"Critiques Of Libertarianism"

[nebula]

All right.

Here's a web site critiquing Libertarianism.

Critiques Of Libertarianism

I haven't had the chance to read it all, as ther is a lot, so I don't know if there is anything innapropriate or not. But at this point I deemed it fair to give the alternative side to all the pro-Libertarianism posts that have been going on.

(Sorry, just being honest with how I am feeling.)

[Steff]

The libertarian approach is the same approach our founding fathers used to found this country Nebula. Like or not, libertarianism has been show to work again and again and the alternative, collectiveism has been shown not to.

Collectivist (Communist) societies rarely last more than 50 years, where as libertarian societies have a far longer lifespan as long as certain collectivist ideas do not get introduced.

I particularly got a kick out of the pro-nationalist (Federalist) pro communist quote section. As if it was an argument against libertarianism.

[apothanein kerdos]

The libertarian approach is the same approach our founding fathers used to found this country Nebula. Like or not, libertarianism has been show to work again and again and the alternative, collectiveism has been shown not to.

Collectivist (Communist) societies rarely last more than 50 years, where as libertarian societies have a far longer lifespan as long as certain collectivist ideas do not get introduced.

I particularly got a kick out of the pro-nationalist (Federalist) pro communist quote section. As if it was an argument against libertarianism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um....they allowed slavery....that's not exactly a libertarian concept.

[nebula]

The libertarian approach is the same approach our founding fathers used to found this country Nebula.

Funny you should mention that!

From the A Non-Libertarian FAQ page:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs) generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. . . .

(snip)

The arguments treated here are not strawman misrepresentations: they are all evangelistic arguments that have actually been made by libertarians. Many of them have been made frequently. Although they are often used evangelistically, we can't presume that someone making them doesn't understand their basis or cannot support their argument. And on the other hand, often other libertarians cringe when they hear these.

Most of these questions are phrased as assertions: that is simply a less clumsy shorthand for "How could I respond to a libertarian claiming X?", where X is the assertion. [The statement in bold is the libertarian claim. What follows is the response.]

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them. Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources. For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of original intent.

I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.

There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a [darn] what the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be questioned."

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning" endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to "plain meaning" are not "common sense".

3. The Declaration Of Independence says...

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Nor should it be mistaken for a philosophical treatise: that was not its purpose. If a libertarian would like to defend it as philosophy, he should rely on sound argument, not reverence for the founders.

(snip)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take that as you will, I guess.

Like or not, libertarianism has been show to work again and again and the alternative, collectiveism has been shown not to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where has it been shown?

[Steff]

Um....they allowed slavery....that's not exactly a libertarian concept.

No it's not, I agree.

Not everything the founding fathers did was right or smart, but their ideals behind the role and function of government were impeccable and very libertarian.

Slavery is one of the few portions of the US constituion that actually ran contrary to the rest of the ideals behind it.

[Steff]

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them. Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources. For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of original intent.

I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.

Sorry Nebula, but it's obvious that this person either hasn't read the constituion or is simply lying. The constitution says no such thing about the courts being designated to interpret it. The document can EASILY be interpreted for the meaning of the time it was written in. The constituion was never meant to be a "living document" anyone who says otherwise is trying to twist it to their own ends. The constitution is very clear on the areas of government it outlines.

I dare you to show me the article, section and clause that says courts are supposed to interpret the constitution.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.

The same federalists who wanted a strong central government that the states said they would never ratify? I suggest this person read BOTH the federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Do you even know what the federalists represented? I suspect not.

There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a [darn] what the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be questioned."

The constitution was meant to be questioned yes, but the meaning was not to be changed unless it was amended to do so. Why clearly lay out what the constitution is meant to do, then put in a way to amend it if you are just going to change the meaning to suit you at the time?

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

And Jefferson was right, but for things to change the idea was that the constituion was to be properly amended and the Bill of Rights were not to be included in those amendments. But he was not saying that government has the right to infringe on the rights of the people.

2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning" endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to "plain meaning" are not "common sense".

This is complete and utter BS. The constituion is quite clear on most every point. It may not be a perfect document but this person is clarly trying to twist it to his own ends. Like I said before, why put in a process to amend it if you are just going to twist it to say whatever you want.

3. The Declaration Of Independence says...

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Nor should it be mistaken for a philosophical treatise: that was not its purpose. If a libertarian would like to defend it as philosophy, he should rely on sound argument, not reverence for the founders.

This person obviously has no understanding of the reason for the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration was a document outlining our break from England, outlining WHY we broke away.

It lists the things that the King did that we didn't like and brough forth the idea that not only did the King have rights, but regular people had rights, not just privleges. The ideas in the Declaration stand on their own.

The constitution was an outline for a form of Republican government, and was put in place to replace the Articles of Confederation, not the Declaration of Independece.

What the Declaration of Independence says still holds true true today. It clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Cherub_Rocket]

Here are some major problems with the Libertarian Party:

__________________________

"We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#immigrat

"[W]e advocate a strict separation of church and State."

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#freereli

"[W]e believe the government should be kept out of the question (of abortion)."

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#womerigh

"We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#sexurigh

"We advocate ... the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation"

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#victcri

[Steff]

I agree with all of those except abortion Cherub. I believe in the case of abortion the baby has a right to life just as the mother does.

[Cherub_Rocket]

I agree with all of those except abortion Cherub. I believe in the case of abortion the baby has a right to life just as the mother does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you said that States have a valid interest in moral issues. If prostitution and homosexual "marriage" aren't moral issues, what are?

Should a brothel be allowed to open next door to my house?

And the whole idea about opening up the borders is insane. It would completely destroy our economy and drain the welfare system.

[Steff]

I said some moral issues are left for the states to decide. If you look closely at the LP platform they are advocating keeping the federal government out of these issues.

And the whole idea about opening up the borders is insane. It would completely destroy our economy and drain the welfare system.

Not if there was no welfare system.

As for prostitution, it is currently legal in Nevada and has never been federally challenged. It is what it should be, a state issue.