means more power, and nobody inside the beltway wants LESS power. farking morons.

*shrug* it was clear to me 12 years ago that the libertarian party had been compromised both by the free love & drugs kooks and by the merchantilists.

The article kinda spends too much time on the argument of regulation while missing probably the most libertarian argument for the crisis: the Federal Reserve.

Was 1971 THAT long ago? Do people forget that we've had a number of different monetary systems in place, and perhaps the Fed is the root cause of most of the financial turmoil?

Regardless, thinking that you can 'prevent' a crisis is the biggest blunder of them all. Markets are markets and they'll act spontaneously.

Weaver95: our half assed deregulation and government meddling in the stock market caused our problems and this guy wants to blame libertarians?

Libertarian philosophies have never been TRIED in this country (or any other for that matter) because NOBODY in government wants to get into power only to pull government out of people's lives. More government control means more power, and nobody inside the beltway wants LESS power. farking morons.

You know, Weav, we've all heard that last paragraph with "Communism" in place of "Libertarianism".

Anyway, I agree that libertarians and socialists have a lot of common ground that tends to get lost underneath arguments about economic policy - arguments, I might add, that will amount to exactly nothing as long as the vast majority of the country that isn't thrilled with corporatists (Democratic or Republican) is divided against itself this way.

The Great EZE: /PROTIP: If you can kick out all the kooks, the Libertarian Party would be a nice new home for the reasonable-yet-fiscally-conservative Republicans have like 10 people in it.

Weaver95: Libertarian philosophies have never been TRIED in this country

actually, that's his point.

communist philosophies have never been tried either, in the same sense. the point being, when you have an ideology that demands purity to function properly, you will never quite get there.

to that point, it's not like libertarian ideology is without merit. the best thing to do is find what will improve what currently exists and go with that, instead of demanding that which would completely overturn what currently exists. because that part will never quite work.

Who will legislate the laws that put the homeless and poor in work camps and soup kitchens?

That would be the Progressives (a.k.a. Socialists). This less brought to you by: any decent history book.

Capitalist1: Who will legislate the laws that put the homeless and poor in work camps and soup kitchens?

That would be the Progressives (a.k.a. Socialists). This less brought to you by: any decent history book.

Add "Progressives" to the Giant List of Words That Somehow = Socialist*

_{* - never mind the fact that the word "Socialist" itself has been raped and disfigured.}

was it ever really alive, even in the late 1700s?

A Dark Evil Omen: You know, Weav, we've all heard that last paragraph with "Communism" in place of "Libertarianism".

except that, with libertarians you have LESS government and MORE individual freedom. I've never seen a communist government back off and trust it's citizens to do anything for themselves. And we've tried socialism. Hell, we're actually increasing our commitment to socialism as we go along. the bailout bill, nationalizing the housing market, insurance and the banks....more and more government control over the means of production (or at least a way to heavily influence it from behind the scenes).

What we need to do is get government OUT of the health care business. we need to get government out of housing, out of the marketplace, out of retirement planning and out of the banks. No more bailouts. No more raising taxes and giving it to various groups. It needs to stop.

But it won't stop, will it? Our government will only increase it's grip on all of us and our money. In the long run, I wonder how that will turn out? Do you think that giving all that taxpayer money to wall street (with little or no oversight) will do good things for us and/or the economy?

Okay, fine. Not all Libertarians are bad. (pops)

Weaver95: except that, with libertarians you have LESS government and MORE individual freedom.

the point is that both ideologies require human beings not acting like human beings to exist.

and actually, communist theory calls for the dismantling of all government. it's almost exactly like libertarianism in that respect, even a bit more extreme.

Shouldn't the needle be on both sides of the thermometer?

The author conflates libertarianism with anarchism (which is as annoying as it is commonplace), and he assumes there is one true libertarian philosophy that all adhere to.

/I won't bother reposting the comment I made in their forums, but it's obvious the author's inflammatory statement was made either to draw attention to the article, or because he is intellectually incurious.

burndtdan: the point is that both ideologies require human beings not acting like human beings to exist.


well...no. Communism needs (and expects) people to act like insects. Libertarianism expects people to act like...well, people. People like to (ab)use government for their own ends (personal, political, religious, or what have you). A libertarian understands that and designs government functions based on the assumption that ALL government can and will be corrupted from it's original purpose.

And that's what we need to do - redesign our government with the philosophy that NOBODY in government service can be trusted to behave themselves. And with the idea that anyone involved with special interests of any and all sorts who lobby government agencies (or Congress) also cannot be trusted.

Weaver95: Libertarianism expects people to act like...well, people.

libertarianism expects people in power to willingly give up that power. that isn't acting like human beings at all.

and as we've seen, it only becomes a vehicle for them to mask more devious intentions, just like with communism. with communism, it was a vehicle to ascend to political power, with libertarianism, it has been a vehicle to ascend to economic power.

do you think they deregulated the markets for the good of mankind, or do you think they deregulated the markets to remove the barriers that kept them from acquiring more and more wealth?

Weaver95: A libertarian understands that and designs government functions based on the assumption that ALL government can and will be corrupted from it's original purpose.

And that's what we need to do - redesign our government with the philosophy that NOBODY in government service can be trusted to behave themselves.

by the way, that is a complete logical contradiction. if you assume that all government will be corrupted, you cannot logically design a government that follows your philosophy without corrupting it.

again, if it requires ideological purity to exist, it will never exist.

I only hope that this will put the final nail in the coffin of Objectivists as a naive pipe dream...

Weaver95: burndtdan: the point is that both ideologies require human beings not acting like human beings to exist.


well...no. Communism needs (and expects) people to act like insects. Libertarianism expects people to act like...well, people. People like to (ab)use government for their own ends (personal, political, religious, or what have you). A libertarian understands that and designs government functions based on the assumption that ALL government can and will be corrupted from it's original purpose.

And that's what we need to do - redesign our government with the philosophy that NOBODY in government service can be trusted to behave themselves. And with the idea that anyone involved with special interests of any and all sorts who lobby government agencies (or Congress) also cannot be trusted.

Any philosophy can be corrupted. Communism, Socialism, even the enlightened tyrannies of the Romans, and our own society.

The only thing that needs to happen for things to fall apart, is for men to just ignore things. In part, we've had things pretty good for a long time, and we took our eyes off the ball. We are responsible for our government, and as a whole, we forgot that. We got it into our heads that government doesn't need to be watched and held accountable.

And that failing isn't the government's style, but rather our own. We farked this up. We let Civics education fall aside, because we didn't see the value. We didn't value the government, or our participation either.

While I made a dig at Rand, it's not a systemic fault, but the fault of the electorate to NOT hold folks accountable, and to too willingly trust that folks wouldn't put stuff in their pocket and fark around with the till.

While you can certainly put some blame on the guy riffling through the till, if you, as an owner--and that's what we are, we are all owners in this system--think that there is some shennanigans going on at the register, and you don't pull the guy out of there, you have to take some of the blame as well. It's not bright to keep putting the known kleptomaniac at the register. And that's what we keep doing.

Boils down to it: pray to God, but row to shore. We forgot that. We just sort of put faith that the boat was going to get someplace, and then when things drifted, we get mad? At what? God. The boat? The sea?

Anything to avoid realizing that we farked up.

Forgive me my skepticism, Weaver95, but the United States government is in fact founded on the same principles you mention, although not taken to an extreme - the separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and between the states and the federal government.

There is oversight in place already, but the system does require electing competent officials. That's the role of the American people. If the American people are failing in their role as the ultimate oversight of the government, that is another matter entirely. (I agree with you on the lobbyists, incidentally. There should be much stricter rules on lobbying and corporate donations to campaigns should probably be nixed completely.)

Further, you can't say there's one "true" direction in libertarianism. If your version of libertarianism expects everyone to be corrupt, devolving powers entirely from federal or state to local government, as many libertarians advocate, only increases the chance of corruption because everyone involved has higher personal stakes and is not working for a goal beyond their local community.

The extreme small-government and market-oriented ideology that many so-called libertarians espouse ignores human nature in many ways as well. It expects people to act not as people but as perfectly informed actors with their self-interest in mind, and it expects that the private sector can actually perform some tasks better than government. It fails to take into account that humans are usually not perfectly informed - they are busy living their lives, and do not have time or the will to be - and that the role of the private sector is to earn profits, not to deliver the best possible product at the lowest cost. The idea of turning everything over to the market, or drastically reducing the role of government and of regulation, just substitutes one form of human greed for another.

What do we have to mitigate human greed that causes harm to others, in government and in the private sector? Laws. Or in another word: regulations. Rules that apply to all of us and within we must act in order to keep playing.

Weaver95: A Dark Evil Omen: You know, Weav, we've all heard that last paragraph with "Communism" in place of "Libertarianism".

except that, with libertarians you have LESS government and MORE individual freedom. I've never seen a communist government back off and trust it's citizens to do anything for themselves. And we've tried socialism. Hell, we're actually increasing our commitment to socialism as we go along. the bailout bill, nationalizing the housing market, insurance and the banks....more and more government control over the means of production (or at least a way to heavily influence it from behind the scenes).

What we need to do is get government OUT of the health care business. we need to get government out of housing, out of the marketplace, out of retirement planning and out of the banks. No more bailouts. No more raising taxes and giving it to various groups. It needs to stop.

But it won't stop, will it? Our government will only increase it's grip on all of us and our money. In the long run, I wonder how that will turn out? Do you think that giving all that taxpayer money to wall street (with little or no oversight) will do good things for us and/or the economy?

I respectfully disagree.

It's not about less government, but more efficient government. That means smart and efficient regulation. While we can hope that folks will play nice, we have to have measures in place to correct problems and corruption.

And efficient government spends less and gets more bang for those dollars. A well regulated and fair market is more productive, because it allows all the players to exercise their trade.

We've tried an unregulated marketplace before. With disastrous results. We've then gone to the other end of the spectrum.

What we need is a more pragmatic and efficient approach, not one extreme or another.

If Libertarianism is dead then who'll put the books back on the shelves?

Libertarianism is just a proto-philosophy. It's a starting point for people to build workable, real world ethos. Anyone who adopts it as some form of political belief system are simple being facile and utopian. Dilettantes who like simple rules to live by and avoid any real deconstruction or deep consideration about consequences really eat this shiat up.

ron paul ?

bobbette: Forgive me my skepticism, Weaver95, but the United States government is in fact founded on the same principles you mention, although not taken to an extreme - the separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and between the states and the federal government.

There is oversight in place already, but the system does require electing competent officials. That's the role of the American people. If the American people are failing in their role as the ultimate oversight of the government, that is another matter entirely. (I agree with you on the lobbyists, incidentally. There should be much stricter rules on lobbying and corporate donations to campaigns should probably be nixed completely.)

Further, you can't say there's one "true" direction in libertarianism. If your version of libertarianism expects everyone to be corrupt, devolving powers entirely from federal or state to local government, as many libertarians advocate, only increases the chance of corruption because everyone involved has higher personal stakes and is not working for a goal beyond their local community.

The extreme small-government and market-oriented ideology that many so-called libertarians espouse ignores human nature in many ways as well. It expects people to act not as people but as perfectly informed actors with their self-interest in mind, and it expects that the private sector can actually perform some tasks better than government. It fails to take into account that humans are usually not perfectly informed - they are busy living their lives, and do not have time or the will to be - and that the role of the private sector is to earn profits, not to deliver the best possible product at the lowest cost. The idea of turning everything over to the market, or drastically reducing the role of government and of regulation, just substitutes one form of human greed for another.

What do we have to mitigate human greed that causes harm to others, in government and in the private sector? Laws. Or in another word: regulations. Rules that apply to all of us and within we must act in order to keep playing.

That was very well said.

Muta: If Libertarianism is dead then who'll put the books back on the shelves?

I absolutely love that this was the first non-TF post to the thread.

Maybe if there were, oh I dunno, good solid Libertarians with proven track records and experience on the local and state levels with records of service to back them up, we might have genuine bonafide Libertarians elected to high office on a federal level.

Or, better yet, keep running the same kooks no one's ever heard of for president... or even better, some far right wingnuts who now have to campaign against their own records of extreme social conservatism.

alostpacket:
That was very well said.

I'm sorry... I'll try to make it up to Fark by with more badly captioned image macros and gay innuendo.

Sorry, Slate is closed for maintenance.
Please check back later.

burndtdan: Weaver95: A libertarian understands that and designs government functions based on the assumption that ALL government can and will be corrupted from it's original purpose.

And that's what we need to do - redesign our government with the philosophy that NOBODY in government service can be trusted to behave themselves.

by the way, that is a complete logical contradiction. if you assume that all government will be corrupted, you cannot logically design a government that follows your philosophy without corrupting it.

again, if it requires ideological purity to exist, it will never exist.

ugh! this was very well said too. Between you, bobette, oregoncat and Sabyen91 I'm not having much luck tonight in keeping my favorites list small.

libertons?

All "isms" are bad.

Debate, negotiation and divided powers are the best thing.

Even though I like Obama, and lean Democrat, I'm terrified of the idea of Democrats having unstoppable Godzilla-like power for 2 years with a filibuster proof congress.

bobbette: alostpacket:
That was very well said.

I'm sorry... I'll try to make it up to Fark by with more badly captioned image macros and gay innuendo.

Now that's the kind of farking i can believe in.

Just for shaits and giggles I should post this too. Made this for another thread but I always see these graphs when people talk about how socialist one guy is or how libertarian another is. So it's almost appropriate here.

ochobit: All "isms" are bad.

Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

It'd be awesome to blame libertarianism for the failure of the free market, but the fact is that the markets weren't free. There were rules in place (and new ones put into place that made things even worse) that made it so that not everyone was equally protected under the law.

Courtney Cox-Zucker: ochobit: All "isms" are bad.

Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.



Disapproves.

ochobit: All "isms" are bad.

Debate, negotiation and divided powers are the best thing.

Even though I like Obama, and lean Democrat, I'm terrified of the idea of Democrats having unstoppable Godzilla-like power for 2 years with a filibuster proof congress.

You do realize that you can actually write your Congresscritters? Even if you didn't vote for them, they're still supposed to represent your interests. So, make sure that your Congresscritters know what the electorate need.

I do think that you are wrong in your basic assertion...

So, the shorter version of the article: Libertatian (Objectivist flavor) ideology has been shown to be, shall we say, bankrupt?

/Deregulated henhouse, next on Fox.

burndtdan: bobbette: But, civil libertarians are still strong.

the only type of libertarian that counts imo.

i can respect the people who think the best way to accomplish the civil libertarian goals is through smaller government. in a lot of ways, i agree.

but i have never been able to get behind the people who think that civil liberties are best protected by letting them do whatever they want in the business sector (especially since it's almost always at the expense of others). as far as economics goes, the only ideology that i really approve of is the ideology of results, and there is just too much evidence that results can be improved through the government taking certain roles in the equation.

what really needs to die is market fundamentalism. the market is a great tool for accomplishing certain things, but it is not an all pervasive strategy, and it is not the magic bullet for every problem.

Very well said.

I can still has legalized pot?

Most of you guys here are Libertarians and don't even know it yet.


I had no idea i was one until i really started paying attention to politics.

I'm not a die hard Libertarian because the system is made to prevent third parties from getting known and elected.

There is only one way to get a libertarian in office. change your affiliation to democrat or republican and promote libertarian ideas.

A Dark Evil Omen: You know, Weav, we've all heard that last paragraph with "Communism" in place of "Libertarianism".

in fact, i think that might have been somewhere in the linked article!

/RTFA, perhaps,Weaver?
//your post was predicted
///now if only the markets could be predicted with equal accuracy!

Cheops: It'd be awesome to blame libertarianism for the failure of the free market, but the fact is that the markets weren't free. There were rules in place (and new ones put into place that made things even worse) that made it so that not everyone was equally protected under the law.

Yup, this isn't the 1920's. That we could blame (partially) on Adam Smith's idea of the invisible hand.

Really, Libertarians have some good ideas...just not about the economy.