[SE23]

I have been studying libertarianism for a while now, economically it seems to make the most sense and pushes through paradigms of thought which are simplistically ingrained into us. Welfare state benefiting poor people, minimum wage benefiting poor people for example.

Although in some aspects libertarians appear spot on regarding economics, is it strong enough to keep our culture to a high standard. It appears that eventually the free market will always lead to degenerate culture eventually being consumed by the masses, people choosing Miley Cyrus over Bach for example. Although a libertarian system in place, would push people to go deeper, and understand the complexities of life, as they will be faced with the harshness and beauty of a more natural system; rather than a falsified one that feeds of denial and a student adolesence*. Over time when wealth is generated to a high level, and a middle class is formed; what would stop them from becoming morally narcissistic and make demands that go against the principles that led them to have such prestige.

To cut it shorter and to get straight to the point, how can we prevent the eventual decline of the populace if there is no overarching authority directing them. I believe in the power of the people and the power of the individual, yet the individual seems to require dominance over the masses, otherwise they will be burnt at the stake for presenting an idea uncommon to them.

Regards

[Rich]

Although a libertarian system in place,

A Libertarian system is an oxymoron. Try and pin a Libertarian down and they just lead you round and round in circles. One minute they're telling you that individual rights will be protected. The next they're telling you that local communities will be free to set up any sort of system they want including a Taliban like system where girls have acid thrown in their faces and apostates are condemned to death.

In the real world freedom is relative not an absolute. Same with property and what defines a person, the bearer of these mystical and mysterious rights. I would suggest it is not a coincidence that so many of Libertarian's heroes were slave owners: the 300, Cato, Washington, Jefferson, the confederacy or slavery investors like John Locke. Its not a coincidence that freedom lover George Dubyah Bush had so little qualms about trampling on Iraqi sovereignty through sanctions and invasion. Its no coincidence that the proto Nazis of post WW1 Germany called themselves the Frei Corps, and its no coincidence that Bridge to Nowhere, death panel screaming Sarah Palin should become a leader of the small government, "government get you're hands off my Medicare" Tea Party.

[AFAIK]

People have been complaining about society going to the dogs for centuries. I'm sure libertarians will maintain this.

[Eran]

SE23,
Government authority can and in practice does nothing to elevate (or prevent decline in) culture. Have you tried watching BBC1 recently?

Democratic governments respond to majoritarian pressures, while autocratic governments have no reason to push unpopular culture.

Your best bet is a society in which diversity is enabled. With modern technology, the fact that the masses might prefer Miley Cyrus doesn't stop you from listening to Bach.

And to segway to Rich's point, in a libertarian society, you could indeed associate with like-minded people, without being forced to pay for the cultural preferences of the masses.

Rich,
I believe we have covered the topic in the past. Local communities are, indeed, welcome to set local rules, but only within the scope of the NAP. Does a Taliban community can prohibit women from driving and force them to wear hijabs. However, it cannot sanction throwing acid on girls or condemn apostates to death. In fact, it cannot even prohibit women from simply leaving the community. No libertarian will tell you otherwise.

And bringing up Bush and Palin to attack libertarianism is truly sad. Is that the best you can do?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I agree with AFAIK and Eran on this.

Additionally, I think it's worth thinking about the question whether Bach or any other composer we know of today was the truly the best his time had to offer. In his days far fewer people had the opportunity to access the necessary education and resources to have a comparable career.

It also seems to me that much of the more modern music is not regarded as highly simply because it is modern and not because it is necessarily low quality. For instance, I'm personally partial to some of the progressive rock of the 70s and there are, in my opinion, pieces out there comparable to classical music in quality and complexity.

Classical music (and art in general) is not only (or perhaps even mainly) worth remembering and preserving because of its absolute quality, but because of its historical importance and its role in shaping culture and giving identity. As such, I highly doubt that worthy pieces of art and culturally significant icons would be lost in a more libertarian society.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think right wing libertarianism has a dismissive view of cultural rights, and also tends to value things solely on a free market dollar scale, which is also dismissive of art.

I find it hard to imagine how a libertarian society would ensure mass access to great works of art in the same way as, for example, the Louvre.

[SE23]

I think right wing libertarianism has a dismissive view of cultural rights, and also tends to value things solely on a free market dollar scale, which is also dismissive of art.

I find it hard to imagine how a libertarian society would ensure mass access to great works of art in the same way as, for example, the Louvre.

Agreed but call me naive, weren't most of the impressive innovative feats created in a free market environment. Socialism was able to be transferred into a cultural function from a purely economic study during the early part of the last century, perhaps this is the case for libertarianism, but due to the elusive nature of the "invisible hand" it has been hard to identify.

[SE23]

@Eran

This is the problem I have with libertarianism, the intelligent individual can be easily sidelined by the masses, as there is little incentive for them to pursue higher long term goals, its in their nature, when you look throughout history. I can't accept this, as it's only a small improvement from a social democratic system; you aren't challenging the masses as individuals, but rather as children by allowing them to keep up with their apathetic, self harming behaviour. Would you let your child eat only pop tarts and only watch x factor, until he dies at the age of 21 by being literally brain dead and obese.

The question i pose is; would a libertarian "system" would force a generational line of thinking, that would either render the parents of that child stamping out such behaviour, of the child themselves, would overtime see the effects of such a way of life and thinking and be made to change such a debauched life.

There may be a reply to this along the lines of "people should be free to do whatever they want", but lets face it, even in democratic systems, only a certain level of freedom exists, even in a state of anarchy; you would be perpetually forced to abide by a popular consensus or the rules of nature. From Survival of the fittest (if you believe in that) or simply being self dependent and self reliant because your survival would depend on it.

So yes a person may be free to do what they like, but again the person who is eating pop tarts and consuming bad t.v day in and day out, is only locked in a prison of his or her mind.


______
@Kaiserschmarrn

Personally some classical music I Detest, but there was a element of hard work and sophistication which made it stand out, especially in accordance to today's music. My theory is that libertarianism forces people to grow as you are more inclined to face the harsh realities of nature, the beauty in this, is that you become a fully fledged adult who knows what life entails, good and bad. Instead of being in a confused state of immediate gratification, perhaps the more people mature and look deeper inside themselves, the better quality of culture we will have. Just a thought.


____

@Afaik

It's because societies have been going to the dogs since the origins of human kind. Civilizations are formed from random rabbles of people, they are then societally organised, create amazing feats, and develop amazing ideas and standards of living. Then they eventually regress in degeneracy while clinging on to the wealth that was created in the earlier stages, although much like a sinking linear this doesn't help them too greatly. It was seen with the Sumerians, Roman's, Greeks; and it will probably happen with us. Neo liberal capitalism sells out the West, and the socialist left wing lapdog of the Neo liberals, simply wants to destroy civilisation.

[lucky]

I have no problem with pop music myself, and the masses have never listened to Bach daily, so I don't quite understand the discussion. What in the world does this have to do with libertarianism? Are you making a comparison to a different system in which everybody listens to Bach?

I can't accept this, as it's only a small improvement from a social democratic system

A small improvement sounds like an improvement to me.

[SE23]

Bach was just an example, the point being is that culture has declined immensely, when you see the likes of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber raking in billions from the masses, it is a bad sign.

[lucky]

Bach was just an example, the point being is that culture has declined immensely, when you see the likes of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber raking in billions from the masses, it is a bad sign.

I completely disagree. You're falling prey to the Golden Age Fallacy. There was always plenty of crap in any culture.

Incidentally, I don't personally see what's particularly wrong with Bieber (I don't know anything about Cyrus), other than it seems to be trendy to talk shit about him.

There were plenty of really bad performers in Bach's time. It's just that their memory hasn't survived as well as Bach's memory.

In fact, I believe that modern culture is overall superior to the one centuries ago, and that is what has to the large extent generated the relative peace and prosperity we are enjoying today.

[SE23]

You don't produce a powerful sword by decorating it with pretty flowers and hanging it up in a nice picture frame, no you hammer it with a burning hot iron rod, over and over again, and then you make this ultimate powerful tool; individuals are very much the same.

Aside from the easy access we have to previous art forms, there is a degeneracy in art forms, how can you compare Tracy Emins rubbing her vagina with bank notes to say Da Vinci, same applies with Lil Wayne and Blind Willie Johnson. This whole, its all relative concept, can't pass shit for soap.

[lucky]

how can you compare Tracy Emins rubbing her vagina with bank notes to say Da Vinci

I didn't, you did. It's the first I've heard of Tracy Emins. I'm sure there were people rubbing their vaginas with stuff in all history.

[SE23]

No offence but it sounds like you are living under a rock in mars, if you think Miley Cyrus is a man, and you don't know who Tracey Emins is, probably for the best, popular culture today is much of a sham.

[Pants-of-dog]

Agreed but call me naive, weren't most of the impressive innovative feats created in a free market environment.

Not that I can think of. In fact, I can't think of any artistic or cultural innovation that was created in a free market environment.

Socialism was able to be transferred into a cultural function from a purely economic study during the early part of the last century, perhaps this is the case for libertarianism, but due to the elusive nature of the "invisible hand" it has been hard to identify.[/quote]

Well, since libertarianism is mainly a thought experiment (as opposed to socialism which has actually been tried) I don't think it has the cultural weight to inform culture or art.

I think that right wing libertarianism would sell more Cyrus albums than Bach albums. This is simply due to the fact that far more money is made peddling Cyrus albums than Bach albums.

[SE23]

@Pants of dog

Regarding your cyrus comment, this is what I have been trying to get at; however would the process of libertarianism result in a changing mindset of individuals that furthermore would change the demands of the masses. I am stipulating that a population who are adapted to the motto of self dependence and self reliance, will be more mature and less inclined to consume flashy products; that should only appeal to the ignorant or child.

Art only goes so far with socialism, as you are talking about socialists number one aim, is to manipulate the dialectical truth; any concept of absolutism has to be scorned and marked with relativism; what is good art ? who says art is good ? everyone should be able to do art ? why should we stop people making art, because your taste might be different ?. The more we are sidelined into post modernity, the more we are presented with sh*t music and sh*t art, none of which makes sense, but just throws the listener, or observer into a state of confusion and apathy.


I would say the period during and after the industrial revolution, led to great minds and innovators; couldn't this have been said to been a free market environment ?

[AFAIK]

The UK currently has 2 radio stations dedicated to classical music. 1 in the private sector (Classic FM) and 1 operated by the BBC (Radio 3). It is likely that a free market system would only be capable of sustaining 1 station if it were funded directly by advertising. If contributions were successfully solicited from the public both could potentially be maintained.

Libertarians reject intellectual property rights so there would be little money to be made directly from easily digestible pop music. Money can be made from advertising and promotional work by "superstars".

SE23 repeatedly mentioned right libertarians. There would be plenty of opportunities for rightist, lefties and centrists to support the arts, culture, etc. They could even develop institutions that are independent of free markets such as a gift economy.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants of dog

Regarding your cyrus comment, this is what I have been trying to get at; however would the process of libertarianism result in a changing mindset of individuals that furthermore would change the demands of the masses. I am stipulating that a population who are adapted to the motto of self dependence and self reliance, will be more mature and less inclined to consume flashy products; that should only appeal to the ignorant or child.

No. Right wing libertarianism would not magically make people more appreciative of more esoteric cultural works.

Art only goes so far with socialism, as you are talking about socialists number one aim, is to manipulate the dialectical truth; any concept of absolutism has to be scorned and marked with relativism; what is good art ? who says art is good ? everyone should be able to do art ? why should we stop people making art, because your taste might be different ?. The more we are sidelined into post modernity, the more we are presented with sh*t music and sh*t art, none of which makes sense, but just throws the listener, or observer into a state of confusion and apathy.

Miley Cyrus isn't popular because of some socialist philosophy about relative worth of all artists. She is popular because she has been well marketed by people who know how to make money with people like her.

I would say the period during and after the industrial revolution, led to great minds and innovators; couldn't this have been said to been a free market environment ?

Can you give an example of a great work of art from this period and describe how the free market was responsible for it?

[SE23]

No not magically, but it will force a cultural change to occur, which may lead to the appreciation and hence demand and production of finer arts.

I would argue that socialism is a form of crypto capitalism, nearly all strives towards post modernism, heavily endorsed by socialism, also coincidentally enough benefit big business more than anyone else.

Not directly, although the free market era, saw the rise of innovation, cars, planes, trains great feats of technology which I would say are on par with the great epic art pieces we now look back on. Same applies to philosophers and thinkers of era, socialist and libertarian alike. Could this have been nearly as influential and effective, if we lived in a feudal agrarian system, maybe not as much, although the potential would be there.

[Pants-of-dog]

No not magically, but it will force a cultural change to occur, which may lead to the appreciation and hence demand and production of finer arts.

Why would it?

Did the USSR succeed in making everyone into a noble proletariat?

Did the Golden Age of the USA turn everyone into a rugged individualist?

Has modern liberal democracy turned everyone into an enlightened egalitarian?

So, why should right wing libertarianism be magically capable of doing what no other political system has done?

I would argue that socialism is a form of crypto capitalism, nearly all strives towards post modernism, heavily endorsed by socialism, also coincidentally enough benefit big business more than anyone else.

Right wing libertarianism also benefits big business more than anyone else.

Not directly, although the free market era, saw the rise of innovation, cars, planes, trains great feats of technology which I would say are on par with the great epic art pieces we now look back on. Same applies to philosophers and thinkers of era, socialist and libertarian alike. Could this have been nearly as influential and effective, if we lived in a feudal agrarian system, maybe not as much, although the potential would be there.

There was no free market era. You have no examples of artwork. This seems all based on some idealistic view you have of right wing libertarianism.