LIBERTARIANISM and Somalia
Author
to me, Somalia seems to be a real life version of where the misguided if I suppose, well meaning, policies of libertarianism end up.
Inequality of Opportunity.
Justice through the gun and whatever stupid currency is in popular use.
And no government.
Somalia is the only nation in the world without a government.
the logic of why I think a libertarian state slips into anarchy is this: Less government means more of a power vacuum. Government keeps down the forces of chaos in a society - when government becomes too week, into the vacuum rushes other things to fill it - like armed gangsters.
telecoms companies are apparantly doing quite well there.
[Edited by - kindfluffysteve on December 3, 2004 11:15:13 AM]
The problem with your argument is that you simply don't understand the libertarian philosophy. The whole idea is that government exists to PROTECT rights. Not that it shouldn't be there at all. Thus, a true, 100% libertarian state would have a government that existed solely to make sure that every individual's rights were not infringed. Therefore, there is no real power vacuum.
Yes, generally libertarians support no government intervention in business, so you could argue there's a "power vacuum" there. But does it really matter whether it's a business or the government that has power? Either way, the result will likely end up the same.
Yes, generally libertarians support no government intervention in business, so you could argue there's a "power vacuum" there. But does it really matter whether it's a business or the government that has power? Either way, the result will likely end up the same.
Author
yes. but I dont understand the libertarian philosophy because I have no interest other than attacking libertarian policy.
no doubt there can be written pages and pages of ideologically turd about why such and such a policy is a good idea.. but I dont care about what libertarians think about their advocated policies. I care about what I think their policies can lead to.
Slippery slope of small government.
Small government is a weak government.
a power vacuum -> others to fill the vacuum.
There are two sort of ways this can happen, anarchic influences or aquisitions to take freedom from the people.
Anarchy is one way libertarianism could end up. a government that is weak to non existant leading to order collapsing.
ultimately though, the libertarian policies seem similar to the way communists advocate their policies - it will work... ...because it will.
communists believe certain things but in the real world things dont go according to plan. things dont stand up. in the same way, libertarian policies dont work and dont stand up.
no doubt there can be written pages and pages of ideologically turd about why such and such a policy is a good idea.. but I dont care about what libertarians think about their advocated policies. I care about what I think their policies can lead to.
Slippery slope of small government.
Small government is a weak government.
a power vacuum -> others to fill the vacuum.
There are two sort of ways this can happen, anarchic influences or aquisitions to take freedom from the people.
Anarchy is one way libertarianism could end up. a government that is weak to non existant leading to order collapsing.
ultimately though, the libertarian policies seem similar to the way communists advocate their policies - it will work... ...because it will.
communists believe certain things but in the real world things dont go according to plan. things dont stand up. in the same way, libertarian policies dont work and dont stand up.
I'm not quite sure I follow how Somalia and libertarianism are related.
Somalia doesn't have a government not because it doesn't want a government, but because there has been very little outside intervention/reconstruction there in the last 10 years.
And besides, it has a government of some kind (though virtually unknown/unrecognized), it's just very basic out of necessity and circumstance, as opposed to desire.
Somalia doesn't have a government not because it doesn't want a government, but because there has been very little outside intervention/reconstruction there in the last 10 years.
And besides, it has a government of some kind (though virtually unknown/unrecognized), it's just very basic out of necessity and circumstance, as opposed to desire.
Author
yes, i agree that I push libertarianism a bit far possibly..
..but I use somalia to illustrate were libertarianism could if allowed to happen end up.
libertarianism is to my mind, more frightening than communism.
with regards to where the true balanced center of politics is..
..well its like pear.
Communism is the edge of fat end of the pear.
Libertarianism is at the stalk.
the center of mass somwhere in the fat end.
..but I use somalia to illustrate were libertarianism could if allowed to happen end up.
libertarianism is to my mind, more frightening than communism.
with regards to where the true balanced center of politics is..
..well its like pear.
Communism is the edge of fat end of the pear.
Libertarianism is at the stalk.
the center of mass somwhere in the fat end.
Slippery slope arguments are terrible. Why? Simply because if you really wanted to, you could make one about *anything*.
And let's be honest - If you're trying to cite an example of a libertarian government... Somalia is a terrible example. Africa has countless problems to begin with. The pure "choice of government" isn't what leads to the chaos in the continent.
I understand that you think that total libertarian philosophy isn't a good thing. So then, what do you think is the better alternative?
And let's be honest - If you're trying to cite an example of a libertarian government... Somalia is a terrible example. Africa has countless problems to begin with. The pure "choice of government" isn't what leads to the chaos in the continent.
I understand that you think that total libertarian philosophy isn't a good thing. So then, what do you think is the better alternative?
You are confusing us with anarchists, which we are not. While anarchists believe people have the right to defend their rights, libertarians do not. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe the use of force should be limited to the government and its agents because the moral ambiguity in the use of force requires law to resolve (most libertarians also believe it would be prudent for the government to automatically deputize those whose lives are in immediate danger because of the infeasibility of being everywhere at once).
Quote:yes. but I dont understand the libertarian philosophy because I have no interest other than attacking libertarian policy[sarcasm]Well that's a healthy attitude[/sarcasm]
the united states was basically libertarian (aside from slavery and all that awful junk) under washington. Look where that got us
One famous quote:
"A libertarian wants police protection from his slaves."
I vote libertarian, because, up until a point, I agree with libertarianism.
There is nothing wrong with libertarianism, and nothing wrong with communism, and nothing wrong with caveat emptor capitalism.
The problem lies with the large majority of the people on planet earth as well as a small minority of the people on planet earth.
These groups are the folks on the "bottom"(your average person, who is stupid, timid, easily lead, and thinks that giving up freedom for security is a good idea) and the folks at the "top" (alpha males and such, who are entirely too clever to give up the power they have for "the good of all").
"A libertarian wants police protection from his slaves."
I vote libertarian, because, up until a point, I agree with libertarianism.
There is nothing wrong with libertarianism, and nothing wrong with communism, and nothing wrong with caveat emptor capitalism.
The problem lies with the large majority of the people on planet earth as well as a small minority of the people on planet earth.
These groups are the folks on the "bottom"(your average person, who is stupid, timid, easily lead, and thinks that giving up freedom for security is a good idea) and the folks at the "top" (alpha males and such, who are entirely too clever to give up the power they have for "the good of all").
i was under the impression that libertarianism was simply "do whatever you want as long as it doesnt negatively impact someone else"
or am i crazy?
-Dan
or am i crazy?
-Dan
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
