Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism, and Centralizing Power

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:38:11 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The fundamental problem with social criticism today is misunderstanding of how power works. A few people understand it, undoubtedly, such as notably Noam Chomsky. The broad aim of almost every policy of the government is to gain and centralize power even more under the mask of "decentralizing" power. The illusion of liberty is used as an excuse to create different power structures that are as centralized.

This is a problem with most political ideologies today. Conservatism is fundamentally authoritarian from a social perspective and believes in suppressing free expression of oneself and one's gender, and at the same time handing power to a certain few monopolies. Certain far-left movements try to work toward the end of state-achieved socialism (i.e. communism) which results in a single centralized body controlling everything. And there is a problem when power is centralized like that. The problem being the inability to find nuances, and the injustice that lies when power is not distributed equally. Human nature is selfish. When people have power, they use it for selfish ends. Corporations use power for selfish ends. And all political ideologies are *willing* to centralize power because the power is in their hands.

But this goes directly against the role of government. The role of government is to maximize benefit and minimize harm in some manner, or to maintain social stability, or something along the lines of that. Typically, that involves acting in accordance to the values of the people from a broad perspective so that society remains stable. When the people get what they fundamentally want, society typically remains stable, because humans work toward their own ends. It is widely accepted that the best way to do that is to give them the liberty of choice -- the ability to decide what they want. The right to liberty is, thus, one of the most important rights, and is only balanced by the right to liberty that others have (which includes "preventing harm" because exercising liberty requires a harm-free state of being, and upholding the right to life). The right to liberty is fundamentally a rule that is used to ensure the end of social stability, so in my view it is not an end unto itself, though it almost is -- in that the desires of the people are an end unto themselves. This does *not* represent a utilitarian perspective; "ensuring social stability" in some manner is the end of the state in the views of most people, be it by means of upholding the values of the people or by doing something else that ensures social stability.

In the event that power is centralized in that manner, however, then the people lack the power to choose for themselves and are controlled at large by more powerful entities. The level of control that is resulted from more centralized structures of power infringes on, and harms, the right to liberty unnecessarily in certain ways, and that always happens. We should seek to resist it to whatever extent possible (i.e. from a pragmatic perspective). To the extent that liberty is upheld it is a net positive for society. But political philosophies that rely on liberty in the United States are contrary to the very principle they uphold. So-called "libertarianism" is fine with domination, hegemony, and centralized power. The libertarian movement in the United States believes in a so-called "free market" where corporations can freely do whatever they want without any sort of regulation, and lacking regulation like that, power is undoubtedly centralized. It is centralized in the hands of corporations.

Decentralized power is not only about taking power away from governments. It is about giving that power equally among the people (read: distributing the power). If power is not distributed then by definition it is centralized, which is bad for society typically, with exceptions. To that extent, right libertarianism does not uphold "liberty," and is more "conservative" than is "libertarian." Liberty requires the decentralization of power structures, not the further centralization of them after moving them to a different holder of that power.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 8:38:11 AM, tejretics wrote:

In the event that power is centralized in that manner, however, then the people lack the power to choose for themselves and are controlled at large by more powerful entities. The level of control that is resulted from more centralized structures of power infringes on, and harms, the right to liberty unnecessarily in certain ways, and that always happens. We should seek to resist it to whatever extent possible (i.e. from a pragmatic perspective). To the extent that liberty is upheld it is a net positive for society. But political philosophies that rely on liberty in the United States are contrary to the very principle they uphold. So-called "libertarianism" is fine with domination, hegemony, and centralized power. The libertarian movement in the United States believes in a so-called "free market" where corporations can freely do whatever they want without any sort of regulation, and lacking regulation like that, power is undoubtedly centralized. It is centralized in the hands of corporations.

Decentralized power is not only about taking power away from governments. It is about giving that power equally among the people (read: distributing the power). If power is not distributed then by definition it is centralized, which is bad for society typically, with exceptions. To that extent, right libertarianism does not uphold "liberty," and is more "conservative" than is "libertarian." Liberty requires the decentralization of power structures, not the further centralization of them after moving them to a different holder of that power.

Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Chris330
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:34:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Ahhh, the Lefty University definition of conservatism. Conservatism as it pertains to this country is based off the interruption of the Constitution and the governing principles of the founding fathers.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.
I don't have a signature. :-)
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 4:04:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

No, they don't. That's the point. Nothing is done about non-state actors that infringe on liberty.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 5:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 4:04:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

No, they don't. That's the point. Nothing is done about non-state actors that infringe on liberty.

What's your definition of a libertarian?
I don't have a signature. :-)
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:48:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 4:04:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

No, they don't. That's the point. Nothing is done about non-state actors that infringe on liberty.

Yes, it is. That's why we have the ability to sue in court.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Government can infringe on rights on a much grander scale than any other entity, including a corporation (which are backed by government, so don't make the mistake of assuming that they exist without it). With that said, you're being all too vague in this assertion - I'm not catching on to what you're trying to state as being infringed upon by businesses.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:55:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
You don't understand what Libertarianism is. You don't understand what a conservative is. You don't understand how government works and the role which it can play most efficiently. You don't understand basic economic structures of what is seen as being efficient and productive and what is not. You don't understand the large similarity between rule utilitarianism and authoritarianism.

You've written a long and arduous post with absolutely no meaning behind it. Conservatism is not about the inability to express yourself - it's the exact opposite. Conservatism is about the strict interpretation of the Constitution, not some jumble or strawmen arguments that you made.

Libertarianism is not about decentralizing power. It's about removing government obstacles in everyday life, including in the political and, most importantly, economic sectors. It's not about dispersing everything to a collective body, nor is it about making sure that "power" is spread out.

Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty and minimizing the size of government, and in some cases, getting rid of it altogether. This means that regulations that inhibit economic growth are removed. Restrictions on gun ownership are removed. Restrictions on social freedoms, such as drug usage or prostitution are removed.

You should look up what each movement is about before you make a post filled with no substance.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 11:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

But the world does not exist in this way. We are required to rely on others and others will rely on us. Humans are inherently tribal.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 11:36:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 5:12:52 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 4:04:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

No, they don't. That's the point. Nothing is done about non-state actors that infringe on liberty.

What's your definition of a libertarian?

Re read the op
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 11:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 8:55:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You don't understand what Libertarianism is. You don't understand what a conservative is. You don't understand how government works and the role which it can play most efficiently. You don't understand basic economic structures of what is seen as being efficient and productive and what is not. You don't understand the large similarity between rule utilitarianism and authoritarianism.

You've written a long and arduous post with absolutely no meaning behind it. Conservatism is not about the inability to express yourself - it's the exact opposite. Conservatism is about the strict interpretation of the Constitution, not some jumble or strawmen arguments that you made.

Libertarianism is not about decentralizing power. It's about removing government obstacles in everyday life, including in the political and, most importantly, economic sectors. It's not about dispersing everything to a collective body, nor is it about making sure that "power" is spread out.

Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty and minimizing the size of government, and in some cases, getting rid of it altogether. This means that regulations that inhibit economic growth are removed. Restrictions on gun ownership are removed. Restrictions on social freedoms, such as drug usage or prostitution are removed.

You should look up what each movement is about before you make a post filled with no substance.

In your world is everyone who doesn't agree with you a moron?
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:27:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 11:35:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

But the world does not exist in this way. We are required to rely on others and others will rely on us. Humans are inherently tribal.

Yes, but we can do so without infringing on each other's rights.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:


The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.
+1
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:43:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 11:35:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 3:53:47 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:53:44 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/17/2016 12:29:58 PM, Bob13 wrote:
Libertarians don't support centralizing power in the hands of corporations. Libertarianism supports the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want without infringing on other people's rights. Corporations have the right to make money, which doesn't harm other people, and every person in a libertarian society has the same amount of power in that sense. Anyone can start or support a business to make money. Yes, corporations have power, but it doesn't exceed the power given to the people or to the government, which still exists in a libertarian society.

The question is who infringes on the people's rights? If people have the right to do what they want, that should be ensured in every manner. Libertarians do not believe in "liberty", they believe in "liberty from government." That is the problem--if liberty is to be ensured, it should be done in every angle, not just in *one* angle that inevitably creates the equivalent of a government.

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

But the world does not exist in this way. We are required to rely on others and others will rely on us. Humans are inherently tribal.

^This
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:46:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 8:55:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You don't understand what Libertarianism is. You don't understand what a conservative is. You don't understand how government works and the role which it can play most efficiently. You don't understand basic economic structures of what is seen as being efficient and productive and what is not. You don't understand the large similarity between rule utilitarianism and authoritarianism.

You've written a long and arduous post with absolutely no meaning behind it. Conservatism is not about the inability to express yourself - it's the exact opposite. Conservatism is about the strict interpretation of the Constitution, not some jumble or strawmen arguments that you made.

Libertarianism is not about decentralizing power. It's about removing government obstacles in everyday life, including in the political and, most importantly, economic sectors. It's not about dispersing everything to a collective body, nor is it about making sure that "power" is spread out.

Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty and minimizing the size of government, and in some cases, getting rid of it altogether. This means that regulations that inhibit economic growth are removed. Restrictions on gun ownership are removed. Restrictions on social freedoms, such as drug usage or prostitution are removed.

You should look up what each movement is about before you make a post filled with no substance.

nice
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:48:37 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 11:35:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:

Corporations aren't anything close to a government. Libertarians believe in liberty from not just government, but other people as well.

But the world does not exist in this way. We are required to rely on others and others will rely on us. Humans are inherently tribal.

We don't need a caste system to dole out reliances.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 2:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 8:55:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You don't understand what Libertarianism is. You don't understand what a conservative is. You don't understand how government works and the role which it can play most efficiently. You don't understand basic economic structures of what is seen as being efficient and productive and what is not. You don't understand the large similarity between rule utilitarianism and authoritarianism.

You've written a long and arduous post with absolutely no meaning behind it. Conservatism is not about the inability to express yourself - it's the exact opposite. Conservatism is about the strict interpretation of the Constitution, not some jumble or strawmen arguments that you made.

Libertarianism is not about decentralizing power. It's about removing government obstacles in everyday life, including in the political and, most importantly, economic sectors. It's not about dispersing everything to a collective body, nor is it about making sure that "power" is spread out.

Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty and minimizing the size of government, and in some cases, getting rid of it altogether. This means that regulations that inhibit economic growth are removed. Restrictions on gun ownership are removed. Restrictions on social freedoms, such as drug usage or prostitution are removed.

You should look up what each movement is about before you make a post filled with no substance.

My argument is basically this:

1. Philosophical libertarianism believes that the end is achieved in liberty
2. The laissez-faire ideology is incompatible with that liberty

I never said libertarians want to decentralize power. I said decentralizing power is a step to ensuring liberty and that centralizing power harms that liberty.

And I'm not even talking about political libertarianism -- I'm talking about libertarianism from a philosophical perspective. A libertarian is justified if he believes that libertarian politics will help people by generating economic growth -- however, the libertarian is not justified if the purpose of libertarian politics is to aid "liberty."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:11:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I happen to agree with everything that the OP states. If you look at most Federations in the world today: United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc. All of these States have become more centralized. In the case of Australia, the reason for this centralization in the hands of the Federal Government is due to what we call 'fiscal equalization.' The smaller States of the Commonwealth don't have the financial resources to provide adequate healthcare and education to its citizens, so it needs a centralized authority to distribute this money in a fair manner.

If you look at the United States and the State of Wyoming, it's almost impossible that the State of Wyoming would have enough financial resources to provide all of its citizens with accessible publicly-funded healthcare and education because it only has 300,000 people; whereas the City of New York has the financial resources to provide publicly-funded healthcare and education to its citizens.

Unless you allow States to control their own migration policies, then I believe that the Federal Government needs to step in to make sure that all States are getting fiscal equalization. However, I also concede that Federal Governments often use their power as an excuse to consolidate more power.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:16:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
OP is great
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 6:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
In the Chomsky-Foucault debate an audience member asks Chomsky if the thinks an equal distribution of power is consistent with a modern, technological society in which decision-making frequently calls for specialized knowledge and competence. He responds in the way you might expect: by simply dismissing the idea, calling it "nonsense" and saying "He's never seen any argument in favor of it", going so far as to say that modern technology makes the task of decision-making easier for average citizens since relevant information is more readily accessible and data collection more widespread. Of course, the argument that as science progress and issues become more complex, the mental abilities of average citizens will be pushed past their limits, is perfectly straightforward and plausible. The "bottleneck" need not rest in access to information, but rather ability and motivation to make sense of it and act rationally on it. The average citizen is already swamped with data they are powerless to integrate, as Chomsky's own work would seem to indicate.

However, Chomsky's stance on this issue seems to have evolved some, as I've heard him say in more recent times that he "doesn't see how some form of representative democracy can be avoided," but stressing that the representatives should be "fully accountable to the people and basically interchangeable". I don't remember where I heard him say this, but if I remember I'll link to it.