Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Libertarian candidates are statists

Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:47:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

This argument doesn't hold water. Take the example of Sulla. He was a staunch Republican in Rome, a beloved general, and a political opponent of Marius. He took control of Rome by force, dismantled Marius's military power, and rooted out his supporters while under the mantle of perpetual dictator, the primary office which eventually formed that of Emperor. When Republican government was restored, he gave up power and retired to public life. Now, because he used a position which violated the principles of Roman Republicanism (dictatorships were normally granted for a specific time frame) to roll back the march of Imperialism, does that make him an Imperialist? That contention is completely contradictory.

If someone seeks after or is granted a position of absolute power in order to prevent said position from ever being possible again, that doesn't make them a supporter of the system which they seek to dismantle. It makes them a political pragmatist looking to change an unjust system in the only way possible. Now, whether this is constructive is another question entirely; can the clock be rolled back once a republic begins to falter this severely? Well, Rome tells us that no, it can't. The Marian reforms had done their damage, and Caesar took advantage of the position which Sulla nobly abdicated. But Sulla wasn't an imperialist for setting out on a somewhat quixotic campaign of reform; he was just a tragic figure.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 3:47:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

This argument doesn't hold water. Take the example of Sulla. He was a staunch Republican in Rome, a beloved general, and a political opponent of Marius. He took control of Rome by force, dismantled Marius's military power, and rooted out his supporters while under the mantle of perpetual dictator, the primary office which eventually formed that of Emperor. When Republican government was restored, he gave up power and retired to public life. Now, because he used a position which violated the principles of Roman Republicanism (dictatorships were normally granted for a specific time frame) to roll back the march of Imperialism, does that make him an Imperialist? That contention is completely contradictory.

If someone seeks after or is granted a position of absolute power in order to prevent said position from ever being possible again, that doesn't make them a supporter of the system which they seek to dismantle. It makes them a political pragmatist looking to change an unjust system in the only way possible. Now, whether this is constructive is another question entirely; can the clock be rolled back once a republic begins to falter this severely? Well, Rome tells us that no, it can't. The Marian reforms had done their damage, and Caesar took advantage of the position which Sulla nobly abdicated. But Sulla wasn't an imperialist for setting out on a somewhat quixotic campaign of reform; he was just a tragic figure.

You can't roll back the government that much as president without people noticing eventually. Altering imperialism is one thing, removing government is another. No one is going to consent with government being removed because 1) people work for the government and 2) most people trust the government and aren't going to let an anarchist society take shape.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 5:11:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 4:41:47 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:47:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

This argument doesn't hold water. Take the example of Sulla. He was a staunch Republican in Rome, a beloved general, and a political opponent of Marius. He took control of Rome by force, dismantled Marius's military power, and rooted out his supporters while under the mantle of perpetual dictator, the primary office which eventually formed that of Emperor. When Republican government was restored, he gave up power and retired to public life. Now, because he used a position which violated the principles of Roman Republicanism (dictatorships were normally granted for a specific time frame) to roll back the march of Imperialism, does that make him an Imperialist? That contention is completely contradictory.

If someone seeks after or is granted a position of absolute power in order to prevent said position from ever being possible again, that doesn't make them a supporter of the system which they seek to dismantle. It makes them a political pragmatist looking to change an unjust system in the only way possible. Now, whether this is constructive is another question entirely; can the clock be rolled back once a republic begins to falter this severely? Well, Rome tells us that no, it can't. The Marian reforms had done their damage, and Caesar took advantage of the position which Sulla nobly abdicated. But Sulla wasn't an imperialist for setting out on a somewhat quixotic campaign of reform; he was just a tragic figure.

You can't roll back the government that much as president without people noticing eventually.

Of course people will notice. I don't see how that impacts anything, aside from public sentiment.

Altering imperialism is one thing, removing government is another.

Libertarian =/= anarchist

No one

Obviously libertarians will, and anarchists, and minarchists, and perhaps even moderates who see certain reforms as preferable to the status quo.

is going to consent with government being removed because 1) people work for the government and

Do the people who pay those who work for government 'consent' to it? Does a system in which two monolithic statist parties present the only choice really offer the majority a chance to dissent?

2) most people trust the government and aren't going to let an anarchist society take shape.

Lol, most people do not trust the government. That's probably the one thing that a staggering majority of Americans agree on.

http://www.gallup.com...

And, once again, libertarian =/= anarchist.

And besides, if this is going to be affected through an abuse of executive privileges to a noble end, then what the people say won't have much to do with it. Besides, Americans are fickle and vaguely stupid for the most part; if the libertarians managed to seize control of the machinery of government (your scenario) it would be a small affair to get them to consent. Enlightened despots, if they are suited to the task, seldom have to be troubled much about what the people think.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

With this logic, only those that want to keep government as a boot to the throat should be in office.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:31:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

It is theoretical and incapable of being measured at this point. Most libertarians, socialists, communists, supremacists of any sort, and other fringe folks are concerned with the "apparent" rather than the "real." If any of these fringe people get into power it will differ from what they claimed they were going to do. Libertarians don't hold power and never have.

What they "say" will be entirely different from what they "do." Sort of like how Republicans and Democrats talk differently but act the same. Republicans just offer empty rhetoric just like Libertarians would if elected.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 10:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

What are you talking about? Libertarians aren't against government. They see it as a necessary evil. No Libertarian I knows would want to get rid of the office of president. I would hope a libertarian president would reduce the power of the presidency because it has a little too much right now.

Also, a Libertarian president is going to pisss off the country by making extreme unpopular changes. They'll likely push a popular libertarian policy here and there and in fact not do anything too extreme to fvck over the libertarian party.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 10:31:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

What are you talking about? Libertarians aren't against government. They see it as a necessary evil. No Libertarian I knows would want to get rid of the office of president. I would hope a libertarian president would reduce the power of the presidency because it has a little too much right now.

I meant a more anarchist type of libertarian, one that believes government ought to be seriously restricted.

Also, a Libertarian president is going to pisss off the country by making extreme unpopular changes. They'll likely push a popular libertarian policy here and there and in fact not do anything too extreme to fvck over the libertarian party.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 1:38:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 1:36:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/4/2015 10:31:54 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

What are you talking about? Libertarians aren't against government. They see it as a necessary evil. No Libertarian I knows would want to get rid of the office of president. I would hope a libertarian president would reduce the power of the presidency because it has a little too much right now.

I meant a more anarchist type of libertarian, one that believes government ought to be seriously restricted.

Also, a Libertarian president is going to pisss off the country by making extreme unpopular changes. They'll likely push a popular libertarian policy here and there and in fact not do anything too extreme to fvck over the libertarian party.

That's me. I think government ought to be seriously restricted. A president helps with checks and balances. You eliminate the office and there are less checks and balances. I do think the president has a little too much power right now but we certainly are better off with one than without.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 8:41:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 4:41:47 PM, Varrack wrote:
2) most people trust the government and aren't going to let an anarchist society take shape.

A trend in Young Adult literature is the overwhelming popularity of the theme of dystopian futures.

The Congress rarely gets better than a 40 percent approval rating in any year.

I totally disagree with your assumption, now, and well into the future that most people trust big government.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:40:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

Ideology doesn't necessarily dictate practice... libertarians can still use government to their advantage while it is around. Similar to the way Karl Marx used the stock market to his advantage (but mostly failed).
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:40:47 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

Ideology doesn't necessarily dictate practice... libertarians can still use government to their advantage while it is around. Similar to the way Karl Marx used the stock market to his advantage (but mostly failed).

In regards to anarcho-capitalism... Anarcho-capitalism requires governance of some sort to enforce private property rights. That form of "libertarianism" is statism with the largest private-property owners in mind.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 5:57:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:41:43 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:40:47 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

Ideology doesn't necessarily dictate practice... libertarians can still use government to their advantage while it is around. Similar to the way Karl Marx used the stock market to his advantage (but mostly failed).

In regards to anarcho-capitalism... Anarcho-capitalism requires governance of some sort to enforce private property rights. That form of "libertarianism" is statism with the largest private-property owners in mind.

Would a pure anarchist society need to run on anarcho-capitalism?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:10:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:57:17 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:41:43 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:40:47 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:26:35 PM, Varrack wrote:
If libertarians want to abolish most or all of the government, then are there libertarian candidates who run for US president every election? The office of president is a very statist position, considering how the president controls a huge part of the government. If he or she would attempt to get rid of the government, they'd likely be impeached and thrown out. So what are their real objectives?

Ideology doesn't necessarily dictate practice... libertarians can still use government to their advantage while it is around. Similar to the way Karl Marx used the stock market to his advantage (but mostly failed).

In regards to anarcho-capitalism... Anarcho-capitalism requires governance of some sort to enforce private property rights. That form of "libertarianism" is statism with the largest private-property owners in mind.

Would a pure anarchist society need to run on anarcho-capitalism?

Of course not. That's why I said "In regards to anarcho-capitalism".
You can call me Mark if you like.