The faux 'trump card' that libertarians use frequently is something along the following lines: "if you have to use force to enact anything then it invalidates your justification", and "force" is painted with as large a brush as possible. I see this argument alluded to and used all over this forum. For some, I'd say it's actually their prime "philosophical" mantra. This 'reasoning' is so deeply flawed. It gives special status to the status quo. It makes enacting any means of justice impossible. It reduces any attempt at social cohesion into an absurd exercise in futility. But it's so easy; it's really more of an escape clause from deeper levels of understanding what justice is. Things become very simple and cartoonish when you adopt this world view. You identify problem "A" in the world but you can't do anything about it because that would require use of "force". Within this ideology, the only thing you can do is to provide "choices" to people. Understanding sociology and game theory exposes the absurdity of this position, much of what is viewed as 'choice' in a social context is nothing of the sort. There really is so much I can say on this topic, but I'd rather hear what this forum has to say regarding a defense of this world view as popularized by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.
Just to show the absurdity of this argument I've created the following mad-libs below. They are not a perfect comparasion, but I believe they get the point across.
If you don't like a multi-national corporation raping your country then start your own multi-national corporation. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how great your multi-national corporation is.
If you see problems with your culture then start your own culture. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a culture with your values are.
If you want to live in a state with your ideal conditions then start your own state. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a state with your ideal conditions are.
If you want to live in a country that it's a global empire then start your own country. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people figure out how valuable living in a country that isn't a war all the time is.
If you want to live on a planet where there is no war, poverty, disease, exploitation, misery and famine then build your own planet. Everyone who thinks it's a good idea will join it. Other's won't unless you force them to. We'll then let people see how valuable your planet is.
You can see that this idea makes reform impossible. Hence its lack of merit.
The larger your vision, the more effort you need to make it a reality. Why is this a surprise?
Status quo bias is a feature of reality. libertarianism acknowledges this, nothing more.
Most statists really overestimate how difficult it is to build a coalition of people who can agree on a complex issue and how to keep the coalition "pure" and corruption free. Libertarians have tried a lot of activism in the US. Libertarianism loses the political test because there are very few people for whom the "what's in it for me?" question is answered.
In my country, India, there are very few people who even agree to libertarian ideas. How long do you think it is going to take for me and the 1000 or so libertarians in India to convince 900 million indian adults?
You are free to consider this overly cynical, but the present libertarian world-view is built after a lot of trials of political activism that have failed, or are humongous projects on their own.
The law is a ham handed tool. It should not be used to make subtle changes in the world. If you start upon this path, there is no end to it.
The statement that "politics should stay out of economics" is the most political statement that can me made. Typically it is made by the libertarian monetarists who become obsessed with the icons and symbols of an economy rather than how the whole system functions and to what purpose does it exist. There is no economic system not upheld by government law, order and protection and no government not supported and reliant upon it's economic system. They are in a symbiotic relationship; hence the term "Political Economy". Unfortunately slippery slope arguments like this are hard to quantify and really are an unobserved phenomenon but make a great campaign slogan. Can you (or anyone) point to an event subject to the 'slippery slope' phenomenon? You can't because no such thing exists. The observable historical reality is that government is going to be a vehicle for the interests that control it. It always has been. Anything that you'd accredit to a "slippery slope" I can show you the conflict between 2 interests in which 1 did not show up to the fight or not in sufficient strength to "carry the day". Perhaps they didn't show up to that political struggle because they believed that "The law is a ham handed tool. It should not be used to make subtle changes in the world. If you start upon this path, there is no end to it." That sounds like a great belief to convince your opposition of: a world view that seeks to eliminate opposition by invalidating the human right to be heard in the halls of government, subjecting its adherents into a blind alley of being a political inert mass, a political jellyfish adrift on a sea that truly is your master to which you have no say and no control. To relinquish your self determination to a pitifully naive ideology that has and never will attainable, or should even be sought, should be given its due credit the social and economic dysfunction of our present global condition.
Unless the average person can identify what is in their best interest and organize and fight for it then please don't naively think that others will not fill this power vacuum.
