Libertarianism is it worth it? - I think its not

[indomitable snowman]

Courts, codes of law, streets, other infrastructure, hospitals, healthcare, safety nets, community organization, community defense, peacekeeping, law enforcement
Pretty much every single good that the state claims to provide is perfectly doable, if not significantly more efficient, i.e. much lower price for the same quality, much greater quality for the same price, than is being done currently. And the more the state does, the less independent the people become, falsely believing that because the state ostensibly does A, only the state can do A, and abolishing the state also means that there will no longer be any A.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.​

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Regarding mandatory social safety nets, while they do increase the immediate options of those who rely on them, the means of providing them involves coercion (taxation) that restricts the freedom of others

Does it restrict the freedom of others though? In a direct sense, I'll concede that it probably does, but indirectly, I think the argument is far less convincing. To use an analogy for a moment, consider the example of a parent forcefully grabbing hold of their young child to prevent them from running into speeding traffic: is this a form of coercion? Yes. Does it restrict the child's freedom in the long run? I would argue no, because the child's opportunities and potential are greatly increased as a consequence of them not being killed or seriously injured at a formative and vulnerable time in their life.

To bring the topic back to taxation, I would argue that the same logic applies, because while the expectation of having to forgo a portion of your wealth restricts your freedom slightly, the benefits of living in a law-governed society where said wealth is officially recognized and protected is a far greater boon to your freedom in the long run.

There are methods of social safety nets that are perfectly compatible with libertarian ethics, and many historical examples. The Hoppean libertarian youtuber MentisWave made a video going into the example of fraternal societies and mutual aid, if you need one example. Such mutual aid systems achieve good outcomes without violating anyone's autonomy.

The problem is that these historical examples didn't work, which is why government welfare programs were created in the first place. The reason is quite simple, and it comes down to inverse supply and demand curves: that is, when the demand for social safety nets is greatest (for instance, during an economic depression), supply is typically lowest, and vice versa.

Another advantage government programs have over the alternatives you recommend is that they're indiscriminate, while the historical reality of mutual aid organizations and fraternal societies is that they were often restricted to benefit members of an in-group (often defined along racial or class lines).

Also, don't forget that state-enforced systems risk fostering dependency and inefficiency, undermining the empowerment you rightfully value. Voluntary systems, such as voluntary mutual aid systems, encourage (and have historically encouraged) personal responsibility, innovation, and community cohesion, enabling individuals to help one another while respecting everyone's freedom.

I agree that welfare programs risk fostering unnecessary dependency, but I see this as an argument for reform, not abolition. The fact that there are some people who abuse the system doesn't invalidate the fact that there are many more people who genuinely need it, and I see no reason why abuse needs to be systemic.

Pretty much every single good that the state claims to provide is perfectly doable, if not significantly more efficient, i.e. much lower price for the same quality, much greater quality for the same price, than is being done currently.

Except it wouldn't be backed up by anything. A law without the backing of force is totally impotent and meaningless, while the use of force without the backing of law is tyrannical and arbitrary.

The suggestion that private individuals, acting entirely of their own volition, could provide public services better than governments can is generally not supported by the evidence we have, and the idea that it would be provided at a "lower price" is fanciful for two reasons: first, private individuals and entities are generally motivated by extracting a profit for themselves, and second, in the absence of the state, who sets the price? What would it be denominated as? And how accessible would the chosen currency be?

We have plenty of examples of things that the private sector is not good at providing at an affordable rate: one is healthcare, due to the inelastic nature of it's demand; another is roads, due to the difficulty in obtaining suitable land in the absence of eminent domain, and the overwhelming incentive for rent-seeking as the primary model of economically viable delivery. Libertarians don't have valid arguments against any of this, they have only frivolous moral objections.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

To use an analogy for a moment, consider the example of a parent forcefully grabbing hold of their young child to prevent them from running into speeding traffic: is this a form of coercion? Yes. Does it restrict the child's freedom in the long run? I would argue no, because the child's opportunities and potential are greatly increased as a consequence of them not being killed or seriously injured at a formative and vulnerable time in their life.

This analogy fails because it conflates protection from immediate harm with the coercion involved in taxation. The parent doesn't claim ownership over the child's future labor of wealth as a condition of their action. Taxation is not a protective act, it's the state forcibly expropriating wealth under threat of punishment. Calling that a "greater boon to freedom" is straight up Orwellian.

The problem is that these historical examples didn't work

Demonstrably false. Fraternal societies provided effective safety nets for millions of people before the welfare state displaced them. Their decline was not due to failure, but due to state intervention. Licensing laws, tax incentives for government programs, and regulations - these things, among others, crowded out voluntary alternatives. I think the video I linked mentions these as well, including the nefarious American Medical Association.

I agree that welfare programs risk fostering unnecessary dependency, but I see this as an argument for reform, not abolition.

The problem is structural. Coercive systems inherently destroy any connection between incentives and outcomes. Voluntary systems incentivize personal responsibility because they rely on the mutual interest of contributors and beneficiaries. And this is not just an empirical fact, but a basic principle of human cooperation. Reforming a system that is fundamentally coercive can only mitigate, not eliminate, its inefficiencies and unintended (or nefariously intended) consequences.

We have plenty of examples of things that the private sector is not good at providing at an affordable rate: one is healthcare, due to the inelastic nature of it's demand; another is roads, due to the difficulty in obtaining suitable land in the absence of eminent domain, and the overwhelming incentive for rent-seeking as the primary model of economically viable delivery. Libertarians don't have valid arguments against any of this, they have only frivolous moral objections.

I have no idea what kind of libertarians you've been speaking to.
Have you looked at the gigantic overhead and market distortion that is caused by state involvement in US healthcare? Have you looked at the better outcomes and lower costs of Singapore's largely market-based healthcare system?
Have you seen private roads and tollways that exist and operate efficiently? Have you looked at history to see how private roads were common before governments monopolized transportation?
Have you seen that private arbitration firms already resolve disputes efficiently in commercial contexts and private security outnumbers public police worldwide?
Your suggestion that private providers would charge more due to profit motives ignores that competition drives costs down and quality up. Government monopolies face no such pressure and thus result in inefficiency, corruption, and waste. After all, they are human beings. The less they have to work and the more pay they get for it, the better off they will be.
Prices are set by market demand and supply, not fiat decrees from a central authority.
Also, framing these ethics as "frivolous moral objections" ignores their practical implications. The libertarian principles are not abstract ideals, they are the foundation of cooperation and societal progress. Literally every act of social cooperation and societal progress is done while abiding by (not violating) libertarian principles. Coercion is the hallmark of failure, whether we're talking a communist regime or a welfare state. The moral argument isn't just valid, it's indispensable for understanding why statism fails again and again to deliver on its promises.

 

[Rome vs Judea]

Secular rationalism has been instrumental in building systems of science, law, and ethics that serve billions of people today. Your nihilistic dismissal of reason reduces all discourse to power struggles.

It has been instrumental to our world, but has it been able to discern moral truth, ever? Nope. You are still trying to discern it yourself, right now, and will fail like the rest of them.

Guess what, principles do restrain power when codified into law or social norms, backed by mutual agreements, and enforced by collective action. Your claim that power is all-encompassing ignores the historical reality of principled resistance to tyranny.

Guess what, people who value these principles tend to believe that they are worth pursuing, for themselves and others.
Do you think people don't deserve rights?

Guess what, that is people restraining power using laws, social norms, mutual agreements and collective action. Principles are ideas that guide thought & actions, nothing more. We create them and try to enforce them for our benefit. You either can enforce them, or you can't. Will to Power being the motivating force in this world does not conflict with fighting for principles and resisting tyranny. Saying I claim "power is all-encompassing" and therefore "tyranny always wins" is retarded. The fact people can resist tyrannical force is a display of their power that can manifest through many different avenues such as laws, culture, violence, etc.

Pointing out the consequences of rejecting principles like non-aggression is not a strawman, it's addressing the logical endpoint of your worldview.

You made up a nightmare scenario and stated it would be the consequences of rejecting your universal principles that exist innately in humanity. You should write these prophecies & morals down in a book like the Hebrews did.

They called them Commandments & Prophecy, you can just call them Principles & Logical Endpoints.

your fatalistic worldview which justifies doing absolutely nothing meaningful to improve society because "power always wins".

No.

Libertarians want to abolish the state because it violates the ground rules of libertarianism.

"The state is heretical to our faith and must be abolished."

There exists no state which has not been a detriment to individual freedoms.

Again, humans are not born with any innate rights in this world. Not life, not property & definitely not freedom.

Many people want them, and might nod their heads along when you assert they exist, but it doesn't make them any more real than all the other blind beliefs in this world.

This is not "fabricated morality", it is a response to observable values and inefficiencies of centralized authority.

Observing centralized authority violating your imaginary freedoms & rights proves they exist? To a rational person that proves they don't exist, actually.

But your doctrine says the state is the devil, so you see through its evil little tricks! HAHAHA, nice try Statan!!

if you genuinely believe all morality and reason are illusions,

You've built your own illusion, that's the problem here.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Are we using Roman numerals now? Oh wait, no, the Romans were also child molesters.
What do we dooooo

What do we do, you ask? We return to traditional values.

Roman numerals weren't created with subversive intent. Any ideology that's not conservative exists to undermine what's good, true, and beautiful. It's as simple as that, it's inferior and therefore destructive to what is right. Not as much as other, more overtly sinister ideologies, but it's still bad because it serves no purpose but to ruin what exists.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Nothing but an assertion dismissing libertarian ethics without engaging with its merits. Unlike Marxism, libertarian ethics are grounded in natural law and property rights, which are universally applicable to resolving conflicts over scarce resources. Marxism relies on arbitrary and contradictory notions of collective ownership and class struggle, resulting in systemic coercion and economic collapse.
The utility of libertarian ethics is evident in its consistent application to real world disputes, regardless of whether a completely libertarian society has been fully realized.

Because there are no merits in libertarian ethics. In reality, people do not cooperatively let each other engage in competition and private property rights, because some people are stronger than others and naturally have access to more resources. "Property rights" are clearly not part of natural law, because it's clear that they are socially constructed by human societies.

Your conclusion is correct, but your methodology is false. Libertarianism does not promise a utopia. The goal isn't to achieve perfection (although it is theoretically possible), but to minimize coercion and maximize voluntary cooperation.
Here's the thing, unlike democracy or communism (a distinction without a difference, really) libertarianism does not require central planning or majoritarianism, both of which inevitably lead to power consolidation and abuse.

Libertarianism inevitably leads to power consolidation and abuse as well. Natural monopolies exist, some people are naturally better than others, and people are selfish and biased toward their families and friends. Mergers between firms often creates efficiency and cost savings based on economies of scale. Add this together, and it's clear that the inevitable fate of a free market is to abolish itself and create hardship for everyone who isn't on top. After all, why shouldn't all the farmers sell to Big Ag who abolishes meat because it's cheaper to raise crickets? Why shouldn't the Goldstein Fentanyl Company find novel ways to turn everyone into an addict like marketing to kids and passing out free samples at schools? Why shouldn't all the companies import lots of Africans and Muslims every year?

No, no, that's false.
The Icelandic Commonwealth was far from an anarcho-capitalist society.
Iceland's national assembly was a centralized legislative body. There was no fully decentralized, contractual order where legal systems would evolve through competing arbitration providers. The chieftaincy system was a quasi-monopoly on legal and defensive services. Not aligning with a chief would get you declared an outlaw, effectively forfeiting their rights and property. These chieftaincy titles were also hereditary and could be sold, and this created a form of proto-feudalism where wealthier chiefs consolidated power by buying multiple chieftaincies. Arbitration and legal processes were not open to free market competition in the libertarian sense. Chieftains controlled access to arbitration and individuals had to rely on their chief's network for legal representation, this is literally an oligarchy. Plus, chiefs restricted foreign trade to maintain control over resources and wealth, stifling economic development and competition, preventing Iceland from developing the towns, guilds, and trade networks that you would see in a more free-market society.
Also, Iceland's eventual adoption of Christianity was a decision made at the national assembly and enforced across society. While paganism could be practiced in private, the state's endorsement of Christianity included mandatory tithes, infringing on religious freedom and imposing coercion.
The eventual submission to the Norwegian crown wouldn't have happened if the defense mechanisms and trade arrangements were genuinely decentralized, which would have mitigated such a risk.
I'll just say that the imperfections of proto-feudalist medieval Iceland don't disprove libertarianism any more than historical injustices under democracy disprove the value of self-governance.

The legal system was polycentric, because you could choose whichever chief you wanted to for a contract or deal. If nobody trusted you for litigation or defense, nobody would go to you. It was very much a free market system where people could and did vote with their feet.

The fact you'd get declared an outlaw for not aligning with a chief isn't an argument that it was feudalism either. If I don't work, eventually I will run out of money for food and heat and die. In libertarian land, I have to pay money for the private firefighters to respond to my house if it burns down, or pay tolls to use the roads to access food. Same thing with chief titles consolidating--that's pretty much the same as corporations merging to increase their efficiency. So overall your argument smacks as "no that wasn't REAL libertarianism which has NEVER BEEN TRIED." Just like you'll say Somalia, an effectively stateless society where the only authority are traditional judges each with different interpretations of unwritten law who compete among each other for customers, isn't libertarianism either.

Well, this relative "peacefulness" came at the cost of individual liberty, autonomy, and economic stagnation. The price they paid for such a pacified, theocratic society was an inability to external threats (as you admit with the Eskimo genocide example). The inherent weakness of such a system is plain to see there. Centralized, rigid societies collapse under pressure because they lack the flexibility of decentralized systems.

Actually no, Greenland was not economically stagnant. Their only economic problems were political (the Norwegian crown got lazy in holding up their end of a contract signed for trade) and environmental (it got colder after 1300, so they had less hay so less livestock to go around). Eskimo genocide had nothing to do with their political system. It's effectively like Earth one day getting glassed by aliens--doesn't matter what sort of society you have, against some mean-ass motherfuckers you're screwed.

Stalinism murdered millions and its core ideology was built on coercion and total state control. If you think that libertarianism, advocating voluntary cooperation and non-aggression, is not the polar opposite of that, then I don't know what to tell you. Either you're deliberately conflating the two or you don't understand the basic tenets of either system.

If Iceland, a violent ancap shithole that abolished itself out of existance because libertarianism inherently fails, isn't real libertarianism, than neither is Stalinism real communism.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It has been instrumental to our world, but has it been able to discern moral truth, ever? Nope. You are still trying to discern it yourself, right now, and will fail like the rest of them.

This doesn't negate the instrumental value of secular rationalism. Its purpose is to construct systems based on observable phenomena, reason, and voluntary cooperation, not to discover metaphysical truths. The practical frameworks that came out of secular rationalism have demonstrably improved human flourishing. Dismissing it for not achieving some unattainable ideas is no different than condemning mathematics for not explaining the origin of numbers - i.e. missing the point.

Guess what, that is people restraining power using laws, social norms, mutual agreements and collective action. Principles are ideas that guide thought & actions, nothing more. We create them and try to enforce them for our benefit. You either can enforce them, or you can't. Will to Power being the motivating force in this world does not conflict with fighting for principles and resisting tyranny. Saying I claim "power is all-encompassing" and therefore "tyranny always wins" is retarded. The fact people can resist tyrannical force is a display of their power that can manifest through many different avenues such as laws, culture, violence, etc.

What you have done here is agree with the libertarian standpoint. You concede that thought and action are guided by principles, and that the latter are created and enforced for our benefit. Laws, norms, and agreements do not exist in a vacuum, they reflect the underlying principles that people choose to prioritize.
The question is not whether power plays a role - that's undeniably the case. The question is whether systems built on principles like voluntary cooperation and non-aggression are more stable and just than those grounded in coercion and centralized force.

You made up a nightmare scenario and stated it would be the consequences of rejecting your universal principles that exist innately in humanity. You should write these prophecies & morals down in a book like the Hebrews did.

They called them Commandments & Prophecy, you can just call them Principles & Logical Endpoints.

The argument wasn't about innate principles, but rather observable cause and effect. Rejecting the principle of non-aggression leads to a society where coercion is normalized, inevitably creating a cycle of conflict and mistrust. This is not a "prophecy", but a logical extrapolation of behavior patterns. If you want to refute its validity, you gotta do more than simply dismiss it and mock its presentation.

No.

The burden is on you to explain how rejecting principles like non-aggression leads to meaningful improvements in society. Without principles, the only determinant of "right" and wrong is power, undermining every effort to improve society in a consistent and ethical manner.

"The state is heretical to our faith and must be abolished."

A mere mischaracterization. The libertarian argument is not theological, but ethical. The state violates individual rights through coercion, theft (taxation), and monopolization of force. Libertarianism rejects this on rational, secular grounds.

Again, humans are not born with any innate rights in this world. Not life, not property & definitely not freedom.

Many people want them, and might nod their heads along when you assert they exist, but it doesn't make them any more real than all the other blind beliefs in this world.

Rights are not innate metaphysical entities, they are normative constructs derived from the need for peaceful coexistence. Property rights and freedom are not "blind beliefs", but practical principles that enable prosperity and social harmony. Dismissing them as imaginary does nothing but ignore their tangible benefits in reducing conflict and fostering voluntary cooperation.

Observing centralized authority violating your imaginary freedoms & rights proves they exist? To a rational person that proves they don't exist, actually.

But your doctrine says the state is the devil, so you see through its evil little tricks! HAHAHA, nice try Statan!!

A self-defeating argument if you think about it. If rights and freedoms are imaginary, then so is any justification for centralized authority. Rationally, the violation of rights by the state demonstrates the need for mechanisms to protect them - not their nonexistence. You can't simply use mockery to get around the need for substantive reasoning.

You've built your own illusion, that's the problem here.

If every framework is an illusion, then yours is no exception. The question is not whether illusions exist, but which framework produces the best outcomes for human interaction. Libertarian principles have demonstrated practical success in reducing conflict and enhancing prosperity. What does your alternative offer beyond power for the sake of power?

Because there are no merits in libertarian ethics. In reality, people do not cooperatively let each other engage in competition and private property rights, because some people are stronger than others and naturally have access to more resources. "Property rights" are clearly not part of natural law, because it's clear that they are socially constructed by human societies.

All legal frameworks are social constructs, including the ones you implicitly advocate. The question isn't whether they are "natural", but whether they effectively resolve conflicts over scarce resources. Libertarian ethics are the undefeated champion here because they provide clear, consistent rules that minimize conflict. The alternative - rejecting property rights - invites perpetual disputes in which strength alone determines the outcome. By formalizing ownership, libertarianism offers a practical mechanism for cooperation and prosperity, rather than perpetual "might makes right" chaos.

Libertarianism inevitably leads to power consolidation and abuse as well. Natural monopolies exist, some people are naturally better than others, and people are selfish and biased toward their families and friends. Mergers between firms often creates efficiency and cost savings based on economies of scale. Add this together, and it's clear that the inevitable fate of a free market is to abolish itself and create hardship for everyone who isn't on top. After all, why shouldn't all the farmers sell to Big Ag who abolishes meat because it's cheaper to raise crickets? Why shouldn't the Goldstein Fentanyl Company find novel ways to turn everyone into an addict like marketing to kids and passing out free samples at schools? Why shouldn't all the companies import lots of Africans and Muslims every year?

The inevitability of consolidation is a myth, a thought-terminating cliché. There exists no such thing as a "monopoly" that arises naturally and fulfills the criteria of a monopoly that is bad from the point of view of consumers. In a free society, companies are limited by competition and consumer choice, there are no legal/permissible state-enforced monopolies that use coercion to suppress rivals. It is true that economies of scale can bring efficiencies, but vertical integration sets inevitable constraints on the size of a firm.
As for your examples,

• Farmers selling to Big Ag is not a libertarian issue, it's a result of subsidies and government interventions that distort markets.
• Addictive substances targeting children wouldn't thrive without state-enforced protections like regulatory capture or public schooling to mandate exposure.
• Mass immigration is often incentivized by government policies rather than market demand. If having more voters makes you the winner of a democratic election, then importing voters is a completely predictable shrewd strategy.

As typical of people who attempt to argue against libertarianism, your examples confuse free markets with state-enabled and state-enforced distortions.

The legal system was polycentric, because you could choose whichever chief you wanted to for a contract or deal. If nobody trusted you for litigation or defense, nobody would go to you. It was very much a free market system where people could and did vote with their feet.

Polycentrism in medieval Iceland was limited. Choosing a chief sounds libertarian on paper, but the system quickly became oligarchic as wealthier chieftains created monopolies on legal and defensive services. "Voting with your feet" becomes meaningless when your choices are constrained by monopolistic consolidation. Iceland's chieftains suppressed competition through coercive control over arbitration and trade. This isn't "no true libertarianism" - it's evidence that partial implementations fail to realize libertarian principles.

Actually no, Greenland was not economically stagnant. Their only economic problems were political (the Norwegian crown got lazy in holding up their end of a contract signed for trade) and environmental (it got colder after 1300, so they had less hay so less livestock to go around). Eskimo genocide had nothing to do with their political system. It's effectively like Earth one day getting glassed by aliens--doesn't matter what sort of society you have, against some mean-ass motherfuckers you're screwed.

The lack of a flexible, decentralized system made them vulnerable. Like I said, societies with rigid hierarchies and centralized trade suffer disproportionately under external pressures. I'm not saying a decentralized libertarian society will prevent every disaster, but it will offer greater adaptability through diversification and localized decision-making. The Greenlanders' inability to respond effectively highlights the flaws of central dependence, not an argument against decentralization.

If Iceland, a violent ancap shithole that abolished itself out of existance because libertarianism inherently fails, isn't real libertarianism, than neither is Stalinism real communism.

Stalinism was a deliberate implementation of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, complete with centralized planning and state terror. Medieval Iceland was not designed with libertarian principles in mind. It resembled pseudo-feudalism, with hereditary titles and coercive monopolies. Which happen to be structures that are completely rejected by libertarianism. If anything, Iceland's failures stem from failing to adhere to libertarian principles, not by embodying them. Stalinism, on the other hand, faithfully applied its principles and went on to demonstrate their inherent destructiveness.

 

[kim foxx]

libertarianism is a post facto ideology with no grounding in reality. its the esperanto of political beliefs

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

This analogy fails because it conflates protection from immediate harm with the coercion involved in taxation. The parent doesn't claim ownership over the child's future labor of wealth as a condition of their action. Taxation is not a protective act, it's the state forcibly expropriating wealth under threat of punishment. Calling that a "greater boon to freedom" is straight up Orwellian.

I think the analogy holds very well, because the only way you can dismiss it is by heavily stacking the deck in your favor by pretending that protection and coercion are mutually exclusive in the two examples I gave, which they obviously aren't, because the protective act of grabbing a child to remove them from danger is clearly a form of coercion, and the coercive act of taxation, some of which is used to maintain law and order, clearly protects people from harm.

It would honestly be less strenuous to stack the deck in the opposite direction, because the act of grabbing a vulnerable person to remove them from harms way is a lot more directly coercive than taxation is (for most of us, tax is automatically deducted from our paycheck, and only really noticeable if you take the time to check), while the protection afforded to people as a consequence of taxation is a lot more crucial at the societal level than isolated acts which benefit a single person.

Demonstrably false. Fraternal societies provided effective safety nets for millions of people before the welfare state displaced them. Their decline was not due to failure, but due to state intervention. Licensing laws, tax incentives for government programs, and regulations - these things, among others, crowded out voluntary alternatives. I think the video I linked mentions these as well, including the nefarious American Medical Association.

If they were so effective, then what created the demand for the creation of the welfare state? Why have both relative and absolute poverty declined relative to the introduction of government welfare programs? And why does government spending per capita on social safety nets strongly correlate with the percentage of people living in poverty?

Have you looked at the gigantic overhead and market distortion that is caused by state involvement in US healthcare? Have you looked at the better outcomes and lower costs of Singapore's largely market-based healthcare system?

The market-based healthcare system where government hospitals account for 80% of hospital beds? And where both primary care and specialized outpatient care are subsidized to the tune of 75% by the Singaporean state? Many countries have healthcare systems where the private sector plays a role, and not all are completely free at the point of service, but the fact remains that very few leave it entirely to market forces to provide healthcare to the public, and I haven't seen you address why that is. How are markets supposed to effectively regulate prices when demand is largely inelastic?

Have you seen private roads and tollways that exist and operate efficiently? Have you looked at history to see how private roads were common before governments monopolized transportation?

Efficiently in relation to what? Privately owned toll roads are forced to compete with a much larger network of roads which are controlled and maintained by central governments. Were these public roads not to exist, do you honestly think that the pricing and availability of market-driven alternatives would be quite as competitive? Do you not recognize the existence of perverse incentives, or see how they might be applicable here? How would you even compete with these roads, anyway? It's not so easy to just build another road right next to the one that's overcharging you.

Have you seen that private arbitration firms already resolve disputes efficiently in commercial contexts and private security outnumbers public police worldwide?

And what do they resolve disputes in accordance with? The answer is either going to be the law of the land, or the interests of the involved parties, and in the absence of law, what do you think would ultimately decide the outcome of a dispute? Now we're getting back to the tricky issue of perverse incentives again.

Also, framing these ethics as "frivolous moral objections" ignores their practical implications.

What makes them frivolous is that they don't have practical implications, because they're simply not practical. The idea that things like roads, social security, healthcare, and policing would be provided more effectively in the absence of governments isn't an evidence-based conclusion, but a single-minded ideological one, and it would be a disaster if implemented in any developed country.

The fact remains that the only thing libertarians typically have to support their ideology is a singular moral argument against coercion, and it's not even a consistent one, because it typically doesn't extend to the coercion that's sometimes necessary to protect private property rights, even in the cases where it could be used maliciously.

Consider the following example: let's say that I'm a landowner, and let's say that I buy up all of the land that surrounds your property. Now let's say that I then refuse you permission to enter my property; thus completely trapping you in your home, and preventing anyone from coming to visit you. Would that not be a form of coercion? Would I not be acting in a way that is burdensome upon your individual freedom?

 

[Kovachs]

And said ethical theory is not useful in the slightest because of the ramifications it has on human society and social organization. No more than Marxism makes for anything but an academic tool to analyze things with when you want to be sure you've covered every angle of it.

If it has ramifications on society, it is useful in some way. Even if it didn't mitigate conflict, there are secondary and tertiary effects, as well as individual circumstances of applying it, where it would be extremely useful. If it is not useful to you, it may be because you aren't particularly inventive or resourceful.

I consider democracy, and communism failed theories pushed by utopians because that's precisely what they are. You can have flawed versions of them of course like the West (democracy), the USSR (communism), or I dunno, medieval Iceland (libertarianisn/ancap), but that's just further proof how useless they are.

But again, libertarianism is not a political system. And neither is communism, by the way. The USSR didn't have a communist mode of production. Their political and social model was not "communist". This is not just soviet apologism, either. No Marxist ever regarded the USSR as having established a communist mode of production, and whether it was even socialist is not clear. It wasn't a "flawed version", it wasn't a version at all. You can repeat the adage of accusing anyone introducing nuance as claiming it was "not real communism" all you want, but it just makes you look ignorant. There are many examples of Marxists critical of the USSR before the Holodomer or even the October Revolution, much less the dissolution of the USSR. In the quotations below, you'll see Luxemburg, a prominent Marxist and communist revolutionary in Germany that was a contemporary of Lenin, anticipate and critically engage with the question of land collectivization by at that time the Russian Social Democracy, in 1918, and provide argumentation as to why this does not build a socialist mode of production.

The particular form of a dictatorship of the proletariat as emerged in the USSR does not describe "communism", but a specific implementation of the marxist-leninist understanding of the theory of the uneven development of class consciousness according to principles of democratic centralism applied to the internal party structure, excluding localism and independence of socialist party committees, in the implementation of a socialist mode of production. If you know anything about marxist theory, you'd know that there are a number of alternative social and political models for instituting socialism and even what constitutes a socialist mode of production in the first place, including socialist industrial unionism as a form of proto-Leninism advocated by Daniel DeLeon in the American Socialist Labour Party, Luxemburg and Paul Mattick's councilism, Bordiga's theory of organic centralism, and so on and so forth.

---

Spoiler: Quotations on Marxist Theory of Organization and Economic Development Critical of Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninism

"The defiling of Marxism, from opportunistic considerations, at the hands of Lenin’s international, is no less extensive than that which it has suffered through the Second International. Neither of them has any connection with revolutionary Marxism. The un-Marxist character of Lenin’s thought, for example, may be glimpsed in the fact, that misled by the ideological backwardness of the Russian workers while at the same time accepting the mechanistic conceptions of Plechanoff and Kautsky, he came to the philosophical conclusion that the working class will never be capable of developing a revolutionary class-consciousness but that such consciousness must be ‘imposed’ on the masses by the revolutionary party, which gets its ideas from the intellectuals. In his pamphlet, What's To Be Done, this view is given the clearest possible expression, and the upshot is that without a party, and, here again, a sharply centralized and a strictly disciplined party, a revolutionary movement is - possible, no doubt, but can in no case be a successful one. His principle of organization and revolution is of a disarming simplicity; the objective situation creates revolutionary ferments, which it is the duty of the party to exploit." - Paul Mattick, 1934

"Such a position is idealistic, mechanistic, one-sided, and certainly not Marxist. To Marx, revolutionary consciousness occurs not only as ideology, but the proletariat as such, without regard to ideological factors, is the actualization of revolutionary consciousness. The Party to Marx, is welcome and a matter of course, but not unconditionally necessary; quite apart from the further consideration that revolutionary consciousness can also manifest itself in other than the party forms." - Paul Mattick, 1934

"It is a mistake to believe that it is possible to substitute “provisionally” the absolute power of a Central Committee (acting somehow by “tacit delegation”) for the yet unrealizable rule of the majority of conscious workers in the party, and in this way replace the open control of the working masses over the party organs with the reverse control by the Central Committee over the revolutionary proletariat.

The history of the Russian labor movement suggests the doubtful value of such centralism. An all-powerful center, invested, as Lenin would have it, with the unlimited right to control and intervene, would be an absurdity if its authority applied only to technical questions, such as the administration of funds, the distribution of tasks among propagandists and agitators, the transportation and circulation of printed matter. The political purpose of an organ having such great powers only if those powers apply to the elaboration of a uniform plan of action, if the central organ assumes the initiative of a vast revolutionary act." - Rosa Luxemburg, 1905

"Granting, as Lenin wants, such absolute powers of a negative character to the top organ of the party, we strengthen, to a dangerous extent, the conservatism inherent in such an organ. If the tactics of the socialist party are not to be the creation of a Central Committee but of the whole party, or, still better, of the whole labor movement, then it is clear that the party sections and federations need the liberty of action which alone will permit them to develop their revolutionary initiative and to utilize all the resources of the situation. The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of the sterile spirit of the overseer. It is not a positive and creative spirit. Lenin’s concern is not so much to make the activity of the party more fruitful as to control the party – to narrow the movement rather than to develop it, to bind rather than to unify it." - Rosa Luxemburg, 1905

"Now the slogan launched by the Bolsheviks, immediate seizure and distribution of the land by the peasants, necessarily tended in the opposite direction. Not only is it not a socialist measure; it even cuts off the way to such measures; it piles up insurmountable obstacles to the socialist transformation of agrarian agriculture.

The seizure of the landed estates by the peasants according to the short and precise slogan of Lenin and his friends – “Go and take the land for yourselves” – simply led to the sudden, chaotic conversion of large landownership into peasant landownership. What was created is not social property but a new form of private property, namely, the breaking up of large estates into medium and small estates, or relatively advanced large units of production into primitive small units which operate with technical means from the time of the Pharaohs." - Rosa Luxemburg, 1918

"The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties." - Rosa Luxemburg, 1918

These are a few selected quotes from the introduction written by Paul Mattick to Leninism or Marxism, by Rosa Luxemburg, and from the text itself, which is otherwise known as Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy. Further quotations are taken from The Russian Revolution, written in 1918.

---

"The one-legged conclusion regarding economic organization and activity fatedly abuts, in the end, in pure and simple bombism, as exemplified in the A. F. of L., despite its Civic Federation and Militia of Christ affiliations, as well as by the anarcho-syndicalist so-called Chicago I.W.W.,”the Bakouninism, in short, against which the genius of Marx struggled and warned.

The one-legged conclusion regarding political organization and activity as fatedly abuts, in the end, in pure and simple ballotism, as already numerously and lamentably exemplified in the Socialist Party, -- likewise struggled and warned against by Marx as “parliamentary idiocy.”

Industrial Unionism, free from optical illusions, is clear upon the goal the substitution of the political State with the Industrial Government. Clearness of vision renders Industrial Unionism immune both to the Anarch self-deceit of the “No government!” slogan, together with all the mischief that flows therefrom, and to the politician’s “parliamentary idiocy” of looking to legislation for the overthrow of class rule.

The Industrial Union grasps the principle: “No government, no organization; no organization, no co-operative labor; no co-operative labor, no abundance for all without arduous toil, hence, no freedom." -- Hence, the Industrial Union aims at a democratically centralized government, accompanied by the democratically requisite “local self-rule.”" - Daniel DeLeon, 1913.

This is from an article, Industrial Unionism, written in 1913. The Socialist Industrial Union model is far more tolerant of localism and of a general strike as a form of revolutionary action. DeLeon even argued for a "bloodless" revolution.

---

"The illusion of democracy is that the majority always knows the best way ahead, and that by voting each individual carries the same weight and influence. A criticism of this idea is implicit in Marxist thought, and this criticism not only rebuts the monumental swindle of bourgeois parliamentarianism, but also applies to the majority principle being utilised within the revolutionary state, the economic organisations of the working class and even to our party, with the exception of situations where alternative organisational choices do not exist. Nobody knows better than we Marxists the importance of organised minorities and the absolute necessity, for the proletarian class and the party that directs it, to act in a strictly disciplined manner and in strict accord with the party's policy.

But if we are thus liberated from any egalitarian and democratic prejudice, that still should not lead us to base our action on a new or different prejudice which is the formal and metaphysical negation of the former. In this sense, we make reference to what written in the first part of the article on the national question (Prometeo no. 4) on how to face the great problems of communism.

The expression used in the texts of the International, “democratic centralism”, indicates sufficiently that the practice and rules of Communist parties are somehow at a half way house between absolute centralism and absolute democracy, and comrade Trotsky has drawn attention to this in a letter which has given rise to large debates amongst the Russian comrades.

Let us however say straightaway that if we are not able to seek a solution for revolutionary problems by appealing to the traditional abstract principles of Liberty or Authority, we do not find it any more expedient to look for a solution in a mixture of the two, as if they were fundamental ingredients to be combined.

For us, the communist position on the question of organisation and discipline should be more complete, satisfactory and original. To define it briefly, we have for a long time preferred the expression “organic centralism”, thus indicating that we are against any autonomist federalism, and that we accept the term centralism for its meaning of synthesis and unity, as opposed to the almost random and “liberal” association of forces arisen from the most varied independent initiatives. As concerns a more thorough development of the above conclusion, we believe it can be derived, far better than from the continuation of this study of which we are giving here a mere preliminary outline, from texts that are likely to be discussed in the fifth world Communist Congress. In part, the problem is also dealt with in the theses on tactics for the fourth Congress." - Bordiga, 1924.

This is from Communist Organization and Discipline, written in 1924. Bordiga criticizes Trotsky-Leninist "Democratic Centralism" from the opposite direction as Luxemburg and Mattick, arguing that it is not centralist enough.

---

Marxism is not a utopian worldview or ideology. Marx explicitly defined scientific socialism (he did not refer to marxists of his time as Marxists) in part as opposition to utopian socialism. Not everything is utopian. Communism, as a broader concept encompassing many of those same utopians, is decidedly less clear on this point than Marxism specifically, but is not at all unambigously utopian.

Returning to libertarianism, since that is the topic of the thread, it is similarly more complex than you are trying to present it as. What you do is you take an extremely reductive caricature of libertarianism (and communism) according to a more colloqual understanding of what you think those terms mean, and when people point out that there is more nuance involved you default to claiming that they are being fallacious in some way by explaining what terms they are using. In many cases, the concerns you have with libertarianism (or communism) as you conceive of it are shared by the very people you are arguing with, but this insistence on a sattelite view of these topics makes it hard to discuss anything relating to these topics. All you're doing is pointing at clouds.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Returning to libertarianism, since that is the topic of the thread, it is similarly more complex than you are trying to present it as.

I would argue the opposite of the case.
Libertarianism at its core is extremely simple, just what happens when it is consistently practiced can turn out to be very complex.

I'm pretty sure I've said this a few pages ago, but here is a very concise definition of libertarianism:

1. Each person is prima facie the owner of his own body.
2. Initially unowned external objects can be appropriated through transformation or embordering - the first/prior user of a previously unowned thing has a prima facie better claim than a second/later claimant.
3. Property titles may only be transferred from a prior to a later person by voluntary means such as barter, trade, purchase, gift, bequeathing, donation, etc.pp.
4. Aggression is defined in terms of invasion of property borders - and property rights are assigned on the basis of self-ownership in case of bodies, prior possession in homesteading, and contractual transfer of title in the case of other things.

That's libertarianism. Everything that violates any part of any of these rules cannot be honestly identified as libertarianism.
When you read this, you should realize that almost everybody already obeys these rules almost all of the time. In fact, while you are writing a reply in this thread, you are making use of your own body, your own hardware, and not violating any other's rights (at least hopefully).

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Marxism is not a utopian worldview or ideology. Marx explicitly defined scientific socialism

Marxists are just pseuds who define their beliefs as scientific. Even much of your post can be boiled down to "it wasn't real communism" , or some non-sense like that. You waste peoples' time with unnecessary pedantry that has no actual value to real life problems. Useless, repetitive erudition ad nauseam.

 

[Kovachs]

Marxists are just pseuds who define their beliefs as scientific.

That doesn't mean they are utopian.

Even much of your post can be boiled down to "it wasn't real communism" , or some non-sense like that.

You don't even know what communism is.

You waste peoples' time with unnecessary pedantry that has no actual value to real life problems. Useless, repetitive erudition ad nauseam.

Oh God, forgive me for wasting the time of retards on a Kiwifarms thread. You're so fucking important. Why don't you get back to solving those "real life problems"?

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

That doesn't mean they are utopian.

This is no different than what trannies do about their gender. It's not even worth anyone taking you seriously if you actually think like this.

You don't even know what communism is.

Communists are too retarded to even agree on what is communism, could be, or how it could work. That's why you spend most of your time online larping, or shooting each other in circle firing squads over definitions. You're bit of ahead of yourself there. In all, it's just a waste of time for people who should commit harakiri. People who say this, and you guys do this all the time, are just left curves thinking they're right curves.

You're so fucking important. Why don't you get back to solving those "real life problems"?

You're actually right despite being facetious. I was actually giving people advice on how to find housing, and that's way more useful than caring about the opinions of some dude who thinks "Deleonism", and "commodity mode of production in the USSR" is something the average working class person cares about. Just some advice before I go. It wouldn't kill you to stop being so out of touch with people and reality.

 

[Kovachs]

This is no different than what trannies do about their gender. It's not even worth anyone taking you seriously if you actually think like this.

It has nothing to with what trannies do with their gender.

Communists are too retarded to even agree on what is communism, could be, or how it could work. That's why you spend most of your time online larping, or shooting each other in circle firing squads over definitions. You're bit of ahead of yourself there. In all, it's just a waste of time for people who should commit harakiri. People who say this, and you guys do this all the time, are just left curves thinking they're right curves.

You're actually right despite being facetious. I was actually giving people advice on how to find housing, and that's way more useful than caring about the opinions of some dude who thinks "Deleonism", and "commodity mode of production in the USSR" is something the average working class person cares about. Just some advice before I go. It wouldn't kill you to stop being so out of touch with people and reality.

A little heavy on the second person plural you there, retard. I'm not a communist (or a libertarian, for that matter). It doesn't take a communist to point out you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If you'd address the actual core issues here, you'd see how embarrassing this little piss fit you are having is. We aren't going in circles over definitions. What's happening is that someone with a more concrete understanding of these concepts (i.e libertarianism) is disputing a strawman built by ignorant fucks like you, which you and others then dismiss as a rhetorical strategy akin to saying "not real communism".

The reason why you think all of this is vague is because you don't understand fuck all about either libertarianism or communism. Then you want to hide behind this appeal to pragmatism or of me ignoring "real problems". Get out of here with that self-serving nonsense. Nothing about your own laziness and ignorance means you are any more equipped to deal with "real world problems". It certainly doesn't prove this bullshit rustic practical reason you want to portray yourself as having. You are not a down and low working man communicating the raw facts of reality to those out of touch. You're on a internet forum, and are a faggot retard like the rest of us.

 

[The Internet Dick]

so is Libertarianism is it worth it or do you throw it in the bin?

Leave people alone to live their lives as they see fit is a powerful political message. Too bad Libertarians are and have always been the worst possible carriers of that message.