Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndyMcConachie | Hacker News Reader

How is blatant capitalism in conflict with libertarianism?

I ask this question genuinely because I never know what Americans mean when they use the term libertarian with a small L. What specifically about this ideology is being broken here?

I understand American libertarianism to be based in selfishness and greed to the collective benefit of society. So that if we're all greedy and act out of our own best interest society as a whole benefits from increased wealth creation. What about Palantir contradicts this?

View on HN

American libertarianism is about excluding the government from as much as you possibly can. Mass surveillance of a states citizens if practically the antithesis of that.

I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. For example, it's wrong for the government to surveil all its citizens but fine for a private company to do so, even if the end result makes life just as untenable (e.g. unable to get a job/housing because of credit checks, get access to healthcare because of pre-existing conditions). Given the trajectory of American democracy, it's hard to look at libertarianism as anything other than an ideological ruse to dismantle all the protections preventing an authoritarian Capitalist state.

>I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government.

That's not really the libertarian mentality. It's closer to something like, any power (or just about any power) in the hands of a state with a legitimate monopoly on violence is unacceptable.

That mentality then manifests itself in policy proposals in a number of ways including decentralized military and police power (states rights, militias, second amendment, etc) as well as limited powers within jurisdictions, especially federal.

The difference is very very simple: the government has the legitimized use of force. Private corporations don't. A private corporation can't force me to do anything. Only the government can. If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property. I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal.

I'll also point out that your comments about libertarianism seem to be misguided. Libertarians are the first to defend constitutional rights, because those rights include core, fundamental libertarian tenets, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like seeing them mischaracterized.

> A private corporation can't force me to do anything.

unless they are paid to be the local police force.

> If a private corporation came to try arrest me for not paying a bill that I contest, I can kill them for breaking into my property.

then they would bring much larger guns.

> I can't kill a government official over the same - with the government I have no natural recourse, only legal.

you can vote. With Blackwater in charge, you cannot (unless you are wealthy and powerful, of course).

All of that is a result of government action and the government hiring private corporations, not private corporations acting on their own.

nonsense. Let's go to libertarian land. There's no government for internal affairs. We live in a town. Are there any police? No police? Really? Of course there are police. The townspeople got tired of all the poors breaking into their houses and shops and whatnot, didn't feel like all individually standing outside holding guard all night, got together to pool their money and hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into. And that police force is easily corruptible by the wealthiest members of the town who decided they don't like you very much.

It's just like software. Any community needs to have some degree of shared resources, and in the absense of government this leads them to "roll your own". You're in the same reinventing the wheel problem except real lives are at stake.

This has nothing to do with libertarianism nor serves as a coherent critique of it. In fact, some of your points are things that we see readily in governments today. As an example, many corrupt police officers exist in many government systems, including western countries. A critique of libertarianism based on such things is not well thought out.

we live in a democracy. In Ferguson, police were abusive and corrupt. Mass protests followed, media attention was gathered, changes were made.

In libertarian land, mass protests against police corruption and abuse occur, the media is not allowed to enter, the protestors are all shot on sight. The end. The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government.

Or maybe it doesn't happen. In hypothetical land anything goes!

> The burden is on libertarians to explain exactly why this would not happen in the absense of any democratically elected government.

This is why libertarian constitution is designed to be simple and objective, as much as possible. Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it. The philosophy also happen to rely on technology to enforce the constitution which rules out subjectiveness/corruption considerably.

Also though there are many variations in libertarianism but none of it will interfere between two consenting adults (such as buying drugs etc). Thus no wars on drugs.

> Corruption can happen anywhere but libertarian governments would be among the last to have it.

which, as pointed out, is completely hypothetical and additionally defies common sense. burden is on libertarians to prove this extraordinary claim. unfortunately, most non-libertarians don't know/care enough about the whole issue to even demand such proof which is why we are stuck with all this "soft" libertarianism roaming about causing great damage.

My claim is: highly objective criminal-code/constitution ==> low corruption. Do you disagree with this ? Any couter examples.

Note: "jailtime += 20yrs if skin_color==black" is objective but not libertarian.

> ... hired a police force to handle the issue and built a jail to throw all the poors into

Violates NAP. Cant Happen.

But the state police does have constitution-granted right to confine you for repeatedly violating NAP such as by breaking into people's homes.

NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Your claim is that non-ethical behavior in all humans will vanish when governments no longer exist (going against literally all of written history). Burden of proof.

> NAP by definition is an ethical stance.

Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.

who enforces it?

Police.

this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry. If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion). Random small communities pooling together? (then you have the wealthiest and most powerful citizens owning the police. in other parts of the world these people are called "warlords").

edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_domi...

> The other major consideration in categorizing warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perceptions of "nation." In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. American historian David G. Herrmann noted, "Warlordism is the default condition of humanity."[5]

So, that's the highly "pure" form of libertarianism discussed in this thread (e.g., no government). A highly libertarian state is by definition very "weak" and we can observe that warlordism rises out of such states (as common sense would suggest in any case). Been there, done that.

> this entire subthread is entertaining the notion that a true libertarian society would have no government capable of using force against the citizenry.

Libertarianism in simple terms means emphasis on individualism and removing state from public welfare, education etc. These are the defining characterstics.

In all varitions of libertarianism except ancap, there is a government. It enforces a minimal constitution. Govt employs people such as police to enfoce it. Police are granted liberties that noone else have. Govt will be funded, most likely, with a flat amount "tax" per head.

> If the "police" here are hired as a private contractor, who is hiring them? the government ? (then you have government coercion).

Why its not coercion ? Because everyone explicitly consent to the constitution/govt. A democracy can only transition to libertarianism if 100% votes yes. Or secede.

You can't argue with them.

Government = bad, Taxes = theft, is what all their arguments boil down to and you end up going around in a circle.

They don't get that monopoly on use of violence as ultimate arbitration is what allows society to exist in the first place.

"Non aggression principle" LMAO. Look at Somalia and other failed African states. If libertarians weren't socially and economically illiterate, they'd all be flocking to those places, because it's as close to their mystical paradise la-la land as you can possibly get.

Well, as an alternative look at North Korea. Just like there are various levels of good governments, there can be good levels of anarchy. Somalia isn't a great example to use here. Furthermore, it has a government, so why would libertarians flock there? What's wrong with having a principle of nonaggression? Why is that worthy of ridicule?

I'll also add, your "debate style" is very counter-productive. Even if you loath a belief, the worst thing you can do to change that person's mind is insult them and call their views "la-la land".

> Government = bad

Because world has not seen a libertarian government yet.

> Taxes = theft

There are two arguments here. 1. Tax Amount. 2. Consent.

Most of the arugment against taxes from libertarins pov is the amount. Govts does provide a useful service but the pricing is too costly.

A libertarian may immigrate to a favourable country which gives best bang for the buck (for which somalia fails) and in process giving new govt the required consent to make taxation consistent with libertarianism.

> They don't get that monopoly on use of violence as ultimate arbitration is what allows society to exist in the first place.

You are thinking of anarcho-capitalism (a special case of libertarianism nonetheless) which I presume we are not talking about. Then libertarian govt still hold the monopoly on violence and only justifiable in very limited cases.

And why does anybody think that a state run police is the best? It is like anything else:

- transportation

- health care

- financial system

Run by government guarantees that we get the lowest quality most expensive shittiest solution you ever dream of.

The government asserts its authority over you whether you like it or not. Any association with a private company is voluntary in nature. You can choose not to use that company and take your business to a competitor. It's not that it is necessarily "fine for a private company to do so," just that you have the ability to opt out.

You're spot on. The original use of the term libertarian actually referred to socialist anarchists who were not only against the unjust power of the state but also against other forms of authoritarian power structures like the capitalist economy and social stratification by gender, race etc. Nowadays they have to go by left-libertarian or libertarian socialist (or just plain anarchist).

I don't know how "Libertarian" came to mean what it does now but it is a very incoherent ideology for exactly the reasons you point out and it probably continues to exist due to powerful interests in the "ruse" you mention too.

So it's about freedom to do whatever you want, like make a immoral product and sell it. After all it's not Palantir that's doing the surveillance. They're just making a product and selling it.

I guess I don't see this personal responsibility morality angle of libertarianism as it's been explained to me by Americans. It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals.

> It seems to be focused on restricting government action, like you said, not restricting the actions of individuals.

Libertarians believe in restricting actions. They just think having the government do it in all cases is an overreach and harmful. If citizens want, through free speech, new mores, and free association, to eliminate tobacco addiction, that's not a big problem. In contrast, having the government throw people in jail over cigarettes is not acceptable.

This is why I don't get Thiel. He's obviously smart, but his actipns are anything but libertarian in my mind. Just look at some of his biggest creations and investments:

1. Palantir - big database crunching and querying for some Of the worst parts of govt; NSA being the biggest offender. 2. Facebook - collects (and is sadly just given) massive amounts of consumer data for selling ads. 3. Paypal - a 'great equalizer' in payments as long as they decide your account is legit. If you get caught in their 'bad' filter, you loose access to your funds, which migjt take down your entire business. At least Musk is trying to better humanity.

If, as a libertarian, he wanted govt out of the common mans lives, then why invest and build tools/platforms that take away people's freedom to transact and live lives of true freedom?

He's done the opposite in my mind. Nothing he has built, in my mind, betters himanity like Musk has.

> ...I never know what Americans mean when they use the term libertarian with a small L.

Economist Arnold Kling has an interesting model called the three-axis model for libertarianism as well as conservatism and progressivism.

It contends that libertarians view the world on a freedom / coercion axis, progressives view the world on an oppressor / oppressed axis, and conservatives view the world on a civilization / barbarism axis.

For example, to take the immigration issue:

Libertarians - People should have the freedom to cross borders when they please.

Progressives - Immigrants regardless of legal status are being taken advantage of and should be protected.

Conservatives - The rules that restrict immigration should be enforced and those that violate them should be punished.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com