Libertarianism in non-ideal theory

[moorobot]

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.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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.

[Misfire]

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.

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[JackWhite]

[ 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?

[owsley]

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.

[natedogg]

[ 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

[moorobot]

[ 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?

[Borodog]

That is perhaps the most self-contradictory post I have ever seen.

[moorobot]

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