Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw

[SPC]

Regarding the point of my original post, I was echoing what SPC said. If humans like the ability to operate a rational self-interest creatures, they are also incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses.

They are incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system that appoints people to act rationally for the masses. That's why they don't do it.

At least you do not subscribe to the social contract theory. I am listening...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nevermind, you do subscribe to social contract theory. So, a people incapable of building, maintaining, and cultivating participation in a democratic system are (or at least were) capable of delegating the responsibility of nation building to a group of people that (ostensibly) acted rationally for the masses? How is that not a paraphrase of everything AggregateDemand, just said?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that system exists due to a series of convention compromises between those "Founding Fathers" that wanted to establish a strong central government and those that wanted to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states. The Articles of Confederation already had a unicameral body of legislators appointed by the states, so the Senate was no new innovation. The House of Representatives was a body directly elected by the people, so that kind of undermines your argument. Considering that Congress was the only branch endowed with legislative power, I am failing to see the chains of "representatives appointing representatives appointing representatives" that you allude to. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that gives a justification for the lawmaking powers of unelected bureaucrats from the Executive Branch that you see commonly practiced today. And again, you allude to a straw man by denoting libertarianism as some absurd autarchist ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the fact that voluntary hierarchies of merit spontaneously arise in a free market (an observation I have no objection to), is justification for elected dictatorship? (I acknowledge that the last word is a strong choice of words, but how else does one describe a system where the arbitrary dictates of obscure bureaucrats are coercively enforced because the people are allegedly too stupid to decide anything for themselves?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am studying to become a physician/scientist, but nice red herring.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And those people who feel they are too irresponsible to make their own financial decisions voluntary hire financial planners; the state does not forcibly hire a bureaucrat to check off all of their financial decisions. Explain how the fact that some people feel the need to hire someone more skilled at managing money implies that everyone must abrogate power over their savings to government bureaucrats to make decisions for them?

Are you seriously comparing the problems that face society to drug addiction? Do you honestly think that those advocating tax cuts sincerely believe that tax hikes are the key to economic prosperity, but solely due to self-control issues cannot help but advocate the opposite viewpoint as a matter of public policy?

This may come as a shock, but there are issues in society that are not taxes and have nothing to do with taxes. If you're a libertarian because you don't want to pay taxes, you're in it for the wrong reason. You can have a communist/totalitarian/whatever-you-want-it-to-be state with no taxes. Fiscally conservative government policy can be rationally thought out. Advocating a viewpoint in the academic sense like "low taxes would sincerely be good for our economy" is NOT an action.

I was using taxes as an example of a government policy. Perhaps you require a bureaucrat to read your opponents arguments so you can properly interpret the context in which they make them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, yes! I accede this! It is not a stretch. Normal people who aren't arrogant blowhards with their head up their own asses like ITT do not genuinely believe they can rationally manage their own affairs! I do not believe this of myself! There are other people that are better at me at performing certain tasks in my interest. There are other people out there that are more knowledgeable of the anatomy my own body that I entrust with medical decisions, there are better public speakers in law firms I trust on my behalf in the court of law, there are business managers better at managing my work schedule and financial advisers more adept with my 401(k). I went to school to learn rather than teach myself! It's true! It's all true![/quote]

And you voluntarily hired the doctor, lawyer, accountant, and teacher from a plethora of individuals who chose to make that their occupation; you did not have one coercively appointed to you. You are arguing against a straw-man if you believe libertarians do not believe in the division of labor. Ironically, the very fact that you were able to obtain all the services that you are incapable of performing yourself from the free exchange of goods and services is a testament to the spontaneous order of capitalism, rather than the coercive managerial state for which you advocate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So which decisions do you feel more comfortable delegating to an individual or business that you trust, and which ones do you feel you are too incompetent to even hire the right person to do for you?

[King]

I don't have time at the moment to respond. But from what I have read, I think these links could be helpful to you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delegation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representative

[anvi]

Human beings are rational. Being rational does not mean you will make the wisest decision.

Agreed that rational decisions can lead to different courses of action.  But, to me, it's more accurate to say that human beings can become rational.  Even ignoring evolution and speaking only in terms of contemporary physiology, the cerebral cortex, where most rational thought occurs, is the last of the brain's areas to come completely "online."  Not all of the neurons in that part of the brain are fully myelinated until the mid-20's.  By that time in life, we've already become fairly accustomed to perceiving, making judgments and acting in accordance with both hard-wired and learned reflexive and emotional triggers.  And because our physiology makes us creatures with such a long dependency period and thus needing to learn so much about survival through social means, I think that rationality, to the degree and character in which it exists--and exists differently in different cultural contexts, is almost always a learned ability, an achievement of experience. 

I'm not a Marxist, but I do think Marx was, on balance, a lot closer to the truth about human development and the historical and social nature of our personhood and values than classical liberal thinkers often were.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

muh human nature

[Thunderbird is the word]

I wouldn't consider both groups to be completely opposed ideologically. In a historical context both are on the left and based on the notion that ”a man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow." It's just the nature of the oppressor that's different in each.

[Ronnie]

I would say that the problem with libertarianism is that it tries to distinguish between ideal capitalism, characterized by free markets, and the present state of capitalism, which it calls "crony capitalism", as if the latter is not an inevitable condition of capitalism and the former is attainable.  I don't think that is the case, though.  There are intrinsic conditions within capitalism that necessarily lead it to crony capitalism, such as the fact that the rich have always used the state to create monopolies, and thus twist markets, in their favor.  If a libertarian here can explain how a libertarian society would prevent the rich from using the state to secure their privilege, turning pure ideal capitalism into "crony capitalism", I would be glad to hear it.

I don't call myself a socialist or a communist, though, because I think that, if the 20th century taught us anything, it is that state-led socialist revolutions tend to lead to repressive regimes that divert substantially from the main tenets of socialism (worker control of industry, etc.), and either end up looking something like capitalism minus political democracy, or abject totalitarianism.  Anarchism, which would circumvent the problem of using the state to carry out a revolution, looks nice in theory, but right now, I don't see how it would be possible to attain or maintain in the world we live in.

So, crony capitalism it is.  And the crony part is superfluous.

P.S. I sort of glossed over the human nature part of the OP's argument because I don't really think it's relevant.  I guess it is possible to make the case that the rich securing their power through the state is a facet of human nature, but since the state is a recent development relative to human history, I don't think that argument holds water.  The most one can do is argue that capitalism is the most feasible economic arrangement that exists in the present world.  I don't even think it's appropriate to call it the "best" one, because that would imply that it's fundamentally good, and it really isn't, at least in my opinion.  This isn't to say that we can't substantially improve capitalism, but I think there will always be constraints built into the system that stifle human initiative.

[AggregateDemand]

I would say that the problem with libertarianism is that it tries to distinguish between ideal capitalism, characterized by free markets, and the present state of capitalism, which it calls "crony capitalism", as if the latter is not an inevitable condition of capitalism and the former is attainable.  I don't think that is the case, though.  There are intrinsic conditions within capitalism that necessarily lead it to crony capitalism, such as the fact that the rich have always used the state to create monopolies, and thus twist markets, in their favor.  If a libertarian here can explain how a libertarian society would prevent the rich from using the state to secure their privilege, turning pure ideal capitalism into "crony capitalism", I would be glad to hear it.

I don't call myself a socialist or a communist, though, because I think that, if the 20th century taught us anything, it is that state-led socialist revolutions tend to lead to repressive regimes that divert substantially from the main tenets of socialism (worker control of industry, etc.), and either end up looking something like capitalism minus political democracy, or abject totalitarianism.  Anarchism, which would circumvent the problem of using the state to carry out a revolution, looks nice in theory, but right now, I don't see how it would be possible to attain or maintain in the world we live in.

So, crony capitalism it is.  And the crony part is superfluous.

P.S. I sort of glossed over the human nature part of the OP's argument because I don't really think it's relevant.  I guess it is possible to make the case that the rich securing their power through the state is a facet of human nature, but since the state is a recent development relative to human history, I don't think that argument holds water.  The most one can do is argue that capitalism is the most feasible economic arrangement that exists in the present world.  I don't even think it's appropriate to call it the "best" one, because that would imply that it's fundamentally good, and it really isn't, at least in my opinion.  This isn't to say that we can't substantially improve capitalism, but I think there will always be constraints built into the system that stifle human initiative.

If someone were to paraphrase your argument: Ideal capitalism is impossible so lack of political integrity and lack of socioeconomic progress are acceptable, if not stable and preferable.

It is also impossible to live in a world without crime and poverty, but we keep spending trillions to fight them both.

All you're really saying is that material/economic progress is not the kind of progress that interests you; therefore, you need not bother with those forms of freedom.

[Ronnie]

I have absolutely no idea how you gleaned those things from what I argued.  Socioeconomic progress is certainly possible under the system we currently have, but it will still be "crony capitalism", "socialism for the rich", etc.  I am not convinced that the theoretical "ideal capitalism" which libertarians advocate, a system of minimal to no governmental intervention in the economy outside of enforcing private property, can actually exist at all for the reasons I mentioned.

This isn't to say that we can't substantially improve capitalism, but I think there will always be constraints built into the system that stifle human initiative.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I doubt this observation is original.  I even doubt that I'd find this interesting if I weren't sleepy.  However, it's clear that both Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw, namely that human beings are rational actors who can rationally determine what is in their own best interest.  The only real difference is that libertarians hold that the best interest is best determined at the individual level and communists that it is best determined collectively.  So feel free to discuss as I head off to the Land of Nod.

I just don't see the commonality that you see between communism and libertarianism.

As a self-described Liberal Classic, I understand the collectivist nature of laws and legislation and I am willing to accept sufficient collectivism to benefit the general well-being of the society that I am a part of. Laws and legislation are both the extended manifestation of our natural rights to prtect our life and property. As Bastiat pointed out, the fact that we each have an individual right to protect our lives and our property give birth to the collective rights to defend our lives life and protect our property, ergo laws which protect life and property.

As a libertarian, I agree with Bastiat (paraphrasing here) and oppose the situation that we find ourselves in where the law has been perverted to the degree that it has converted plunder into a (governmental) right, in order to protect plunder. And to a great extent has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

[AggregateDemand]

I have absolutely no idea how you gleaned those things from what I argued.  Socioeconomic progress is certainly possible under the system we currently have, but it will still be "crony capitalism", "socialism for the rich", etc.  I am not convinced that the theoretical "ideal capitalism" which libertarians advocate, a system of minimal to no governmental intervention in the economy outside of enforcing private property, can actually exist at all for the reasons I mentioned.

I'd argue that you don't understand crony capitalism and why it's bad for society. We all have an irrational self-preference for our own political power, investment strategies, business ventures, etc. It's easy for plutocrats to cut deals with other plutocrats to make sure the plutocracy remains in tact. The tendency is actually self-destructive for the individual and society, especially when industrialists and asset class acquire a large percentage of national wealth.

The classic example is John Rockefeller who was one-man Dutch disease until the Feds broke up standard oil. When he diversified, he became much wealthier, and so did the US economy.

If you don't understand why libertarian crony capitalism is better than oligopolistic plutocracy, I question whether you understand economics at all.

[Ronnie]

When did I say that crony capitalism (or whatever you want to call the system we have right now) is a good thing?  No, of course it's a trainwreck.  I just don't think that the libertarian ideal of capitalism as a system of virtually unregulated markets can actually exist, as the rich have a vested interest in preventing that reality from coming to fruition.