Quote of the day—Ubu52

Isn’t the smallest form of government a dictatorship? Is that really what Libertarians crave?

September 29, 2011
Comment to The Mind of the Left.
[I suppose it could be very ignorant question. After all, even if you were to grant that a libertarian dictatorship is technically possible the smallest form government would be no government at all or anarchy.

But I think I smell a troll.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ubu52

  1. Actually I think the government most likely to fall from libertarianism will strongly resemble feudalism.

    It’s a little jarring to consider when you want to believe in libertarianism, but it seems to fit. It’s not ACTUALLY feudal, but it has a lot in common.

    Fealty is a form of contract between land-holders after all.

  2. Not a troll, but I like making you guys think… 🙂

    Seriously, Pinochet was a Libertarian dictator, at least as far as “free market” goes. How did that turn out?

  3. I don’t think a Libertarian would actually silence his own political opponents – rather he’d just let them keep talking and show how stupid they are in public.

  4. I think the confusion comes from the term ‘small’.

    Here in Florida, our previous governor decided to make the gov’t smaller by ‘privatizing’ the functions and cutting the costs. Sure, it cost less, but Floridians were still bound to the same rules and laws.

    1 man or a thousand men declaring how you must live your life, it doesn’t matter.

    What we really mean is decreasing the scope of government. If it’s one man declaring himself our king, fine – let him enforce the rules he lays out. He will soon find he has no more control to tell me what to do than I can force ubu52 to purchase a Glock 18.

  5. Give me a dictator tomorrow and I will be happy if, and only if, he has no-one on the payroll. One man alone can enforce nothing.

    Historically though a dictatorship results in huge government, particularly in the security department. There are lots of jobs created in re-education camps and other assorted gulags.

    I really have to wonder if ubu52 has any real attachment to the history of the world when making such statements.

    To call Pinochet a libertarian is unbelievable! He was a crony capitalist and did grow the business sector. But any folks just vanished if they disagreed with him. Hardly liberarian.

    And yet Ubu thinks he was a libertarian? It’s like ubu is a parody, but is instead a real individual who thinks this way.

    It’s pathetic.

  6. A true Libertarian dictator isn’t possible. A dictator is someone who uses force to impose his will on the unwilling. The basic tenet of Libertarianism is that nobody has the right to initiate force against anyone else (ie. leave me the hell alone). A dictator clearly violates this and therefore cannot be Libertarian.

    Read L. Neil Smith’s book “Probability Broach” for one possible way for a Libertarian society to work.

  7. Thank you, LibertyNews, for driving straight to the point.

    ubu52 already knew it though, having been told this many, many times. She merely enjoys the continued attention that a heckler always gets until being thrown out, which then affords the opportunity to can claim injury of some kind. It’s win/win for the trouble-maker, in the mind of the trouble-maker at least. When we refuse to give them the satisfaction of being thrown out, they’ll of course claim some contribution to the conversation as their goal, thereby elevating their own importance in their minds.

    It takes hundreds of people to build a skyscraper and it only takes one to destroy it, making The One more important than the hundreds. The One will then claim that he’s contributed to the construction industry by inducing them to increase security.

    “Libertarian dictator” is of course an oxymoron if ever there was one.

    This does, however, point to something I’ve been harping on for many years– arguing straight principle is the best, fastest, and most effective method of getting your point across. The idea of advocating “Smaller Government” without explaining why can lead to ultra irrational interpretations and ridiculous assertions such as ubu’s.

    A dictatorship of great size and complexity, it could be argued, is preferable to the smaller and more efficient dictatorship. Size and complexity would work in favor of liberty as it would make effective oppression more difficult.

    So it isn’t bigger government verses smaller government, so much as it is oppression verses liberty– Violation of rights verses protection of rights. Protection of rights would of course require a relatively very small government especially at the federal level, but it is the purpose and goal of government that is the issue.

  8. The way I see it, a “libertarian dictatorship” is pointless. Either there is one all-powerful leader who chooses not to exercise said power (which means it isn’t likely to last long, given the vagaries of human nature) or you end up with a “dictator” who is contractually obligated not to have or exercise any power, in which case, what is the point of having one?

  9. I have mixed feelings about Pinochet. It’s my understanding that he executed a counter-coup against a socialist coup, and did so to preserve his life. During his tenure, people disappeared…yet he also too steps to help the economy prosper.

    How many people died because Pinochet took power? I’m not sure. How many *would* have died had the Socialists obtained power? I don’t know that, either. For that matter, how many people are dying because Chavez is in power?

    While I am inclined to think that Chile is better off because Pinochet came to power over the Socialists, overall, I think Chile would have been a *lot* better off had Pinochet been someone who respected more liberties. I could be wrong, though, in that Pinochet may have done just enough to keep socialists from coming to power.

    In any case, for Ubu to use Pinochet as an example of what Libertarians do when they become dictators is a little disingenuous, since Ubu supports a Dictatorial Paradise. Furthermore, if Pinochet is a dictator who had proclivities to leave people alone, and people *still* died, how much worse would it be to have a *real* dictator?

    All we have to do to find the answer to that question is to look to history. And the answer is by no means pretty.

  10. Ubu, I just read the link you provided. It’s hard to take the article seriously, when the writer claims that the government’s role in the financial market crash is solely based on “deregulation” and “lack of oversight”.

    Government *regulated* interest rates to be too low. Government *pressured* banks to provide loans to those who couldn’t afford it, in the name of “ownership society” and “anti-discrimination”. Government even meddled directly in the production of loans, via Freddy Mack and Fannie Mae.

    The Austrian School of Economic Thought has this beautiful theory on how government control over the interest rates–and I would see no reason why we shouldn’t throw in government having control over who should and shouldn’t gave loans” too–leads to the business cycle we’ve seen for so long. The bursting of the financial markets is a BIG confirmation of that theory!

    And so is the coming bursting of the Education bubble (of which I’m personally involved in, myself–and not in a positive way).

Comments are closed.