-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Libertarianism Compatible with Democracy?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That makes sense, because in a pure democracy ownership and liberty are at the mercy of the public voting mechanism.
Even in a garden variety representative constitutional democracy, ownership & liberty are
always at risk, but less so than in a "pure" (ie, no limits on what can be voted into law) one.
IOW, my stance that it's basically the individualistic equivalent to Communism holds true: it sounds fantastic in theory, but in practice has no inherent or effective guard against corruption and dominance.
Just as Communism is not, in actual practice, community-driven despite the name, Libertarianism is not, in actual practice, based in liberty despite the name.
Names can be misleading. Remember that in California, for quite a while, you could only vote Democrat if you were registered as Democrat. I don't know about you, but that sort of thing sounds incredibly anti-democratic to me(luckily it was struck down by the time I was old enough to vote, so I could register as American Independent and maintain the option to vote for whomever I want). If names were descriptive of value, then Libertarianism would be at least incredibly similar to, if not identical to, Liberalism.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If they hold views that conflict with the ideal of liberty, then of course not.
No, the pursuit of social & economic liberty is the fundamental basis of the philosophy.
Don't worry about a relationship between a superficial name component & definitions in common use.
If one uses the definition of "liberal" to mean permissive, then libertarians are more so than modern liberals.
Also, "Liberal" suffers from 2 common uses: 1) Liberal in the classical sense (18th century America ideals of social & economic liberty with small government) & 2) Liberal in the modern sense (socially liberal but economically authoritarian with big government). I liken "libertarian" to the first definition of "liberal".
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Who? Nah, I'll stick with the dictionary's definition.
Moreover, they're just several guys stating their own opinions.
Anyone else is free to differ, & the bulk of people who identify
as such create the definition by their consensus.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Like any party, there are moderates and extremes.
For me, I'm simply socially liberal, fiscally conservative; i.e. pro personal and economic freedom. I don't advocate some sort of wild west anarchy.
Liberty, and therefore libertarianism, isn't compatible with democracy. It isn't compatible with any other form of government either... it is why the most foundational rights we have in the U.S. were made quite difficult to change. Our constitutional rights are as much a protection against democracy as autocracy or oligarchy.
People only like liberty when it is convenient for them, and they will give it up to gain something they want or use their power to strip it from others.
A protected democracy is the best option we have though, so libertarianism is still pro-democracy.
People only like liberty when it is convenient for them, and they will give it up to gain something they want or use their power to strip it from others.
A protected democracy is the best option we have though, so libertarianism is still pro-democracy.
Last edited:
I'm going to take that last sentence as a vote for compatibility.
(You don't have to though.)
dust1n
Zindīq
Would does that mean in application?
Define 'democracy'. Does a democratically elected government have the right to take away Right to free speech? Right to property is equally fundamental and should be constitutionally protected. A brute majority has no right to use their vote to confuscate and redustribute my hard-earned money.
A basis that sounds great in theory, but like Communism, is naive at best IMO.
Huh. So that's how the liberal and conservative philosophies got swapped.
Thing is, libertarianism has no check against economical authoritarianism, any more than modern liberal philosophy. If anything, it'd be even worse: we'd live in a world not terribly unlike that of Robocop or Syndicate (the latter is an old 90s computer game: "a dark, dystopian world run by sinister corporations... where love, ethics and human dignity all take second-place to the mindless pursuit of profit at all costs.")
Last edited:
And I'm in favor of some kind of government-based economic check against megacorporations and monopoly positions. Unchecked economic freedom would allow those.
I'm in favor of some regulations, and against others.
I don't regard Libertarianism as inherently anarchic. I do regard it, however, as inherently antisocial (though understand that I don't mean that I think Libertarians have antisocial personality disorder.)
We were much more 'Libertarian' in the USA until people got sick of the Trusts that lorded it over everybody else. The public found it couldn't trust large corporate entities to let people be, so it can't just let the rich keep collecting properties and businesses with no regulation. The bigger and wealthier they are, the more they must be regulated. Also the bigger and wealthier a business is the more it stagnates an economy.
The opposite concern is just as true. You can't have strong businesses if the government takes things away from people willy-nilly. Look at the small African countries, look at Ecuador and look at other places where business owners live in fear of government taking over everything they work for. Naturally they don't want to invest in their own countries and take up holdings oversees instead of building their businesses up at home.
The opposite concern is just as true. You can't have strong businesses if the government takes things away from people willy-nilly. Look at the small African countries, look at Ecuador and look at other places where business owners live in fear of government taking over everything they work for. Naturally they don't want to invest in their own countries and take up holdings oversees instead of building their businesses up at home.
There are many flavors of libertarians, just as there of commies, socialists, fascists & middle-of-the-roaders.
I'm in the camp which favors prevention of monopolies. Remember that some anti-libertarian wags in this
forum will cull definitions & screeds from extreme left sources solely to demonize us rather than openly
explore & discuss our views. We should be hated (or possibly liked) for what we really believe.
Why you low down, dirty, horse steal'n, baby kiss'n, whiskey spill'n, gassy, spawn of a milk man!
You can't judge us all so harshly just cuz Father Heathen & Dawny (fellow libs) are so
foul tempered & distant. Some of us are all fuzzy wuzzy & cuddly.
A free market can theoretically produce monopolies. But yes, government can create barriers to entry which
foster them. They're one of the biggest problems in supporting entrenched monopolies & cartels, eg, grade
schools, funeral industry, limousine licenses, wine trade, utilities, code enforcement, dispute resolution.
Last edited:
I say it's great in practice. But of course, extreme versions of libertarianism will be unlikely.
What I support is simply steering government which we have in a libertarian direction.
Without compromise, we would see it be a smaller component of the system.
Is it not libertarian to oppose monopolies? Some might say so, but I say otherwise.
(We're a big tent party....except regarding faux libertarians who favor gov imposed socialism.)
We are not this monolithic evil extreme dim witted machine which Salon.com would portray.
They have an ax to grind, & are eyeballing our necks. So don't pay them no never mind.