Rejecting Libertarianism

[Swordsmyth]

"The implicit assumption being that the people would not elect evil officials."

No but they would be able to remove them easily. (relative to a monarch)
And history is replete with mad, evil, and tyrannical kings. And no king short of God has ever been able to hold power on his own, they must have the support of other powerful men, whether they delegate that power or court it for support. They therefore tend to appease the powerful and create a corrupt ruling class, since this and not good government will best secure their reign/dynasty.
The tendency toward bad government among men can't be avoided so it must be trimmed constantly ("a little revolution now and then"[Jefferson Love him or hate him it is still a great statement of truth])
Bad Kings are NOT easy to trim whereas the ?Steward? executive in my proposed system would be much easier.

No System CAN be perfect.

[Swordsmyth]

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
the people have a right to some say in their government


"No, they do not.

They have a right to their life and property.

That government is best which is most likely to secure their life and property."

NO Right? not even the right to demand "That government is best which is most likely to secure their life and property."

The people have that right and the right to be wrong. They must have the second to have the first. And they HAVE the first.

[r3volution 3.0]

"The implicit assumption being that the people would not elect evil officials."

No but they would be able to remove them easily. (relative to a monarch)

Same thing. There's no reason to assume that the people would be able to distinguish between good and evil officials, as you and I understand the terms: or that they would be inclined to support the good over the evil even if they did understand the difference. The average person will prioritize his own well-being over the well-being of society as a whole. Any form of government which assumes the rulers/voters will be altruistic is utopian. Any workable form of government needs to assume that most involved in the political process will be selfish.

And history is replete with mad, evil, and tyrannical kings.

Kings of that sort were rare. Most kings were sane, selfish, and of average intelligence - like most people in general (which makes sense, as kings are essentially chosen at random in a genetic lottery). Most of them ruled in a much more libertarian fashion than do modern, democratic governments - much smaller government. What deviations there were can be explained by economic ignorance (remember that economic science is only a few hundred years old; Alexander the Great did not have the opportunity to read Human Action) or by the fact that the king was notan absolute monarch, having to share power with nobles, clergy, etc, whom he had to placate with unlibertarian policies just as an elected politician must do with respect to his own constituencies. But what I'm advocating is absolute monarchy.

And no king short of God has ever been able to hold power on his own, they must have the support of other powerful men, whether they delegate that power or court it for support. They therefore tend to appease the powerful and create a corrupt ruling class, since this and not good government will best secure their reign/dynasty.

That may be true in a strict sense, that there will always be some sort of constituency to appease, but the difference of degree is enormous. An absolute monarch in the 18th century Europe may have had to do the occasional favor for the troublesome magnate, but this is completely trivial in comparison to the multi trillion dollar vote buying schemes inherent to democracy.

The tendency toward bad government among men can't be avoided so it must be trimmed constantly ("a little revolution now and then"[Jefferson Love him or hate him it is still a great statement of truth])

Jefferson got it wrong here (and I'm generally a fan, he was a good liberal despite being a democrat). Revolution almost always means a change for the worse: larger government. This may be because revolution often involves a further division of political power. The more divided is political power, the more the state becomes a tragedy of the commons. The more conetrated, the more it becomes like private property. Hence, absolute monarchy is best, mass democracy is worse, with other forms (limited franchise democracy, etc) in the middle. Jefferson and other Enlightenment liberals had the right idea about what government should do (namrly, very little), but the wrong idea about what form of government was most likely to actually do that.

No System CAN be perfect.

Agreed, but I'm not saying that absolute monarchy would be perfect: only that it would be better than any other arrangement.

NO Right? not even the right to demand "That government is best which is most likely to secure their life and property."

That's not what it means to give people the vote.

When you give them the vote, you aren't just allowing them to demand libertarian government.

You're allowing them to demand any kind of government.

And, as a matter of fact, they almost always demand very unlibertarian government.

So, if you want libertarian government, it's foolish to give them the vote.

[Swordsmyth]

Power must be balanced with responsibility, the ruler must be at risk of being fired or tyranny will ensue, perhaps at levels lower than today, but you have to remember that "THEY" brought you democracy, they do not really want the people to govern themselves so they brought you a rigged version of it, so long as it lasts they rule from behind the facade, but they have a plan B when it collapses: Neo-Feudalism, which will be sold with "democracy can't work".

Our CONstitution is designed to allow corruption and inhibit reform, had we used a system like mine we would not be in this mess. America has had many political revivals that should have restored good government but the "Checks and Balances" always get in the way.

[r3volution 3.0]

Power must be balanced with responsibility, the ruler must be at risk of being fired or tyranny will ensue

Yes, power must come with responsibility, and that's exactly why absolute monarchy is best. An absolute monarch would be more responsible than an elected official. An absolute monarch is in effect a private property owner, with his property being the whole country. Like any private property owner, he will manage it well because it is in his own interest to do so. He is not responsible to some outside authority, he is responsible to economic reality. If he implements socialistic policies, the country will become poorer, and his potential tax revenues will drop. If he implements libertarian policies, the country will become richer, and his potential tax revenues will rise. The profit motive makes for good management, as with any private property owner.

Contrast this with an elected politician. He has no proprietary interest in the prosperity of the country. His interest is in getting reelected, which means doing the bidding of various special interests, who also don't have a proprietary interest in the prosperity of the country (they have an interest in getting the maximum benefit for themselves, even if it harms the country as a whole, as it typically does). So, the elected politician being responsible to other people (voters), doesn't make him more likely to behave in a libertarian fashion: to the contrary.

but you have to remember that "THEY" brought you democracy, they do not really want the people to govern themselves so they brought you a rigged version of it, so long as it lasts they rule from behind the facade, but they have a plan B when it collapses: Neo-Feudalism, which will be sold with "democracy can't work".

What we have today is true democracy.

Democracy is inherently "rigged," as you put it: i.e. dominated by special interests who benefit themselves at the expense of the common good.

This is a feature, not a bug.

Our CONstitution is designed to allow corruption and inhibit reform, had we used a system like mine we would not be in this mess. America has had many political revivals that should have restored good government but the "Checks and Balances" always get in the way.

Government has grown almost continuously since the emergence of modern democracy.

With a lot of effort and a bit of luck, it may be possible to slow, stop, or even start to reverse this in the short term.

...that's why I'm in favor of supporting Rand and the like for the time being.

In the long run, however, any kind of libertarian reform movement in a democracy is playing Sisyphus.

[helmuth_hubener]

Libertarian CULTURE is NOT the same as Libertarian GOVERNMENT.

I am against the first and wish that druggies, adulterers, etc. were shunned and preached against.

The enforcement of most morality belongs in the hands of God and civil society, NOT the Cops or the Army.

As @undergroundrr said, actually true cultural libertarianism is traditionalism. When you say libertarian culture, you mean libertine culture, which is the opposite.

Libertarian culture would consist of:

1. Honest people
2. Hardworking, conscientious, enjoy work in and of itself
3. Thin, very little overeating (there's a biological connection between this and enjoying hard work)
4. Strong social controls on sexuality
5. Just to emphasize the last: no relations outside marriage, no cohabitation, rigid controls on courtship behavior.
6. Very little preoccupation with sex generally. Not in the media. Not in public. Nowhere.
7. People willing to sacrifice, willing to suffer. Willing to think very long term and very big picture and deny themselves every pleasure and benefit necessary to achieve their long-term goals and to have their life accord with morality. This 7th is essential to liberty, because liberty is most frequently opposed to your own short-term interests, and sometimes even your long-term ones. So for it to survive, people must be committed to it anyway, unselfishly in a way (not a Randian way -- don't hate me, Ayn!), just because it's the right and moral way.

And the 7th is also tied up in the previous 6, like them or not. Individuals can work hard but also be promiscuous, but their children and grandchildren will not be. There are dire epigenetic consequences to abandoning the strictured, disciplined, moral life. Call it Puritan, call it Victorian, call it what you will: it is the fertile soil, the life blood, it is life itself for the kind of liberty we cherish in the West.

That is the true Libertarian Culture. In a nutshell:

Polycentric legal order, natural law, no aggression

AND

Modest dress, universal chastity and fidelity, long working hours, and extremely tight near-inescapable social pressure to conform (via shaming, ostracism, etc.).


In a smaller nutshell: Your government doesn't care at all what you do and won't make you conform via aggression, but your neighbors most certainly do and will, via voluntary means.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well. That took all of 3 months.

[Natural Citizen]

As @undergroundrr said, actually true cultural libertarianism is traditionalism. When you say libertarian culture, you mean libertine culture, which is the opposite.

Libertarian culture would consist of:

1. Honest people
2. Hardworking, conscientious, enjoy work in and of itself
3. Thin, very little overeating (there's a biological connection between this and enjoying hard work)
4. Strong social controls on sexuality
5. Just to emphasize the last: no relations outside marriage, no cohabitation, rigid controls on courtship behavior.
6. Very little preoccupation with sex generally. Not in the media. Not in public. Nowhere.
7. People willing to sacrifice, willing to suffer. Willing to think very long term and very big picture and deny themselves every pleasure and benefit necessary to achieve their long-term goals and to have their life accord with morality. This 7th is essential to liberty, because liberty is most frequently opposed to your own short-term interests, and sometimes even your long-term ones. So for it to survive, people must be committed to it anyway, unselfishly in a way (not a Randian way -- don't hate me, Ayn!), just because it's the right and moral way.

And the 7th is also tied up in the previous 6, like them or not. Individuals can work hard but also be promiscuous, but their children and grandchildren will not be. There are dire epigenetic consequences to abandoning the strictured, disciplined, moral life. Call it Puritan, call it Victorian, call it what you will: it is the fertile soil, the life blood, it is life itself for the kind of liberty we cherish in the West.

That is the true Libertarian Culture. In a nutshell:

Polycentric legal order, natural law, no aggression

AND

Modest dress, universal chastity and fidelity, long working hours, and extremely tight near-inescapable social pressure to conform (via shaming, ostracism, etc.).


In a smaller nutshell: Your government doesn't care at all what you do and won't make you conform via aggression, but your neighbors most certainly do and will, via voluntary means.

Hey, good stuff, helmuth. Could likely add to it but good stuff none the less.

[ProIndividual]

"I have taken the last few weeks, and committed them to reading, thinking, and reflecting.

Something seemed wrong, very wrong with Libertarian thought to me."

In all that time and thinking, reading, and reflecting on the philosophy, you hadn't noticed only the Libertarian Party is capitalized? The philosophy (the thought), is not capital....it's "libertarian" or "libertarianism". Pardon me if I don't think you've done enough reading, thinking, or reflecting yet, given this is a rookie mistake people make who are barely familiar with the philosophy or Party (and many, or maybe most, libertarians don't vote Libertarian or even support the Party).

[Ronin Truth]

"I have taken the last few weeks, and committed them to reading, thinking, and reflecting.

Something seemed wrong, very wrong with Libertarian thought to me."

In all that time and thinking, reading, and reflecting on the philosophy, you hadn't noticed only the Libertarian Party is capitalized? The philosophy (the thought), is not capital....it's "libertarian" or "libertarianism". Pardon me if I don't think you've done enough reading, thinking, or reflecting yet, given this is a rookie mistake people make who are barely familiar with the philosophy or Party (and many, or maybe most, libertarians don't vote Libertarian or even support the Party).

+Rep!

A close variant:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

http://voluntaryist.com/