Read "Why is libertarianism wrong?" about the origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Unless you are a libertarian, that is,. The article is not intended for you libertarians, because it is pointless trying to argue with you.

Click:

Well, I read the link provided by Paul Treanor and it was quite bizarre. The conclusion is that 'the fundamental task of the state, in a world of liberal market-democratic nation states, is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the 'will of the people', and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic.' So if everybody decides to take an extra bank holiday in the summer, would they insist that people work more often or make it compulsory to have one in winter? If people want more information on GM foods, would you ensure that the information is withheld or make GM crops compulsory? Where the state legislates on complsory seat belt use in cars, would you make people hang on to the bumper riding roller skates? All would seem to in defiance of the will of the people, and in definace of market forces and market logic. There is no innovation involved at all - just contrary politics.

Libertarianism is neither left nor right wing. It is a political extension of the philosophy objectivism of which you people would have no understanding. A libertarian in europe is different to a libertarian in the US. They believe in Capitalism- OH My GoD!!! yes, capitalism. yet they are opposed to CONSERVATISM which i'm sure you people would enjoy. hate them or love them- they exist!

Hmm.. I'm sceptical of 'free market' libertarians. In theory their position seems kind-of radical, in that it's supposedly anti-state and anti-corporate.

But all too often, these ideals don't run very deep when challenged. I've known too many libertarians who, when it comes to time of war, suddenly discover themselves to be 'patriots' and start waving the flag. Or whose anti-corporate stance turns out to have been a youthful fancy once they get a nice well-paid corporate gig.

In the long run a lot of so-called libertarianism turns out to be little more than a dislike for paying tax!

For me the acid test for libertarians right now is their response to mass detentions of Arabs and banning of Muslim groups in the US and Europe under the 'anti-terror' laws.

Any true libertarian should see these for what they are, the thin end of the wedge of fascism, and protest. Anyone who supports detntion without trial is no libertarian.

So.. we'll see.

This "Libertarianism" is nothing of the kind. Its ultra-free market capitalism, with
nothing to do with the real anarchist/libertarian tradition.

For a detailed critique of right-wing "libertarianism" and what real libertarian ideas
are, visit:

An Anarchist FAQ
 http://www.anarchistfaq.org

This IMC is based in London. Language used on this site should mean what the local usage is. The Libetarians want to outflank the socialists. To know what they mean is difficult. Are they intenton outflanking the socialism discussed by William Morris and Sam Mainwaring? In which case these "Libertarians" are Fascists. Are they intent of outflanking the "Socialism" espoused by the Labour Party when they adopted Nationalization in the 1920s? We can perhaps agree that the destruction of Capitalism is good whether it be state or private enterprise.

Anyone who wants to maintain Capitalism had better realize quickly that it cannot survive without being propped up by measures to redistribute the wealth. Hard line capitalists deny that, calling it socialism, and the system collapses until huge amounts of wealth have been destroyed and the system restarts from impoverished beginings.. if it has not already destroyed the Earths' ability to support Life.

The blunt stark choice now facing the world is whether we have the Socialism discussed by Morris and Mainwaring, or blunder into the Fascism of the American Republican-British New Labour hegemony - backed by the traditionally catholic fascism of Italy and Spain.

Anyone intent on not voting for a party tainted with Fascism will not vote Labour, or SWP because they advocated voting Labour last time. The Lib Dems are the end result of a Fascist conspiracy to split Labour to let in Thatcherism. And the really nice bit is that even a real fascist cannot vote Conservative because they sold Britain out to foreigners and have left Britain unable to defend itself because our industry is in such a parlous state.

And if you decide to go with the Fascist tide - there is not an open honest Fascist Party to vote for. They are all too busy subverting the other parties and movements.

Beware!

From the website, link below...


Many libertarian texts are insubstantial - just simple propaganda tricks, and misleading appeals to emotion. But there are irreducible differences in fundamental values, between libertarians and their opponents. Because they are irreducible, no common ground of shared values exists: discussion is fruitless. The non-libertarian alternative values include these...

____coercion not an absolute wrong:

The libertarian claim, that freedom from coercion is the supreme social value, is simply wrong (leaving aside their own inconsistency about force and compulsion). Non-coercion is not the absolute good: other values override it. For instance, other things being equal, it is not wrong to secure justice by coercion. And when the alternative to coercion is non-innovation, then coercion to secure innovation is also legitimate.

_____ideals should not be abandoned simply because they involve some coercion:

The European Union and the Council of Europe have both prepared spatial plans for Europe. I don't agree with their versions, but a plan in itself is a good idea. They are wide-ranging documents, shaping the future of 700 million people on 10 million square kilometres. Inevitably, some people will suffer compulsion, in the implementation of such a no-one will be sent to the Gulag, their land might be compulsorily acquired. Libertarians reject even that level of coercion. They reject the whole idea of such a huge plan: they think that any state planning is wrong. So, they say, the idea should simply be abandoned: "leave it to the market". But there is no reason to simply abandon any broad and complex ideal of the future of Europe. Grand ideals are not inherently wrong - and they are not made wrong, simply because their fulfilment requires a degree of coercion.

______redistribution of wealth is not wrong:

Libertarians argue as if it was self-evidently wrong, to steal the legitimately owned property of the rich, and give it to the poor. But it's not wrong, not wrong at all. Redistribution of wealth is inherently good: in fact, it is a moral obligation of the state. Excessive wealth is there to be redistributed: the only issue is what is 'excessive'. And of course this is coercion, and of course Bill Gates would scream 'Tyranny!' if the government gave his money to the poor of Africa. But it's still not wrong, not wrong at all.

______people are not absolutely entitled to keep the money they earned:

Labour creates no entitlement to property. The claim that is does is merely a culturally specific preference: the labour theory of value - ironically a pillar of Marxist theory. Other cultures might claim that God's grace, or piousness, or filial devotion, or patrilineal descent, or status, create the entitlement to property and wealth. There is no objective standard by which these claims can be ranked. On this issue, you say what you choose to believe. I say the state should tax those with more than an acceptable minimum income. But what if they are the creators of wealth, and they refuse to create when they are taxed? Well then let us all live in poverty, and let us imprison them, for trying to blackmail the state into lowering their taxes. It's simply political bluff, for a particular group to claim that they are the 'creators of wealth', and that the rest of the population owes them obeisance for this reason. In all probability, not much will happen to the Gross National Product, if the self-styled 'creators of wealth' lose their privileges.

_____the State is not wrong:

Anti-statism is a central element of libertarianism, but it rests on no foundations, other than the libertarian principles themselves. Often, libertarians suggest that 'The State' (the government, in American usage) is inherently wrong. But even if they say that explicitly, it is simply their belief, that's all. By its nature, the state uses coercion of the type that libertarians oppose, but that is not inherently wrong either (see above). In return, the state can end coercion of the type that libertarians tolerate and welcome, especially in the free market. And the State is, almost by definition, the only means to implement large-scale change and innovation in society - as opposed to simply letting market forces shape the future.

_______moral values are above the law:

US libertarians often complain that "the government is above the law": they oppose an entity with this status. The most extreme libertarians see the government (tax officials especially) as a gang of armed robbers: they see the courts as the remedy for this. In fact, most liberals support the 'rule of law', the Rechtstaat-liberals see it as central to liberalism. In practice, the rule of law would probably mean the rule of lawyers and judges: the courts would become the State, and exercise its functions. But the principle is wrong in itself. Certainly, if libertarians flatly state that "nothing should be above the law", then they are flatly wrong. The law is not the supreme moral value: it is not a moral value at all. The law must defer to moral values: they are indeed 'above the law'