Is libertarianism incompatible with Democracy?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Da link: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...sim/index.html

Everyone hates Democracy when it goes against them...do the wishes of everyone ultimately just impede the freedom of the individual? Because we all know that things like collective rights are just fantasy right?

[Furunculus]

To use the evolution of the British Liberal Democrats as a case study:

The last decade has witnessed Labour testing to destruction of the notion of unalloyed social-liberalism, however the decade we are now within represents an enormous opportunity for the Lib-Dem’s to step outwith the formers shadow, but does Labours failure provide a guide that will lead to the success of the latter? Yes, but it requires recognising that progressivism is a means and not an end.

It also requires a mandate from the people before the party will have the confidence to change.

To talk of liberalism, the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights, is difficult by dint of the fact that the word has been appropriated by pretty much every other ideology, conflated with the means by which it has often be achieved, divided by the separate realms of social and economic ideologies, and loosely correlated with the philosophies of negative and positive liberty.

Classical Liberalism was not merely economic Liberalism, and nor too was it purely about negative liberty.

Social Liberalism is not always, in effect, an ideology that maximises liberty, and nor too is positive liberty.

If we can accept that the Conservatism is an attitude whose ambition is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, we must likewise accept that it has often been abused by those who elevate it to an ideology.

This is what befell the Ottoman Empire; a conservative ideology that prevented the nation from adapting to a changing world, justifying the ossification of tradition, and repeatedly rejecting the radical policy attempted by successive Sultans that would allow it to compete with the advances of its rival empires.

Likewise it must be recognised that Progressivism is supposed to be an attitude too, not an ideology, and that self-interested human venality has often served to abuse progressivism by justifying the loss of liberty on spurious claims to a greater common good.

This is what befell New Labour; a progressive ideology that enabled a massive raft of policies ‘justified’ by their socially liberal aims, without realising that positive liberty is something that is enforced by government, and that considered as whole the result has been a significant attack on individual liberty.

Labour was not unaware that its benign intention to help people achieve their potential was in fact little more than paternal supervision, but rather than change course it engaged in double-speak by using the word “fairness” where it could no longer talk of “equity” or “justice”.

You might well say;“Surely you exaggerate Furunculus, it’s all very well for you to invent this great divide between intention and result, but where is the evidence!” The answer to that question is easy:

Just Deserts? Attitudes to Fairness, Poverty and Welfare Reform.

The findings are quite clear -

The majority of people think that fairness is mainly a question of people getting what they deserve, rather than being about equal treatment. This is true of voters of all the main parties. 63% of people say that “fairness is about getting what you deserve”, while just 26% say that “fairness is about equality”. In other words, people’s idea of fairness is strongly reciprocal – something for something.

Meritocratic ideas (reward according to effort and ability) are more widely endorsed than either free market conceptions (reward according to what the market will pay) or egalitarian conceptions (equal rewards). 85% backed fairness as meritocracy, while 63% backed the free market conception and only 41% an egalitarian version.

This is a rather damning indictment of those with an ideological bent towards progressivism who believe that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. It is an easy jump to make to realise that their attachment to progressivism has corrupted the resulting socially liberal policy response, social justice has become a conception that they impose rather than offer.

To which your next question might be; “That might be so Furunculus, but no man is independent of his fellow men, what makes you think we have this balance so very wrong?” The answer to that question too is easy:

As Isaiah Berlin himself noted, there must be a dividing line between individual liberty and public authority and that it is a matter for debate, within society, as to where that line should be drawn. However, to draw parallels between what is done in this country and what is done in another is not at all helpful because a peoples conception of what constitutes liberty is the result of its cultural history. An appeal to consensus among the polities of europe does nothing but suppress the best compromise for your polity.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

Thus can we understand that British popular objection to ID cards is not merely a function of conditioning, as some imagine has already been experienced by our continental neighbours, rather it is a direct result of a particular understanding of where the divide should be between individual liberty and enabling supervision.

In creating a rash of legislation diminishing the rights of individuals, undermining the inviolability of private property as well as the enforcement of contracts, Labour managed to distort the aim of social liberalism and produce a socially authoritarian result.

How many ways can the government legally force entry into your home? They reasons used to be numbered on one hand, now there are I am told hundreds. Some of these will be for perfectly ‘nice’ reasons like protecting vulnerable kids, a large proportion will be for similarly innocuous reasons, but taken together they represent a fantastic assault on the negative liberty that you as a citizen are supposed to possess.

Do the Lib-Dem’s care about this kind of freedom?

So where does this all lead? Can it provide the ideological breathing space for the Liberal Democrats to set out a coherent and distinct message to the electorate about the manner in which they would seek to govern?

I believe that there is a now wide gulf between the paternalistic supervision of Labour and neoliberalism of the Conservative party.

The Lib-Dem message should be that while they will retain a progressive attitude to the pursuit of Social Liberalism it will always be referenced against the requirements of personal liberty. Policy wise this means a rejection of Labours client-state whereby the disadvantaged are kept in thrall to a culture of benefits subsistence allied with high taxation. The increase in the personal Income Tax allowance is an excellent example of this.

Likewise to distance themselves from the laissez-faire tendencies of the Conservative party by continuing to advocate a the use of the State to increase the enfranchisement of disadvantaged groups within society, and do so with progressive policy action where the Conservatives would be tempted to leave ‘well-enough’ alone. The pupil premium is a good example of this in recent Lib-Dem policy.

However, as important as distancing themselves ideologically from Labour and the Conservatives is, what they must also do is become a party for the whole nation, which means abandoning policy that results from an ideological fascination with progress (for the sake of progress), for it too easily sees the party written off as unsupportable by those who remain uncommitted. Being seen as a pro-EU party come hell-or-highwater would be an apt example. Of the words “representative democracy” it is the former that is truly important, the latter is only a means to an end.

The opportunity that the Lib-Dem’s have right now is that for the first time in a century they are seen as a serious party of government, enhanced by Labours dogged determination not to repent for their past authoritarianism. They have four more years to continue to cement themselves in the public image as a responsible advocate of progressive and socially liberal politics. Much as the Conservatives have done the same with their re-brand towards compassionate conservatism. Both parties have an interest in making the Big Society work for its success acts to remove Labour from public perception as a responsible party of government.

This opportunity has only a brief window however, for despite having a leader in hock to the unions, and a shadow Chancellor in hock to deficit denial, the Labour party will drag itself back to the centre. If not in this parliament then certainly in the next.

The Just Deserts research provides a mandate upon which the needs of enabling supervision can be balanced against the desire for individual liberty, will the Lib-Dem’s seize it?

So to answer the original question, libertarianism is little more than an extreme version of classical liberalism, and is in no way incompatible with democracy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Damn, that was good. You are making me think here.

[Kralizec]

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

Legal positivism was aimed at creating predictable rights and obligations by creating a transparant, clear system of laws. Theoretically, judges would only rely on statutes and such instead of local customs, "natural law" or subjective notions of morality. They rejected the idea of "natural law" specifically because law & justice are man-made concepts. I have absolutetly no idea where you got the idea from that legal positivism is about exhaustively summing up the things a person is allowed to do, and forbid him from doing anything not expressly allowed; it simply isn't true.

About "classic" constitutional rights like speech, religion and whatnot; the function of these is not to enable citizens to do something they'd otherwise be forbidden to do; but to prevent the legislator from interfering with a simple statute. It's function is to define what the government cannot do. I'm pretty sure that I've pointed this out to you before.

So to answer the original question, libertarianism is little more than an extreme version of classical liberalism, and is in no way incompatible with democracy.

Theoretically not, but given the fact that a vast portion, in most countries the majority of the population stand to lose from a libertarian administration, it doesn't stand much of a chance in an open and fair election.

[Strike For The South]

Libertarianism is the ultimate expression of a childhood tantrum

[Xiahou]

Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule- and not desirable.

To use an often quoted phrase: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."
So yeah, by its most literal definition pure democracy is incompatible with libertarian ideals.

[InsaneApache]

Depends on the type of democracy. Representative democracy probably. Direct democracy, no.

How about this one.

Is socialism compatible with democracy?

I say not.

[Montmorency]

According the the Economists's response, Mises and Hayek loved democracy.

[E]ven a wholly sober and unsentimental consideration which regards democracy as a mere convention making possible a peaceful change of the holders of power should make us understand that it is an ideal worth fighting for to the utmost, because it is our only protection (even if in its present form not a certain one) against tyranny. Though democracy itself is not freedom (except for that indefinite collective, the majority of 'the people') it is one of the most important safeguards of freedom. As the only method of peaceful change of government yet discovered, it is one of those paramount though negative values, comparable to sanitary precautions against the plague, of which we are hardly aware while they are effective, but the absence of which may be deadly.

[Ironside]

The majority of people think that fairness is mainly a question of people getting what they deserve, rather than being about equal treatment. This is true of voters of all the main parties. 63% of people say that “fairness is about getting what you deserve”, while just 26% say that “fairness is about equality”. In other words, people’s idea of fairness is strongly reciprocal – something for something.

Meritocratic ideas (reward according to effort and ability) are more widely endorsed than either free market conceptions (reward according to what the market will pay) or egalitarian conceptions (equal rewards). 85% backed fairness as meritocracy, while 63% backed the free market conception and only 41% an egalitarian version.

The problem is in the details. Fairness is relative. Is it fair to be payed 100 times more than an average worker for any job you do (the equivalent of 4.000 hour weeks)? Is it fair when someone's abillities has been constantly hampered thruoghout the childhood? Even the meritocratic game can be rigged, both ways.

It's a nice analysis of the UK, but it's not general and is missing a big point. Of course classical liberalism is compitable with democracy, it's one of the cornerstones behind it.

The question is if libertarianism starts to become more autocratic in the same way* that heavy collectivism creates the authorian part of the left. No personal comments on it yet, since I haven't thought about libertarians thinking from the "I can never reach power through democracy" aspect.

*Well, it's not formed the same way ideologically (except for the temporary dictorship to create to promised land, but that might only been one guy). The left gets authoritarian when it becomes equality at any cost, instead of increased equality gives increased freedom. The libertarian one would be my freedom at any cost and both are suffering hard from the "I know best"-syndrome.

Depends on the type of democracy. Representative democracy probably. Direct democracy, no.

How about this one.

Is socialism compatible with democracy?

I say not.

The democratically adapted version has been called social democracy for quite some time now. Your point?

[Xiahou]

According the the Economists's response, Mises and Hayek loved democracy.

The first line in the story really said all that needed to be said about the article linked in the OP.

THIS column of Michael Lind content reminds me that ideologues enjoy nothing so much as shamelessly misrepresenting the content and history of other, opposed ideologies.

The Salon piece was total trash.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Legal positivism was aimed at creating predictable rights and obligations by creating a transparant, clear system of laws. Theoretically, judges would only rely on statutes and such instead of local customs, "natural law" or subjective notions of morality. They rejected the idea of "natural law" specifically because law & justice are man-made concepts. I have absolutetly no idea where you got the idea from that legal positivism is about exhaustively summing up the things a person is allowed to do, and forbid him from doing anything not expressly allowed; it simply isn't true.

In the UK you can do something unless they pass a law against it, in a positivistic legal system if the government ries to stop you doing something you have to prove a legal right to be able to do it. In practice it does work like that, just like the US government has to justify its rights of government (the opposite principle).

Also, positivism assumes that Rights are not inalienable, worse (as you have already noted) it decouples Justice and Law. Justice is not "man-made" any more than "happiness", Justice is a metaphysical concept. A legal system without metaphysical undergurding is just due process.

[Papewaio]

Happiness is the very definition of self-made, it's the satisfaction with our lot in life, the achievements we have gained by dint of perspiration and the ability to chose to get back up and smile after life knocks us on our arse. We can chose a life of happiness the problem is most people chose a life of pleasure saturation and pain avoidance.

As for justice it is essentially the punishment side of the coin of reciprocity. Justice is the punishment we would expect meted out to us or a loved one if they harmed someone else. The punishment should also result in a net negatitive benefit to the attacker so that there is no profit in the crime... Including those who don't get caught.

You don't need metaphysics you just need to be fair to one and all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for justice it is essentially the punishment side of the coin of reciprocity. Justice is the punishment we would expect meted out to us or a loved one if they harmed someone else. The punishment should also result in a net negatitive benefit to the attacker so that there is no profit in the crime... Including those who don't get caught.

No, that's the definition of "Retribution", quite litterally the "flip side" of positive repriscosity.

"Justice" is something else.

And you need Metaphysics for everything.

[Papewaio]

Blah

[Papewaio]

Actual since it's definition means beyond the physical... Doesn't that leave the physical not needing metaphysics?

Retribution can be just or unjust. That's why I included a variation of he golden rule within my short example of justice i.e. Punish as you would like to be punished.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actual since it's definition means beyond the physical... Doesn't that leave the physical not needing metaphysics?

Retribution can be just or unjust. That's why I included a variation of he golden rule within my short example of justice i.e. Punish as you would like to be punished.

"Above the physical" might be better, the assumption that the world has a concrete "phyiscal" reality is metaphysical.

"Punish as you would like to be punished" - what if I would not punish someone for child rape? Does that mean I should not be punished, is that Just?

I blame C.S. Lewis for the "Golden Rule", he is th earliest proponent I can trace, no doubt he thought it was a way to make Christianity palatable to the masses (it was in his book "Mere Christianity") - crucially, Lewis was a firm believer in "Natural Law" which is basically the same thing as "natural" Justice.

None the less, as it has been populasied by Karen Armstrong it is a completely relativistic and therefore worthless statement.

The actual "Golden Rule" is:

Love the Lord your God with all your Hear and all your Mind and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbour as Youself.

That is not a relativistic statement, it is unequivical and a much better Creed to live your life by. If You don't like the "beardy" God by all means substitue Einstien's/Spinoza's and the import is preserved.

[Fragony]

Course it is, every pure form of ideoligy is, except when it's democracy of course. But it's still the libertarian mindset I'm most fond about.

[Papewaio]

"Above the physical" might be better, the assumption that the world has a concrete "phyiscal" reality is metaphysical.

"Punish as you would like to be punished" - what if I would not punish someone for child rape? Does that mean I should not be punished, is that Just?

I blame C.S. Lewis for the "Golden Rule", he is th earliest proponent I can trace, no doubt he thought it was a way to make Christianity palatable to the masses (it was in his book "Mere Christianity") - crucially, Lewis was a firm believer in "Natural Law" which is basically the same thing as "natural" Justice.

None the less, as it has been populasied by Karen Armstrong it is a completely relativistic and therefore worthless statement.

The actual "Golden Rule" is:

Love the Lord your God with all your Hear and all your Mind and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbour as Youself.

That is not a relativistic statement, it is unequivical and a much better Creed to live your life by. If You don't like the "beardy" God by all means substitue Einstien's/Spinoza's and the import is preserved.

Earlist form of the Golden Rule by Lewis? I think you need to read a few more things outside of Britain and Christianity... actually read abit more in Britain and Christianity and you'd defeat your own declaration:

In the right corner Hay-Zeus oops sorry not south park...

"Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
"

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
—Sirach 31:15

"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" – Confucius [21][22]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius [23]

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[24]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[25]

You can read the rest of the quotes in the wiki on Golden Rule including ones for Ancient Egypt, Hinduism, Plato(nism)

So Ancient Egypt, Greece, India and China... I think at least one of those might be older then say C.S. Lewis and even older then his Lion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Earlist form of the Golden Rule by Lewis? I think you need to read a few more things outside of Britain and Christianity... actually read abit more in Britain and Christianity and you'd defeat your own declaration:

Lewis is the earliest proponent I can find of the "Golden Rule", I'm not challenging the idea that repriscosity is ancient, obviously it is, but that was not my point. Also, no all those quote are referencing the "Golden Rule"

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi

This is analogous to the "Great Commandment", there is no principle of repriscosity, because Mozi does not say that your enemy must love your family in order for you to love his.

"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[24]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[25]

There is even less repriscocity in this, this is explicitely non-reciprical, no matter how other people treat you, you should treat them well.

In any case, you have not addressed my point, that the Golden Rule shawn of some concept of Natural Law is essentially meaningless, you can twist it around however you want.

[gaelic cowboy]

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

I was always of the opinion that it was the opinion of your Judges who made the law.

In fact just reading Wiki there and it claims murder is not illegal by statute but by precedent, does that mean if enough judges started to throw cases out for murder the precedent would be set for murder to be legal???? how is that a sensible system to have

[InsaneApache]

I think the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 pretty much covered it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was always of the opinion that it was the opinion of your Judges who made the law.

In fact just reading Wiki there and it claims murder is not illegal by statute but by precedent, does that mean if enough judges started to throw cases out for murder the precedent would be set for murder to be legal???? how is that a sensible system to have

It is a single precident, not weight of precident. You would have to take it to the Supreme Court of the Law Lords (sounded so much better when it was "House of Lords", didn't it?)

I think the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 pretty much covered it.

The Act only covers non-lethal offences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...onham.27s_Case

[Centurion1]

Libertarianism cannot exist in any state besides one wracked by total anarchy or a democracy.

I'm not sure of the argument here.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is a stupid article written by a stupid man who's got some long chip on his shoulder against libertarians.

Responses that address his smears, which are mostly fabricated from plain ignorance;
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/31/mi...ertarians-apol

Here’s one way Lind makes this bogus claim:

[W]here was the libertarian right during the great struggles for individual liberty in America in the last half-century?... [C]ivil libertarian activists are found overwhelmingly on the left. Their right-wing brethren have been concerned with issues more important than civil rights, voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and the subordination of politics to religion -- issues like the campaign to expand human freedom by turning highways over to toll-extracting private corporations and the crusade to funnel money from Social Security to Wall Street brokerage firms.

I challenge Lind to name, if he can, a liberal or progressive who’s done as much good work on behalf of the cause of “abuses by police” than the libertarian journalist Radley Balko, whose investigative reporting has exposed police and prosecutorial misconduct and also helped get a man off of death row and out of prison, among other things. As for abuses by the military, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman played a key role in ending the draft, which ought to count for something.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...s-in-jackboots

One reason for Lind’s conflation is that he automatically translates being anti-democracy into being pro-autocracy — because he assumes that the only alternative to democracy is autocracy. But in fact there is a third option; rather than the many dictating to the few or the few dictating to the many, what libertarians seek is a world where nobody is in a position to dictate to anybody — or at least to get as close to that situation as possible. (It might be argued that such a system actually has a better claim to the term “democracy” than those regimes that typically receive that label.) For anarchist libertarians, this means replacing the state entirely with networks of voluntary association; for minarchist libertarians, it means structuring the machinery of government in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible to abuse.

CR

[Kralizec]

In the UK you can do something unless they pass a law against it, in a positivistic legal system if the government ries to stop you doing something you have to prove a legal right to be able to do it. In practice it does work like that, just like the US government has to justify its rights of government (the opposite principle).

Also, positivism assumes that Rights are not inalienable, worse (as you have already noted) it decouples Justice and Law. Justice is not "man-made" any more than "happiness", Justice is a metaphysical concept. A legal system without metaphysical undergurding is just due process.

Another legal philosopher chips in, I see. No doubt you're able to name several positivist philosophers who've argued in favour of the system you describe.

If the government, or a civil plaintiff, drags someone to court they'll have to prove that the defendent has broken a law, or infringed on some right of theirs. In particular; any act is only subject to criminal prosecution if the act is explicitly prohibited in the penal code.

Positivism holds that laws and ethics often overlap, but that they're not the same - moral norms are only enforcable by the authorities insofar they've been codified. And some things that would be considered "immoral" by society aren't illegal because there are no statutes against them. I like it that way; it's much better that the courts are forced to judge cases according to positive (written) rules rather than relying on their subjective interpetations of morality, or "metaphysic justice". IMHO, of course

[Slyspy]

I can't see what could stop a libertarian system from becoming a strongman autocracy, human nature being what it is.