Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2007, 12:33 AM
moorobot moorobot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,038
Default Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

Two issues here:

1) Redistribution of any kind: Currently, one's resources depend enormously on past gov't programs and policies and one's future resources will depend on future ones; for example, on corporate welfare, or state provided education, etc. So given that that a huge ammount of property is "stolen" directly or indirectly (by indirectly, I mean, for example, one has the abilities they have because of tax funded education, and use those abilities to accumulate wealth), and we know others will continue to "steal again", why is the best response to this to just freeze the arbitrary status quo? Example: the poor. If the poor are poor because of past gov't policies, and the rich will continue to use the state to redistribute income to themselves (far more is spent each year in the U.S. on corporate welfare than individual welfare), why should they not demand compensation for the negative effects of past injustice or even actively try to get something for themselves now via state policy, knowing that others will successfully do so?

2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-25-2007, 01:29 AM
nietzreznor nietzreznor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: i will find your lost ship...
Posts: 1,395
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[ QUOTE ]
1) Redistribution of any kind: Currently, one's resources depend enormously on past gov't programs and policies and one's future resources will depend on future ones; for example, on corporate welfare, or state provided education, etc. So given that that a huge ammount of property is "stolen" directly or indirectly (by indirectly, I mean, for example, one has the abilities they have because of tax funded education, and use those abilities to accumulate wealth), and we know others will continue to "steal again", why is the best response to this to just freeze the arbitrary status quo? Example: the poor. If the poor are poor because of past gov't policies, and the rich will continue to use the state to redistribute income to themselves (far more is spent each year in the U.S. on corporate welfare than individual welfare), why should they not demand compensation for the negative effects of past injustice or even actively try to get something for themselves now via state policy, knowing that others will successfully do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most libertarians are too quick to dismiss redistribution since it smacks of government intervention and socialism. I obviously oppose complete redistribution, but I don't think things should be frozen at the status quo, either. In his most radical phase, Rothbard argued that corporations that get more than 50% of their revenue from govt (either directly thru subsidies or indirectly thru regulation, etc) should be turned over to the rightful owners (the workers). I tend to agree with this, and think that redistribution of supposed government-owned land, businesses, etc., as well as government-enabled corporations, ought to be turned over to the people.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: Libertarians say they oppose mercantilism, corporate subsidies to companies, etc. However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to. Yet, libertarians tend to oppose campaign finance reform and related policies. To me this smacks of dishonesty; if they really cared that much about ending the system of private reward, public risk that mercantilism (etc.) bring in, they would have to advocate large changes in campaign finance rules and advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have very little opinion on this--perhaps you are right, in which case you are probably speaking of right-leaning minarchists. Most anarchists I know don't care too much about campaign finance stuff since they pretty much hate the entire voting process.

In any case, I think examples like this can show the danger in partial, moderate reform--it certainly isn't the only case in which a baby step in the libertarian direction can lead to unlibertarian results. Which is why I argue for sweeping, radical changes, not just minor modifications of the existing system.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-25-2007, 01:31 AM
Misfire Misfire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 2,907
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

Why shouldn't you have the liberty to donate as much as you want to a cause you support, even if that cause is getting someone elected? Why shouldn't those in opposition to my cause have the liberty to broadcast their disagreements within X days of an election? I don't see how supporting these liberties conflicts with libertarianism.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2007, 01:40 AM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[ QUOTE ]
In his most radical phase, Rothbard argued that corporations that get more than 50% of their revenue from govt (either directly thru subsidies or indirectly thru regulation, etc) should be turned over to the rightful owners (the workers). I tend to agree with this, and think that redistribution of supposed government-owned land, businesses, etc., as well as government-enabled corporations, ought to be turned over to the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much all corporations above small size.

I tend to agree as well.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2007, 02:25 AM
JackWhite JackWhite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,554
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[ QUOTE ]
However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability; they are out of a job if they don't do what specific wealthy people/groups want them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have to back up this? For a member of Congress to be defeated, they have to be caught with a dead woman or live boy. Sometimes that won't even get them defeated. Why do you think members of Congress vote for all these campaign finance restrictions? To help or hurt their opponents?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-2007, 03:06 AM
owsley owsley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: thank you
Posts: 774
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

this isn't really a full answer, but wrt to #2, any self respecting ACist or libertarian probably wouldn't have any faith in a government imposed solution to the problem. not only would it not work, it would unintended consequences, etc. actually this probably applies to #1in some way as well. Even if ACists completely wanted to move from point A to point B there is still the question of getting there, and you would have to find a legitimate way of getting there without causing more problems than the one you are trying to solve.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2007, 04:14 AM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory


[ QUOTE ]


2) Campaign finance reform and similar policies: ... However, the only realistic way for all of this nonsense is to make it so that politicians are not dependent on the donations of the wealthy for career viability;

[/ QUOTE ]

Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way. You have it all wrong. The only way for all this nonsense to end is for the rent-seekers to have no rent to seek. And the only way for this to happen is if the leaders who are giving away the rents can no longer do so. Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

natedogg
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-07-2007, 11:38 PM
moorobot moorobot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,038
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[ QUOTE ]
Even that won't work because the rent-seekers will find a way.

[/ QUOTE ] Pure assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
Congress (and state governments) must be stripped of the authority to *spend* most of the revenues they collect. They should have a very narrow scope of what they can spend money on.

[/ QUOTE ] How in the world do we make this happen? Who enforces it? Essentially, how do we institutionalize it?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-07-2007, 11:39 PM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Performing miracles.
Posts: 11,182
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

That is perhaps the most self-contradictory post I have ever seen.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-07-2007, 11:42 PM
moorobot moorobot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,038
Default Re: Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

Ok...just change it to: campaign finance reform is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition ending 'all of this nonsense'.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.