Fatal Flaw of Libertarianism

[digitalfour]

Show me one million people in agreement and I will show you one million invisible pink unicorns.

[Skeptical]

Show me one million people in agreement and I will show you one million invisible pink unicorns.

Show me a viable libertarian state and I'll show you Santa Claus.

Hell, describe a functioning libertarian state and I'll show you Santa Claus.

[Amazing Richard]

What it comes down to is...who's going to clean yer toilet?

This is what politics is: Who's going to clean MY toilet???

I bet Lew Rockwell doesn't clean his toilet. Who the fuck cleans Lew Rockwell's Toilet?????

It's the "Master and Slave" relationship. It's got nothing to do with "freedom" and "rights" ....it just has to do with trying to figure out a way to get somebody to clean yer toilet.

[Ben]

Libertarians, typically, don't deny the right for individuals to form group. As far as thats concerned, you can form whatever group you like, and wield as much power over it as you wish. Just as long as it is purely voluntary, and you don't force others into the group (like government does) there is no problem. Its the initiation of force that is the problem, not forming a group.

Unfortunately the name Libertarian has been corrupted by those claiming to be such, but not following the ideals of Libertarianism.

In my experience, libertarians oppose government having the power to control, restrict, or end immigration.  Ian and Mark seem to be good examples.  I only heard a few minutes, but in that time they managed to say that a free people (implying by definition) can't restrict immigration.

You have the right to deny anyone you wish from entering your property (immigrants or whoever). You just can't force your neighbour to do the same. If they are happy to have immigrants in their property, you have no right to stop them.

What have you got against immigration by the way?

[ForumTroll]

All I know is that whatever we'd have, it would be better than having The People/Government force their sense of morality and justice on you.

[ForumTroll]

"According to libertarians, 5 guys have the right to own and control property, but they don't have the right to form a collective substrate beneath their property, call it a nation, and own and control it."

wat

Who told you that? What is wrong with forming a voluntary organization of property owners?

[mikehz]

You're right--libertarians do oppose the "right" of majorities to wield control over the rights of minorities. That's the whole point of libertarianism! One group of people DO NOT have some special right not possessed by any one of them individually. Rights are not cumulative.

The belief that groups of people possess greater rights than do individuals is the basis of socialism. If you adhere to this idea, then you're in the wrong political group.

[Ecolitan]

The issue at hand is that libertarians don't think the 5 people have a right to create a neighborhood from which they can exclude people.

Those 5 people can create their neighborhood.  It's forcing the 6th to be a part of it that is a problem.  

The neighborhood we call the US was formed by a couple hundred white male landowners on the east coast.  Do a couple hundred white male landowners have the right to form a 'neighborhood' and require all people of all races and genders both currently in existence and those yet to be born for a ll of perpetuity from coast to coast to be a part of it against their will?

[alaric89]

One problem I have with libertarians is they ignore the right of individuals to come together to form groups, or wield power as such.  They elevate their narrow preference for atomized individualism to the level of ideological commandment.  They go so far as to deny the right of individuals to form a nation, which is the tacit logic beneath their refusal to acknowledge the national right to sovereignty (the most basic form being the right to choose who, if anyone, immigrates).

This doesn't seem consistent.  I've never found a libertarian willing to deny the right of a property owner to control who sets foot on his property, but the majority then turn around and deny citizens the right to collectively decide who sets foot on their property.

This is an unfortunate break, IMO, because in so many ways I am myself a libertarian.  I loathe big government and centralization.  I'm dedicated to the idea of rights and liberty, and minimal government.  But I'm not willing to drink the Kool-Aid to the extent that I'd countenance obviating nationality.  In fact, I put a nation's right to exist before individual rights and liberty, and small government, much less an individual's supposed right to invade that nation at will.  I also think the national right to exist and the individual right to liberty are inextricably entwined; a nation dedicated to individual liberty but unwilling to control its membership will inevitably be destroyed by the influx of individuals lacking, or even hostile to, that dedication.

Are you a protectionist? If so fine. Yes I think people should be free to cross borders. If some wetback buys land next to mine, his property rights are prioritised over my right to be afraid of him and get a bunch of other assholes who are also afraid of him to agress against him. No I'm not allowed to assume he would do a crime and punish or steal from him because of my future predicting abilities. If he is just doing a job for somebody, he owns his person, the same rules apply.
Do you want to get with a bunch of buddies and have collectively owned land some sort of commune? Go ahead.  What in a libertarian philosophy would stop you?
You would certainly be welcome to make a gated community just don't steal to make it.

No, libertarians don't have a completely free society to show. However places like Amsterdam with what many would call too many civil liberties (lack of church laws) are great examples of how that works out. Its a nice place to live with much less crime to do with drugs or prostitution, than places with a lot of victimless crime laws.
Hong Kong is a free market powerhouse. It has little resources, and is crowded as hell, yet has constant growth in its economy.
Not hard to find statist failures, few minutes on CNN should do it.

There is a cartoon on YouTube called the "philosophy of liberty" I recommend you see it.

[gibson042]

You're contradicting yourself.  On one hand, you deny that nations have rights.  On the other, you acknowledge that people have the right to act collectively.  Which is it?  Do people have the right, as individuals, to form collectives, or not?  And if so, what's the difference  between that and national rights?

People have the right to form collectives, but geopolitical "nations" are distinguished by claims of forced membership, which no consistent definition of rights allows.

A question for you: do you believe that the United States' government owns all land within the borders of the United States, or that at least some of it is owned by non-government individuals/organizations?

[Evil Muppet]

Skeptical is upset that libertarianism doesn't leave enough room for some totalitarian ideology. 

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Benito Mussolini

[Skeptical]

A short history of the first libertarian state:

1) libertarians create their ideal state.
2) too ideologically paralyzed to ensure the existence of their paradise, they allow in immigrants who despise libertarianism, who in short order outnumber the libertarians 10 to 1.
3) through force, immigrants turn the state into the very antithesis of libertarianism (e.g., totalitarianism).
4) the end.
5) duh.

Ergo, libertarianism is a suicide pact.

[Skeptical]

Brilliant libertarian critiques of "A Short History of the First Libertarian State":

"Only 99.9% of the population agreed to preserve the libertarian state."
"Our toilets are clean."
"We had the right to create collectives, but not nations."
"What have you got against immigration?"
"All I know is that what we had, was better than government force, and its imposed sense of morality...for a month anyway."
"It would've been wrong to let the majority tyrannize the minority.  Well yes, we're now the tyrannized minority, but my point stands - that's wrong."
"At least we weren't socialists.  I mean, we are now, but it wasn't us..."
"At least we didn't force anyone to respect our territory."
"People should be free to cross borders.  If that means bye-bye libertarian state, well, so be it.  At least we were ideologically pure...for a month anyway."
"Nations don't have rights."
"That guy Skeptical wanted some kind of totalitarian ideology.  We showed him, er, uhm, streetlights are on, I have to go home."

[Skeptical]

A question for you: do you believe that the United States' government owns all land within the borders of the United States, or that at least some of it is owned by non-government individuals/organizations?

I believe possession is 9/10ths of the law.  

E.g., eminent domain.  But the U.S. is pretty good on land ownership.  Check out some of those Pacific Island nations, where you can't even buy land, just a multi-year lease (in one case I believe it's 75 years); the state owns all the land, which is tribal/ethnic property.

But to answer your question, I have to ask a question: what is ownership?  Fail keep up with the taxes and the government will take it from you.  In that sense, yes the government owns it all.  What if a foreign country invades and dissolves the U.S. government, who's going to enforce your claim to the land?  These are all interesting issues but ultimately it comes down to force, doesn't it?

[Skeptical]

You guys should try to sell Israel on libertarianism.  I bet open borders would go down really well with the Israelis.