Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[UKMikey]

Repealing the Civil Rights Act seems to me like it'd increase "wokeness" rather than be a "solution" to it.

I wonder whether children are fully equipped with the knowledge to decide whether to accept job related risks or not.

 

[merseyxshore]

As a Brit, any time libertarianism is brought up, this is what immediately pops into my head:

 

[Danoff]

Since two parties voluntarily agree, any form of exploitation is out of the question, to them.

Describe to me what you mean by exploitation.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Describe to me what you mean by exploitation.

I'm guessing you probably have an idea as to what I mean by exploitation (though you may not agree with it) but I have no problem articulating it. Exploitation, in the labor sense, could generally be described as a unit of labor (worker) not earning the full value of their labor. In the United States, during the so-called Gilded Age, it was typical for children, as well as racial minorities, to make less per hour than more privileged groups, for the same exact work. Also, it's worth pointing out that a child who worked at a sweatshop 100 years ago, for example's sake, is technically a voluntary agreement, but not so much in practice. In most cases, children (12-15) entered the workforce not from their own volition, but because it was the only way for many of their families to get by financially, and public school was not fully universal.

As UKMikey suggests, a probable reason as to why child labor is outlawed is because of the lack of maturity and nuance among children to make such important decisions. It's for the same reason it is not permitted for underage children to drive, smoke or consume alcohol, have sex, or walk alone in some places. For someone who lacks this maturity and ability to reason fully, it can be particularly easy for them to be taken advantage of because of this, hence the "exploitation" part.

Lastly, I will remind you to be cognizant of the distinction between positive and negative liberty. I know this may come across as gatekeep-y, but to be truly libertarian, one should strive to achieve the greatest degree of both positive and negative liberty as possible. The two are not at odds with each other and can coexist in many instances. Undoing child labor protections would increase negative liberties in the sense that it frees the employer from external restraints on them, but decreases the positive freedom for the children, since they cannot fulfill their true potential if they are, in practice, forced to work 10-12 hour days. Their freedoms are infringed upon in both the extrinsic and intrinsic sense.

 

[Danoff]

I'm guessing you probably have an idea as to what I mean by exploitation (though you may not agree with it) but I have no problem articulating it.

As UKMikey suggests, a probable reason as to why child labor is outlawed is because of the lack of maturity and nuance among children to make such important decisions. It's for the same reason it is not permitted for underage children to drive, smoke or consume alcohol, have sex, or walk alone in some places. For someone who lacks this maturity and ability to reason fully, it can be particularly easy for them to be taken advantage of because of this, hence the "exploitation" part.

That would be a circumstance where a child cannot voluntarily agree, which doesn't jive with what I quoted from you.

 

[GranTurNismo]

That would be a circumstance where a child cannot voluntarily agree, which doesn't jive with what I quoted from you.

Sorry i accidentally pressed the post button as i was posting, so i rushed to edit the post. I left a lot out. Original post has been edited

 

[Danoff]

Sorry i accidentally pressed the post button as i was posting, so i rushed to edit the post. I left a lot out. Original post has been edited

My post above remains pertinent.

Exploitation, in the labor sense, could generally be described as a unit of labor (worker) not earning the full value of their labor. In the United States, during the so-called Gilded Age, it was typical for children, as well as racial minorities, to make less per hour than more privileged groups, for the same exact work.

I've got a few examples where I out-produced my peers despite them earning more than me (due to additional years of experience). Was I exploited? I produced more labor than I was paid for, at least by the standard set by my colleague.

 

[Northstar]

I'm guessing you probably have an idea as to what I mean by exploitation (though you may not agree with it) but I have no problem articulating it. Exploitation, in the labor sense, could generally be described as a unit of labor (worker) not earning the full value of their labor. In the United States, during the so-called Gilded Age, it was typical for children, as well as racial minorities, to make less per hour than more privileged groups, for the same exact work. Also, it's worth pointing out that a child who worked at a sweatshop 100 years ago, for example's sake, is technically a voluntary agreement, but not so much in practice. In most cases, children (12-15) entered the workforce not from their own volition, but because it was the only way for many of their families to get by financially, and public school was not fully universal.

As UKMikey suggests, a probable reason as to why child labor is outlawed is because of the lack of maturity and nuance among children to make such important decisions. It's for the same reason it is not permitted for underage children to drive, smoke or consume alcohol, have sex, or walk alone in some places. For someone who lacks this maturity and ability to reason fully, it can be particularly easy for them to be taken advantage of because of this, hence the "exploitation" part.

Lastly, I will remind you to be cognizant of the distinction between positive and negative liberty. I know this may come across as gatekeep-y, but to be truly libertarian, one should strive to achieve the greatest degree of both positive and negative liberty as possible. The two are not at odds with each other and can coexist in many instances. Undoing child labor protections would increase negative liberties in the sense that it frees the employer from external restraints on them, but decreases the positive freedom for the children, since they cannot fulfill their true potential if they are, in practice, forced to work 10-12 hour days. Their freedoms are infringed upon in both the extrinsic and intrinsic sense.

I'm curious what you think of underage kids working at family businesses or people paying neighbor kids to do stuff like babysitting and lawn care.

 

[Keef]

I never made any friends due to my former libertarian beliefs. I actually lost a few. That leads me to believe that I was an asshole which is part of the realization that convinced me to rethink it. As far as I can tell, libertarianism is little more than an excuse to argue with people, piss them off, and walk away feeling good about what you've done.

 

[Famine]

I never made any friends due to my former libertarian beliefs. I actually lost a few. That leads me to believe that I was an asshole which is part of the realization that convinced me to rethink it. As far as I can tell, libertarianism is little more than an excuse to argue with people, piss them off, and walk away feeling good about what you've done.

I haven't yet found a single situation where allowing someone to make their own informed choices as an adult, so long as it doesn't cause harm to another person* is a bad thing.

I've found lots of situations where not allowing someone to make their own informed choices as an adult, or where their choices cause harm to other people, or where they're making uninformed choices is a bad thing.

I don't think libertarianism is a problem. I think being an asshole while being a libertarian is a problem.


*Or force them into making a different informed choice than the one they had made which caused no harm to another person

 

[Joey D]

This sentiment right here almost perfectly sums up my biggest grievances with the libertarian right, more specifically objectivism. The freedom of choice supersedes all else. It does not take into the account the consequences of choice, and in this case, exploitation. Since two parties voluntarily agree, any form of exploitation is out of the question, to them.

This separates libertarians from pseudo-libertarians. You should have freedom of choice, but you should not have freedom from consequences. It seems like many so-called libertarians seem to get confused that "freedom" means doing whatever the hell you feel like without any worry in the world. Personal responsibility is one of the big pillars of libertarianism, which means you're responsible for yourself and your actions.

We're going through this in Utah right now. People think they should be able to shoot off fireworks, which I agree with, they should be able to do that if they want to. But if their dumbass starts a wildfire, they should face consequences that include paying for the entire cost of fighting the fire and any property damage. They should also be on the hook for arson and if someone dies in the fire, they should be on the hook for manslaughter.

I hate that the assholes on the right latched onto "libertarianism" and corrupted the hell out of it. It's going to infect the Libertarian Party sooner rather than later and ruin it. I've actually ceased contributing to the party until I can make sure they're not going to be overrun by Trump cultists.

At the end of the day, I want the government out of my life as much as possible, I want all citizen's rights to be protected regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, etc., and I want the government to act within the confines of the Constitution. Unfortunately, all that is being ignored quite a bit by all sides. In my opinion, it would be so much better if people were able to do what they want as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Danoff]

I hate that the assholes on the right latched onto "libertarianism" and corrupted the hell out of it. It's going to infect the Libertarian Party sooner rather than later and ruin it. I've actually ceased contributing to the party until I can make sure they're not going to be overrun by Trump cultists.

That's what happened to the tea party. I actually attended a tea party rally and was like "wtf is this?" when I realized what kind of nutjobbery set up camp. Somehow the redneck authoritarian movement attaches itself to libertarian philosophies despite not remotely agreeing with them. The message gets corrupted, rinse, repeat. I hope that doesn't happen with the libertarian party, but as you're suspecting, it seems like it might. It seems like I'm just constantly being chased by these idiots and I have explain that I'm not with them.

 

[Duke]

That's what happened to the Tea Party. Somehow the redneck authoritarian movement attaches itself to libertarian philosophies despite not remotely agreeing with them. The message gets corrupted, rinse, repeat.

It happens for the same reason that so many average suburbanites choose SUVs and giant pickup trucks instead of minivans - it is an easy way to project an (often false) image of rugged individualism. You don't have to support freedom for all, on principle alone; you just have to support freedom for yourself and those like you, because liberty!

The Tea Party was the real deal for about 6 months in the early Oughties, until the invasive species of disenchanted Republicans piled in and co-opted their image. Rand Paul used to be the real deal until he actively sold out to that same branch of the Republicans, for reasons I still don't completely understand. I suspect the Libertarian Party has enough of an image problem that this group will stay away from it, but as long as they keep parroting the 'liberty' line, the general public won't know (or care) what the difference is.

Don't get me started on the Libertarian national party. Just like the Democrats and Republicans have both deliberately moved themselves away from the center, the LNC has adopted an increasingly radical stance. Rather than reaching out to both sides of the spectrum and showing where there is common ground with libertarianism, the LNC prefers to emphasize to both sides exactly where they're wrong. That tactic has met with an utterly predictable lack of success and the LNC leadership needs to go. Seriously, if you couldn't manage double-digit voting results in either of the last 2 presidential elections, especially in [I meant 2016], you are incompetent to lead a national third party.

Justin Amash is effectively the last actual libertarian standing at the national level of American politics. I hope he can keep it up.

I spent yesterday rereading the first 40-odd pages of this thread, when I saw it had popped to the surface recently. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the LNC. I cannot believe we spent the better part of a year and umpteen thousand words trying to explain libertarianism clearly to Brian (MrktMkr) and others, with so little success.

 

[Danoff]

especially in 2020

For me that was 2016. Nobody wanted either red or blue to win... and they voted for them anyway.

 

[Joey D]

So I guess that begs the question, what party do actual libertarian-minded people look at next? I'm in agreement the LP is getting extreme and I'm fairly confident you'll see Trumpkins start to seep into it since those in his cult think they're all about liberty.

I mean I vote for Jorgensen in 2020 since there was no way in hell I was voting for either Trump or Biden, but I didn't really feel like she was the strongest candidate to roll out. I really wished Amash would've run since I like him and I agree with @Duke that he's one of the few remaining actual Libertarians left in federal-level politics. I don't think he'll run though and I'm not sure the LP will be that kind of party by the time 2024 rolls around.

 

[Duke]

For me that was 2016. Nobody wanted either red or blue to win... and they voted for them anyway.

Yeah, I actually meant 2016. Nobody was going to vote third party in 2020 in case Scary Orange Man managed to get re-elected. Or didn’t, depending.

 

[GranTurNismo]

My post above remains pertinent.

Then it seems as if we have a misunderstanding. Do you concede that child labor (child, in the sense of anyone younger than the legal working age, usually 16 in most US jurisdiction), despite being technically, a voluntary agreement between the two parties, is exploitation, because the child lacks the maturity to agree?

I've got a few examples where I out-produced my peers despite them earning more than me (due to additional years of experience). Was I exploited? I produced more labor than I was paid for, at least by the standard set by my colleague.

Given that I don't know any of the nuances of your job, let alone what line of work you're in, I can't answer your question. It's possible that your boss isn't a rational actor and just happens to like you more than your colleagues, in spite of their higher education, for all that I know. I was referring to children (as well as women and African Americans) making less money for the same exact job (same amount of work, same productivity) pre-Fair Labor Standards Act and 1964 Civil Rights/Equal Pay Acts, for no reason other than their identity.

Perhaps I should have mentioned a more coherent example of exploitation in the workplace than simply one worker making less money than their counterparts. Exploitation, to some degree, is inevitable in any market based economy. Therefore although it cannot be eradicated fully, as a society we should try to limit this as much as possible. It's practically law that the demands for wages in terms of workers and owners are diametrically opposed; the worker wants to be paid for their labor as much as reasonably possible, and it's in the owner's best interest to pay their worker the smallest socially acceptable amount for that labor. So, a key determinant in what the worker gets paid lies in the power dynamic between the worker and owner. It's easy to see why a thirteen year-old, a Black person having been lawfully a second-class citizen at the time, or any non-unionized low-wage worker to be exploited, as they cannot meaningfully advocate for themselves.

I'm curious what you think of underage kids working at family businesses or people paying neighbor kids to do stuff like babysitting and lawn care.

And I'm even more curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that a teenager, in today's economy, babysitting or helping to support their family business is in any way comparable to (often even younger) children working as much as 12 hours a day a century ago, lacking almost all of the protections we take for granted today, is in any way comparable.

 

[Danoff]

Then it seems as if we have a misunderstanding. Do you concede that child labor (child, in the sense of anyone younger than the legal working age, usually 16 in most US jurisdiction), despite being technically, a voluntary agreement between the two parties, is exploitation, because the child lacks the maturity to agree?

I'd agree that it's exploitation. Not sure I agree that it's voluntary. If we just substitute sex here, would I agree that despite being technically a voluntary agreement between a child and an adult to have sex, that because the child lacks the maturity to consent, that makes it exploitation? I'd say it's exploitation, but not technically voluntary as the child lacks the ability to consent.

Given that I don't know any of the nuances of your job, let alone what line of work you're in, I can't answer your question. It's possible that your boss isn't a rational actor and just happens to like you more than your colleagues, in spite of their higher education, for all that I know. I was referring to children (as well as women and African Americans) making less money for the same exact job (same amount of work, same productivity) pre-Fair Labor Standards Act and 1964 Civil Rights/Equal Pay Acts, for no reason other than their identity.

I just meant that I was paid less (because fewer years experience) despite producing more. Which seemed to fit your definition of exploitation. Now it seems that the definition is headed somewhere else, which is progress.

Perhaps I should have mentioned a more coherent example of exploitation in the workplace than simply one worker making less money than their counterparts. Exploitation, to some degree, is inevitable in any market based economy. Therefore although it cannot be eradicated fully, as a society we should try to limit this as much as possible. It's practically law that the demands for wages in terms of workers and owners are diametrically opposed; the worker wants to be paid for their labor as much as reasonably possible, and it's in the owner's best interest to pay their worker the smallest socially acceptable amount for that labor.

Not "socially acceptable". Just "acceptable", to the employee and the employer alike. An employee can demand a wage no employer will pay, and an employer can offer a wage no worker will accept. Even if you think minimum wage forces this, imagine that you offered minimum wage out to licensed electricians. Any takers? Probably not. You can even get turned down by undocumented folks who don't speak English standing around at home depot in California for offering minimum wage. In other cases, if you offer minimum wage for a service, like for example prostitution, you might not get total refusal from the market to provide services, but would be unsatisfied with the level of service you got. The same might happen if Apple offered minimum wage for their next CEO.

So, a key determinant in what the worker gets paid lies in the power dynamic between the worker and owner.

Noooot really, not in America, at least not in today's America. I guess maybe in a circumstance where blackmail was involved, or something along those lines. But I don't see this one as a general rule. What really determines what a worker gets paid is the rate the other qualified people are willing to work for, and the rate that other employers are willing to pay for similar work. The vast majority of jobs are offered at something other than minimum wage. And not because workers have power over employers, it's because employers are looking for quality employees and willing to pay according to what the job creates.

It's easy to see why a thirteen year-old, a Black person having been lawfully a second-class citizen at the time, or any non-unionized low-wage worker to be exploited, as they cannot meaningfully advocate for themselves.

I guess for the 13 year old I'd say yes. Because they cannot consent. A black person having been lawfully a second-class citizen can still consent. If you want to call it exploitation, then I'm not sure it's exploitation by the employer, but perhaps exploitation by a government that considers them second class citizens. That of course depends on the degree to which the employer contributes to their "second-class" status.

This is why I poked you about what "exploitation" means. Because I'm not sure, and I'm not sure you're sure.

 

[Northstar]

And I'm even more curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion

I didn't, if I had arrived to that conclusion I wouldn't have bothered to ask you what your opinion was now would I? However instead of doing that I decided to engage in conversation to see what your opinion was, and in return I get what you posted for some reason. If you don't want to have a conversation with me that's fine, in that case I would prefer you just don't respond to me at all though.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Watched this debate featuring 2024 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Mike Termaat in its entirety. I'm not a Vaush fan, but damn, he laid the absolute smackdown on this dude and did a great job of showing how fanatical his positions are.

WARNING: occasional cuss words.

 

[GranTurNismo]

 

[Keef]

View attachment 1322159

Libertarians are lost souls which is why the Republican party thinks they can capitalize on them. See the utter failure of the Tea Party. Democrats don't care because they know its irrelevant.

 

[Danoff]

Libertarians are lost souls which is why the Republican party thinks they can capitalize on them. See the utter failure of the Tea Party. Democrats don't care because they know its irrelevant.

Both the libertarian group and the tea party group got a massive influx of authoritarians desperate to recharacterize their love of authority. This dynamic destroyed both movements. Ultimately the same thing happened to fiscal conservatives within the republican party. One could argue that this exact shift is happening to America as a whole.

 

[Liquid]

Both the libertarian group and the tea party group got a massive influx of authoritarians desperate to recharacterize their love of authority. This dynamic destroyed both movements. Ultimately the same thing happened to fiscal conservatives within the republican party. One could argue that this exact shift is happening to America as a whole.

Democratic backsliding can happen to the biggest countries around. Or even an outright attempt to just overthrow the government for a dictatorship.

 

[Keef]

Both the libertarian group and the tea party group got a massive influx of authoritarians desperate to recharacterize their love of authority. This dynamic destroyed both movements. Ultimately the same thing happened to fiscal conservatives within the republican party. One could argue that this exact shift is happening to America as a whole.

Their refusal to self-regulate and their tolerance for chaos and insanity likely contributed to this.

 

[Danoff]

Their refusal to self-regulate and their tolerance for chaos and insanity likely contributed to this.

The movement that infiltrated is significantly larger than the movement itself. A tiny fraction of authoritarians can wander over to some noises they like the sound of and quickly out populate the people that were there. What contributes to it is a message that they like the sound of. Authoritarians in the US, at least at the present moment, but this is quickly changing, haven't largely embraced their desires philosophically. They have their intellectual position - conservatism, limited government, personal responsibility, and then they have their impulses - punish the deviants, enforce conformity, isolate, protect, ostracize, shun, shame. These two are somewhat at odds with each other in many conservatives today. But Trump is showing them the way, shirk the conservatism, the limited government, the personal responsibility, embrace the authoritarianism. That message has been successful with some, but we haven't reached the point where it's just completely out in the open. We're getting disturbingly close though.

Anyway, this is why the tea party and libertarians are over run with people that oppose the philosophy. Sheer numbers, and cognitive dissonance.

 

[Keef]

I get that, it's almost impossible to deal with the numbers, but I saw basically zero gatekeeping from libertarians because that would be fundamentally against their logic. But it's necessary - it's simply enforcing the basic rules of the philosophy which absolutely shuns authoritarianism in every way. Something as simple as "these people aren't libertarian, they're authoritarian" would've been nice but instead they just welcomed obvious bad actors with open arms because freedom or whatever. The proper amount of governance makes everyone freer, but the Libertarian Party and libertarians at large are basically incapable of governing themselves due to their own philosophy of governance. That lack of governance is what allows people with clearer goals to waltz in and take it over, especially if there are a lot of them.

 

[Danoff]

I get that, it's almost impossible to deal with the numbers, but I saw basically zero gatekeeping from libertarians because that would be fundamentally against their logic. But it's necessary - it's simply enforcing the basic rules of the philosophy which absolutely shuns authoritarianism in every way. Something as simple as "these people aren't libertarian, they're authoritarian" would've been nice but instead they just welcomed obvious bad actors with open arms because freedom or whatever. The proper amount of governance makes everyone freer, but the Libertarian Party and libertarians at large are basically incapable of governing themselves due to their own philosophy of governance. That lack of governance is what allows people with clearer goals to waltz in and take it over, especially if there are a lot of them.

I'm not sure any US political party is gatekeeping in that way, at least not effectively.

 

[Keef]

I'm not sure any US political party is gatekeeping in that way, at least not effectively.

Maybe not the parties themselves but the people in them, sure. The progressive wing of Democrats gatekeeps quite hard and isn't afraid to chastise any person or group who isn't liberal enough. Republicans tend to gatekeep furriners harder than anybody but yeah if you don't have guns and a diesel truck then you're a pansy. It's working quite well among the constituency.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe not the parties themselves but the people in them, sure. The progressive wing of Democrats gatekeeps quite hard and isn't afraid to chastise any person or group who isn't liberal enough. Republicans tend to gatekeep furriners harder than anybody but yeah if you don't have guns and a diesel truck then you're a pansy. It's working quite well among the constituency.

Republicans are trying to gate keep regarding fealty to Trump (almost exclusively to any other position), but it hasn't solidified yet. The progressives haven't managed to keep centrists (like Biden) out, so I think they're doing an awful job.