I mentioned in the Freddie thread that I didn't know much about the Koch Brothers. FC responded with some information about them and said that they were behind the "new libertarian " philosophy. I'm putting my reply to FC here because it would be way of the subject of the Freddie thread. This is also for Tsing's benefit.
I really didn't know anything about the Koch Brothers. Of course I have heard there names mentioned, and knew they were some rich people somewhere, and a lot of folks apparently didn't like them, but that's it. I really didn't know what they were about. But when you [FC] describe them as the creators of the the new libertarianism, that, assuming it is accurate, would explain a lot to me. There are these folks, a lot of them on ET, that describe themselves as libertarians but certainly don't have much to do with classical libertarian beliefs, because they want indiscriminate freedom to do whatever they want, particularly when it comes to business. They espouse laissez faire business practice which would once again enslave the working class in sweat shops just like the 19th and early twentieth century. We'd have more monopolies and cartels. The rich would be free; the poor indentured. These folks can't get it through their heads that if you want freedom you need government, but a certain kind of government. They seem incapable of promoting good government, instead they espouse starving the government indiscriminately.
If they lived in a perfect world with perfect people, I think their ideas would work just fine. They won't work well, however, in a large multicultural industrialized country.
Thomas Hobbes is one of the fathers of European liberal philosophy and thought, and, by extension, of modern liberal politics and classical libertarianism..
Here is a famous quote from Hobbes with an introductory sentence from Wiki: (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes)
"Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature; much of this was based on Hugo Grotius' works. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state mankind would be in, were it not for political community:
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
"
I'm a Thomas Hobbes Libertarian. In other words, a "true libertarian", and by extension a liberal. No true libertarian can, of course, be anything other than a liberal, the word that "libertarian" is derived from! What these folks on ET, who are calling themselves libertarians, are, I'm not sure, but it seems to me there is a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in them -- that much they have in common with the Republican party, in general, and the Chamber of Commerce too -- and they are anti government, and tend toward anarchism; a very much an anti-libertarian position. They tend to dwell on government's power to tax, and therefore put the cart before horse. And what is anathema to classical libertarians -- it makes universal liberty impossible -- laissez faire business practice, they commonly espouse! This alone makes their claim of being libertarians an absurdity.
Classical libertarians, on the other hand, strongly oppose oligarchies and plutocracies. They are appalled by the extent that the U.S. government has put the interests of big business above the rights of individuals. I know of no better example of libertarian thinking than the example provided when one signs up on the internet for an account at an online business and is asked to opt-out of information sharing, or special offers/ solicitations, etc. In a libertarian world, the choice would be reversed, and one would have to opt-in rather than opt-out. True libertarians are very much opposed to laissez faire business practice. They want individuals to be free to make there own mistakes and businesses to be regulated to insure competition and equal access to the market place. They don't like laws that only serve to protect people from themselves. Fine examples are provided by motor cycle helmet laws and laws requiring vaccination. In each case, the libertarian would weigh the impact of each law on the individual versus society, which is composed of multiple individuals. In the case of helmet laws they would probably decide that the impact on the individual is much greater than on society, so they would oppose such a law while wearing a helmet themselves, whereas in the case of vaccinations a libertarian would likely conclude that the harm done to society by not vaccinating is greater than the harm done to the individual by vaccinating. They would, therefore, favor universal vaccination. Libertarians do not agree that businesses should have the same rights as people. True libertarian philosophy is compatible with both large and small government. Libertarians are not concerned with the size of government, so much as its quality.
I really didn't know anything about the Koch Brothers. Of course I have heard there names mentioned, and knew they were some rich people somewhere, and a lot of folks apparently didn't like them, but that's it. I really didn't know what they were about. But when you [FC] describe them as the creators of the the new libertarianism, that, assuming it is accurate, would explain a lot to me. There are these folks, a lot of them on ET, that describe themselves as libertarians but certainly don't have much to do with classical libertarian beliefs, because they want indiscriminate freedom to do whatever they want, particularly when it comes to business. They espouse laissez faire business practice which would once again enslave the working class in sweat shops just like the 19th and early twentieth century. We'd have more monopolies and cartels. The rich would be free; the poor indentured. These folks can't get it through their heads that if you want freedom you need government, but a certain kind of government. They seem incapable of promoting good government, instead they espouse starving the government indiscriminately.
If they lived in a perfect world with perfect people, I think their ideas would work just fine. They won't work well, however, in a large multicultural industrialized country.
Thomas Hobbes is one of the fathers of European liberal philosophy and thought, and, by extension, of modern liberal politics and classical libertarianism..
Here is a famous quote from Hobbes with an introductory sentence from Wiki: (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes)
"Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature; much of this was based on Hugo Grotius' works. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state mankind would be in, were it not for political community:
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
"
I'm a Thomas Hobbes Libertarian. In other words, a "true libertarian", and by extension a liberal. No true libertarian can, of course, be anything other than a liberal, the word that "libertarian" is derived from! What these folks on ET, who are calling themselves libertarians, are, I'm not sure, but it seems to me there is a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in them -- that much they have in common with the Republican party, in general, and the Chamber of Commerce too -- and they are anti government, and tend toward anarchism; a very much an anti-libertarian position. They tend to dwell on government's power to tax, and therefore put the cart before horse. And what is anathema to classical libertarians -- it makes universal liberty impossible -- laissez faire business practice, they commonly espouse! This alone makes their claim of being libertarians an absurdity.
Classical libertarians, on the other hand, strongly oppose oligarchies and plutocracies. They are appalled by the extent that the U.S. government has put the interests of big business above the rights of individuals. I know of no better example of libertarian thinking than the example provided when one signs up on the internet for an account at an online business and is asked to opt-out of information sharing, or special offers/ solicitations, etc. In a libertarian world, the choice would be reversed, and one would have to opt-in rather than opt-out. True libertarians are very much opposed to laissez faire business practice. They want individuals to be free to make there own mistakes and businesses to be regulated to insure competition and equal access to the market place. They don't like laws that only serve to protect people from themselves. Fine examples are provided by motor cycle helmet laws and laws requiring vaccination. In each case, the libertarian would weigh the impact of each law on the individual versus society, which is composed of multiple individuals. In the case of helmet laws they would probably decide that the impact on the individual is much greater than on society, so they would oppose such a law while wearing a helmet themselves, whereas in the case of vaccinations a libertarian would likely conclude that the harm done to society by not vaccinating is greater than the harm done to the individual by vaccinating. They would, therefore, favor universal vaccination. Libertarians do not agree that businesses should have the same rights as people. True libertarian philosophy is compatible with both large and small government. Libertarians are not concerned with the size of government, so much as its quality.