Libertarianism is for rich white people.Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal—except when it concerns social issues that involve money or property. Stereotypically, libertarianism is self-consistent only in a toy universe abstracted away from the messiness and social inequalities of the real world.
Several years ago, a libertarian introduced to me a flash video that was intended to promote libertarianism. I was amazed to find that the unrealistic abstraction and idealism that is stereotypical of libertarianism was manifested even in the video’s visuals. An unintentional visual self-parody, the video—The Philosophy of Liberty—illustrates libertarianism with abstract stick figures representing people devoid of race, gender, and historical context.
The Philosophy of Liberty video makes normative claims about the nature of property, but presents them as descriptive claims. The intent is to convince the viewer that people have a natural right to their property, and to reduce or eliminate taxation and other types of wealth redistribution by the government...This is absolutely false as a descriptive statement. In the real world, people acquired property through genocide, invasion, murder, assault, and theft. The United States invaded, colonized, and committed genocide against the indigenous people of North America. It enslaved people from Africa to quickly build up its nation with little overhead. Most of the valuable “property” recognized in American law belongs to white Americans, but it was acquired by violating the rights of Native Americans and African Americans.
Libertarianism: a classist cultural crutch or valid philosophy?
I tend to be a civil libertarian, and assume that I'm free to do as I wish and that the government needs a very compelling reason to interfere with that (so, e.g., I should be free to smoke pot, free to join a cult, free to eat pure bacon grease, free to get 100 piercings, etc.)
Fiscal libertarians are just out to lunch. How does one expect to live in society without paying some kind of taxes?
To answer your last question, one has to take the end result of what society would look like if libertarians had their way. And it would not be speculating to build such a construct, as there are plenty of examples throughout history to tell us what it would like, if it became the future.
To me, if your etc's are in the same vien as your other examples, of civil liberties, they would indicate more to do with personal choice that do impinge upon others rights and their choices and where the weight of said decision allegedly falls fully upon one's self.
I think that anarchists are more likely to claim that the optimal tax rate is zero than libertarians are. Libertarian philosophers like Robert Nozick have typically defended the idea of a "night watchman" or "minimal" state, and taxes to support such a minimal state would be considered legitimate.
Of course, reasonable people can disagree about what "minimal" means (or ought to mean)...
Do you have an example of a successful minimal state?
And have Harper's recent comments indicate a clear example that Libertarians do indeed believe in zero taxation. And I am sure if one pulled a internet search one could come up with 1000's of quotes by libertarians against any taxation and zero government intereference.
A good example of libertarian ideology failures would be found in the extremists within the Mennonite community that resented government so much they moved to Mexico and later Bolivia, to escape Canadian government control and taxes.
The wikipedia entry on left-libertarianism.
And the never-to-be-sufficiently-praised Chris Dillow has a couple of very useful posts on the topic:
Progressive is not the same thing as statist.
Here's a previous thread from last October.
Some of the older threads made reference to (in the above thread) can no longer be reached by ordinary mortals.
Do you have an example of a successful minimal state?
And have Harper's recent comments indicate a clear example that Libertarians do indeed believe in zero taxation. And I am sure if one pulled a internet search one could come up with 1000's of quotes by libertarians against any taxation and zero government intereference.
A good example of libertarian ideology failures would be found in the extremists within the Mennonite community that resented government so much they moved to Mexico and later Bolivia, to escape Canadian government control and taxes.
Hong Kong pre-1997 might be a good example of something like a minimal state (although as I said, different people can have legitimately different ideas about what minimal means, and as well about whether leased land counts as a state). But my suggestion is that Nozick is a reasonable place to start if you're looking for a consistent libertarian philosophy. Lots of people talk about politics without thinking it through, so I'm sure you can find lots of dopey quotes on the Internet.
And you might like Nozick - as you point out, it appears that he was left of Harper.
Nick Ternette is an example of a left libertarian, as is Noam Chomsky. The other guys are, from my perspective, lightweights.
As I noted in another thread, I think there is an [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1033910/RosaL-wrote-Whereas][color=blue][u]equa... spectrum[/u][/color][/url] such that the more freedom and autonomy that individuals in a society have, the less equality there will be in that society and, conversely, the more that a society imposes equality on all individuals in a society, the less freedom and autonomy individuals in that society will have.
I think that most progressives tend to be civil libertarians (people should be free to believe or not believe in any religion or any other system they like, speech should be free flowing [although a disturbing percentage of progressives want to limit more speech than most civil libertarians would], people should be free to have relationship with any gender, people should have a significant zone of privacy that is free from government snooping and intrusion, etc.). But, when it comes to economic freedom, most progressives depart ways with most libertarians - and they seek, instead, to move towards more rigid economic equality.
But, beyond meeting a person's basic food and shelter requirements, what one person has materially should be no business of anyone else. If my neighbor has accumulated such wealth that she doesn't need to work for the rest of her life (and she can travel and pretty much do whatever she wants), I think, "Good for her!!" even though I may be her same age and I have many years of work ahead of me. Only someone burning with envy would care what she has.
Likewise, I have a niece who is nearly thirty and she is a classic artist (she loves her art but has no interest in doing anything else but waiting tables). Her brother, who is a couple of years older than her, spent eight years in post-secondary school getting his D.D.S. (he worked several jobs, took heavy course loads, and is now reaping the rewards of having his own business). Other than familial devotion, what does he "owe" her, economically? He made one series of choices and she made a different series choices. Should the state tax him heavily in order to provide a long list of social services to his sister so she can continue to work part time and create her art? I don't think so - and neither would most libertarians. But, most progressives would think, "Oh my God...she needs state funded healthcare, wonderful public transportation, a high minimum wage, a lush public park near her cramped city apartment, free tuition to continue her art studies, and a long, long list of other government-provided services!!" (when, in fact, it's not "the government" who is funding those things for her but her brother and people like him). Libertarians tend to believe that my niece and nephew were free to make their own economic choices (and should live with the consequences of those choices).
I just believe that people should generally be free to make their own civil [u]and[/u] economic choices - and take responsibility for (and reap the benefits of) the consequences of those choices. That is the essence of individual freedom and autonomy.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Libertarian philosophers... have typically defended the idea of a "night watchman" or "minimal" state, and taxes to support such a minimal state would be considered legitimate.
Since Harper's election as Prime Minister in 2006, he has never been a libertarian: He has wrapped his little ego around the Afghan war, military spending and around constructing more federal prisons and hiring more federal judges and RCMP officers. Both policies - war and taking a 'tough on crime' stance are expensive and for a government that truly espouses the values of traditional conservativism and libertarianism, this would be anathema.
Behind any normative theory you need a descriptive theory, and that's where libertarianism fails.
These people don't realize that structure and hierarchy is something that humans naturally create. For example the present state of economic libertarianism in the USA just leads to corporations running things. Get rid of the police and the mob would run things. Very simple.
Right libertarianism and left libertarianism, or anarchism more properly, have little in common IMV. As long as right libertarians refuse to see the danger of uncontrolled private power, or how a degree of public "intervention" in "the markets" is necessary to balance and regulate the "private" sector, it's really just a bad joke that they never get. Any pretence of libertarian thinking is abondoned the moment the issue of how "competition" among theoretical equals is also skewed by their nineteenth century laissez faire ideas of property. In my experience, "libertarianism" seems to be mostly favoured by office drones who believe that downloading porn at work is a great act of individuality.
You think it, but you absolutely refuse to debate it.
I'm happy to debate that, RosaL!! 
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
As I noted in another thread, I think there is an [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1033910/RosaL-wrote-Whereas][color=blue][u]equa... spectrum[/u][/color][/url] such that the more freedom and autonomy that individuals in a society have, the less equality there will be in that society and, conversely, the more that a society imposes equality on all individuals in a society, the less freedom and autonomy individuals in that society will have.
You think it, but you absolutely refuse to debate it.
(note: IMV, the problem isn't "classism". It's class. It's an important distinction.)
You think it, but you absolutely refuse to debate it.
I'm happy to debate that, RosaL!!
Excellent 
It's past my bedtime but I'll be back tomorrow!
Excellent
Sweet dreams!!
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I'll take you up on that one Sven but have to put a rain cheque on it too, maybe this weekend. So may arguments, so little time...
I just believe that people should generally be free to make their own civil and economic choices - and take responsibility for (and reap the benefits of) the consequences of those choices. That is the essence of individual freedom and autonomy.
Isn't this based on the assumption that everyone is provided with an equal starting point. In the case of your niece and nephew, who i'm assuming started on relatively equal footing in life these points may be valid, but compare your nephew to a child born into poverty. Both children deserve a chance to achieve their dreams and goals, the poor child simply doesnt have the same opportunities as the wealthier one.
We live in a society that allows us to live with luxuries well above our basic needs I dont see the problem with the people who have more providing support for those less well off so we can all grow as individuals and communities, humans arent meant to be stand alone units that just look after themselves, thats not how we got here and thats not how we will progess as a species, we're all in this together.
Isn't this based on the assumption that everyone is provided with an equal starting point.
Does it have to be, for the statement to be reasonable or make sense?
Really, I can't think of a single way in which we're all born equal, except as some kind of platitude. If you could collect all the world's wealth into a big pile and redistribute it equally, the new "haves" would be the young and the beautiful. We wouldn't have anything even slightly reminiscent of "equality"... we'd just all have the same amount of munnee.
This is not an argument for full-on, laissez-faire libertarianism. But I tend to agree with Sven that people should be allowed to make choices, make sacrifices and take risks, and as adults, should be the primary recipient of the benefits or losses arising from them.
Also, freedom means nothing if you're too poor to exercise it. For example, the "freedom" to drive a Ferrari means nothing to me and to at least 99% of the population. The freedom to see a doctor would mean nothing to a hell of a lot of people if it weren't for folks agitating for healthcare in Saskatchewan - and it still means nothing to a hell of a lot of people in the US.
I don't have a lot of time this morning, but...as I said, if you have a society that favors a lot of personal freedom and autonomy, then you're going to have a society with more inequality (i.e., poor people, rich people, and people in between). So, yeah, if you have a society that highly values civil and economic liberty, you're going to have people who cannot afford to "drive a Ferrari". But in a society that highly values personal autonomy and liberty, you're also going to have a society where people like Ms. Sven, who grew up about as poor as a person can, have the choice to make personal sacrifices of time and effort to rise above that. In her case, she worked several years as a secretary after college and she went to school at night to get a paralegal certicate. She then worked as a paralegal for several years -- and during the last four years working full-time as a paralegal she went to law school nearly full-time (those were four very, very hard years for her). But, a lot of people don't care to work that hard...even though most have the choice to do so...like my niece who has chosen to focus on creating art and working part-time as a server in a restaurant (when she's nearly thirty years old) and, as a result, she doesn't have a lot of coin (but that was her choice). I want a society in which people have the freedom and autonomy to make those economic choices for themselves...and to reap the benefits or other consequences of those choices.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I like to refer to libertarianism as anarchism for rich white kids (no knock against anarchists, if you haven't gathered from my screenname, I'm pretty much an anarcho-syndicalist). It takes some of the anti-authoritarianism of anarchism, jettisons class struggle (the most important part) and a critical analysis of capitalism, and winds up with an ideology that massively supports capitalism and the state, provided the state does only what is necessary for the functioning of capitalism and does not do anything which benefits the working class. In short, it supports the most brutal capitalist state possible, short of fascism. So it's an ideology that certain people can cling to in order to think they are acting against society in a counterculture manner, while still massively supporting capitalism and state power. This is why you have so many idiots on the internet promoting that neo-fascist Ron Paul.
Incidentally, libertarians stole that word from the left - it originally was associated with a sort of libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism - for example, the Libertarian Labor Review had to change their name to the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review in order to avoid confusion.
Regarding libertarians and stealing land, I think they have justified it by saying that since land wasn't commodified in most indigenous societies, it's okay for imperialists to steal.
As I noted in another thread, I think there is an [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1033910/RosaL-wrote-Whereas][color=blue][u]equa... spectrum[/u][/color][/url] such that the more freedom and autonomy that individuals in a society have, the less equality there will be in that society and, conversely, the more that a society imposes equality on all individuals in a society, the less freedom and autonomy individuals in that society will have.
And I think your notion of an equality-freedom spectrum is a load of crap because it doesn't take a look at class and power structures in a capitalist society, therefore pretty much entails freedom for the ruling classes. It's a simple and attractive ideology, but it has no bearing on real life and is one of the biggest sophomoric crocks of shit floating around in the toilet bowl of classical political economy. If fact, I don't even know where this crap even came from, but I suppose it is a useful tool for supporting right-wing capitalism.
For example, lets take a look at the repeal of Jim Crow laws. Where does that fit on your spectrum? Does it increase equality and reduce freedom, or increase freedom and reduce equality? I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who argues that repealing these laws doesn't do both (although they do not eliminate inequality, they do reduce it). During the times of slavery, did black people in the South have freedom or equality?
Also, freedom means nothing if you're too poor to exercise it. For example, the "freedom" to drive a Ferrari means nothing to me and to at least 99% of the population. The freedom to see a doctor would mean nothing to a hell of a lot of people if it weren't for folks agitating for healthcare in Saskatchewan - and it still means nothing to a hell of a lot of people in the US.
This is not an argument for full-on, laissez-faire libertarianism. But I tend to agree with Sven that people should be allowed to make choices, make sacrifices and take risks, and as adults, should be the primary recipient of the benefits or losses arising from them.
Im not completly disagreeing with this because it is foolish to think that everyone can be equal in every way, its just not how it is, but i think there is more too it than providing shelter and basic survival needs that Sven asserts above.
The thing that prickles me about this is the sense of everyone looking out for themselves, sounds great on paper, but some people need help and in countries as wealthy as the ones we live in having to drive a $30,000 car versus a $50,000 car because you pay taxes so some people who have less opportunities can have a little help doesn't seem like that big of a deal for me.
But of course this is just my viewpoint, my path to happiness isnt paved in gold,
It is mystifying for many progressives to explain why many people who would otherwise be allies with progressive aren't.
Often times, the disconnect is blamed on social conservativism (and that is often a significant factor). But, I also think a lot of it has to do with the belief of many that the more economic equality is imposed socially, the less economic freedom and autonomy individuals will have -- and many people blanch at that. The puzzlement for many progressives is due to the fact that they don't recognize or acknowledge the fear that people have about losing that freedom and autonomy.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I think that's because the idea of government intervention anywhere is linked to the idea of surrending freedom and autonomy, which is not necessarily the truth. Conversely, the idea of full autonomy is linked to economic and social policy that, as we have seen lately extrapolated, actually takes away choice, and transfers risk and consequence to those who have no say.
There was an old Russian joke that said Leonid Breshnev's biggest nightmare was waking up one morning to find that the Communists had taken over the Soviet Union.
I think that's an observation that can be made of anyone who touts a certain economic premise. Today's capitalists live in complete fear of capitalism, and cleave to socialism-- exclusive and clubby kind, but socialism for them.
And libertarians would actually fear a libertarian society, because they know that anywhere they live, I'd be opening up a toxic waste dump next door to them, just to see how fast they would rush to big intrusive government to stop me, and limit my autonomy, my choices and my freedom to do so.
I am by no means a libertarian but what I understand about it I understand from the viewpoint of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky relates his definition of libertarianism directly to anarchy and for him they are one in the same. For Chomsky, anarchy is not a 'chaotic' individualized society devoid of communal belonging. It has the be the opposite. You need groups of peoples in order to sustain a libertarian worldview and community. Libertarians are essentially free in almost every way in the community but primarily they are free from state institutions. State institutions rely on strict coercive power(s) to gain mental and physical compliance. Freedom is achieved through an anarchy system that eliminates the state and its dominance through its coercive institutions. The most powerful institutions are those ones that directly revolve around the necessity of capitalism and in today's societies everything revolves around capital profit. Thus the notion of the 'free market' is thoroughly eliminated and communal living replaces the power of capitalism. Work is done on a needs basis and not a surplus basis.
There is much more but this is my basic understanding.
Libertarianism is a definitely a "valid" philosophy but maybe not a completely realizable society; in the present. Fascism is a valid philosophy (in the terms of political thought) but fascism is not a desired option for a 'free society' and we have seen the extreme evidences to this truth. But if we are talking about political thought then all theories are valid but they might not all be implemented within a human society; obviously they cannot be implemented at the same time. Classical Marxism is valid but is it truly realizable? Or is Christianity realizable for that matter? The questions about our political systems are open and I think it is important to forge newer ideas based on past failures. No society has perfected its political system therefore theory is necessary.
Hey, this a great discussion I've just been reading here. Interesting.
My thing on libertarianism is like anything else in politics...where is the line drawn? In my limited understanding of libertarianism - according to that philosophy - private companies would pretty much run everything free of government intervention, yes? I'm just not sure how that would work and NOT wind up in a situation where individual liberties were being consistently trampled...which would then negate the libertarianism, wouldn't it?
I mean, in the face of a total, regulation-free marketplace, how do you avoid multinational corporations from achieving larger-than-WalMart size, and thus further remove choices from "free" individual consumers? Or am I missing something here?
Is the idea of choice actually still there, because said company - under libertarianism - is only able to achieve and maintain its massive size and market share BECAUSE it offers individual consumers a better option over any other competitors? Or is it that the company is allowed to grow so big through un-regulation, that it's now found itself competition-less?
Confused as I am now...I'm thinking the latter is more likely, and that would mean out-and-out growth - allowed by a completely unregulated market - means that you CAN start out with libertarianism, and it could work for a while...but it will almost always morph into something else, correct?
Doesn't this mean then, that libertarianism is an illusion - since it starts off pure, but winds up eating itself? Isn't every political philosophy susceptible to this?
I mean, in the face of a total, regulation-free marketplace, how do you avoid multinational corporations from achieving larger-than-WalMart size, and thus further remove choices from "free" individual consumers? Or am I missing something here?
I'm no expert on libertarianism, but it's my understanding that this wouldn't be a problem because you and I have no natural right to a multitude of choices. Not having many (or even ANY) choices of where to buy our shower curtains does not infringe on our freedom. Also -- presumably -- the one giant mega-store would and could only acheive its dominance through choice. In other words, there would have been more stores to choose from, but the one store only became giant when everyone made a choice to shop there and not elsewhere.
Doesn't this mean then, that libertarianism is an illusion - since it starts off pure, but winds up eating itself?
I don't know. In that it's almost the absence of a philosophy, I don't know that libertarianism would have to collapse like that.
[url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redpath.htm]Proportional Representation and the Libertarian Party[/url]
"Im not completly disagreeing with this because it is foolish to think that everyone can be equal in every way, its just not how it is, but i think there is more too it than providing shelter and basic survival needs that Sven asserts above.
The thing that prickles me about this is the sense of everyone looking out for themselves, sounds great on paper, but some people need help and in countries as wealthy as the ones we live in having to drive a $30,000 car versus a $50,000 car because you pay taxes so some people who have less opportunities can have a little help doesn't seem like that big of a deal for me.
But of course this is just my viewpoint, my path to happiness isnt paved in gold,"
Excellent, youve just stepped over one of the biggest stumbling blocks in this ongoing debate. No, we are not all perfectly "equal" in talents, charm, discipline or looks etc, but do our particular differences in "talents" mean we are more entirled as individuals than others who maybe more talented (or hardworked etc) in other less "marketable" areas and, second, do these often small and subjective differences mean we should have no social responsibility to others who just happen to be born with less? And third, can a society actually function on the basis of every soul for themselves, given the wide range of needs needed by almost Everyone day to day. And back to my biggest objection, why do right-libertarians generally believe that its ok for some to inherit their abvantages from their parents, regardless of their personal talents? (Ie: George W Bush getting a "gentlemans's C" at Yale and graduating to become President of the most powerful nation on earth...because his father was?) Letting one hold property unto perpuity, itself, regardless of ones supposed contributions, is IMV aristocratic at heart, not liberating. One citizens liberty in that small area can very much reflect anothers loss.
Good discussion, pleasure to read.
I have to go for a bit but I think that libertarians miss the point. That land you own wouldn't be yours in a Libertarian society unless you could defend it personally. By what right do you own land? It is government (at our behest hopefully) that creates and upholds the ability to own land which I personally think is a suspect notion anyway. In a libertarian world there would be no borders. Anyone at all could immigrate to Canada freely. The population could double every year. Free is Free.
I have more to say but I have to go for a bit (lucky for everyone that means this is a short post! 
)
Infosaturated: I'm not sure I understand your position on land ownership. Land owners in a non-Libertarian society also defend it personally...unless I've missed your point?
I also miss your point about right to land ownership. Owning land isn't a right in a non-Libertarian society either, correct? I mean, land today is purchased or inherited, or do I have that wrong? I'm not sure what the difference would be in a Libertarian society...it's why I ask.
Also, I'm no expert on Libertarianism, but I think you're confusing it with Anarchism when you mention the 'no borders' thing. I think you can be a Libertarian, and still be nationalist. Most libertarian stuff I've ever read talks about the role of the federal government being limited to protecting the security and sanctity of its borders, enforcing contracts, ensuring that the rights of one are not impinging on another...and little else.
So, I'll admit I could have Libertarianism totally wrong, but it's my understanding the government would/could still impose immigration restrictions; and land ownership rules, I don't think, would change.
My main query with Libertarianism, is as I'd stated before, the competition thing in a supposedly free market. How would Libertarianism work if having no government interference in the market allowed the creation of a company so big that it inevitably destroyed all attempts from other companies to enter said market? If competition is removed from the market, it ceases to be free - and so the conditions that made it necessary for that mega-company to become "mega" then become obsolete or toothless, don't they?
I appreciate any efforts that have been made to answer that for me, but so far the answerers have talked about choice or ownership as rights. I feel like the idea of rights for the purposes of this discussion are a distraction. In a Libertarian society, I believe one would have the ability to own something or shop around, if they can, but would have no right to do so, per say...if that even makes any sense.
My brain hurts.
Well, here you have it. U.S. foreign policy from a libertarian perspective:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1449-Dallas-Libertarian-Examiner%7Ey2...'s-the-libertarian-position-on-foreign-policy
Works for me. Although experience has proven otherwise, it was said (until recently) that Harper was a (economic) libertarian. Imagine the good all 'round if he had adopted and kept a libertarian stance on Canadian foreign policy. In 2006, he would have gone to Afghanistan and when he came back, he would have disengaged Canada from Afghanistan - wars are costly and best avoided in the opinion of economic libertarians.
I read an Emma Goldman essay today in which she calls herself a libertarian.
I read an Emma Goldman essay today in which she calls herself a libertarian.
That is becuase the word "libertarian" used to describe anti-authoritarian left-wing thought (anarchists were using the word for over 150 years), until right-wing Libertarian Party types essentially stole the word around the 70s. Which is an interesting thing to bring up next time you see a right-libertarian complain that "leftists" stole the word "liberal" from them, so they had to make up a new word.
Case in point: the Libertarian Labor Review had to change their name to the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review in order to avoid confusion with the right-wing fucks in the LP
Those people who today call themselves libertarian aren't any different from good old laissez-faire liberals, from what I can tell.