My layman explanation of libertarianism

[African_Love]

Libertarians are opposed to aggressive violence and coercion (the threat of aggressive violence). Most people claim to be opposed to aggressive violence, in most circumstances, but libertarians are opposed to the initiation of non-defensive violence by anyone, including generally accepted authority figures. A government's authority is maintained through it's ability to initiate violence (how else could they force people to pay taxes or prevent them from doing illegal drugs, selling/purchasing sex, committing truancy etc. ?)

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right. Some libertarians advocate small government (I don't understand how this would work, if a consistent libertarian believes that all taxation is theft), some are anarchists who advocate the abolition of governments. Some advocate capitalism or free market enterprise and some advocate voluntary communism.

Do you agree with the libertarian philosophy? Why or why not?

[JonathanLockely]

I do not hold with this view mostly because it is too Idealist. It is very Woodrow Wilson in it's inability to compromise, and would never work in today's society.


Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right.

This is probably the only part I agree on. anything a person choose's to do should be legal, even self-destructive tendencies, so long as they don't interfere with others rights to do the same.

The problem is where does this start and stop? Is public intoxication still a crime? etc.

I have a friend who is a staunch libertarian and we argue this anytime we talk politics.

He even has a touch of anarchism in him, in that he thinks we will one day transcend the need to be governed, or that we could successfully do without government.

[Virgil]

Libertarians are opposed to aggressive violence and coercion (the threat of aggressive violence). Most people claim to be opposed to aggressive violence, in most circumstances, but libertarians are opposed to the initiation of non-defensive violence by anyone, including generally accepted authority figures. A government's authority is maintained through it's ability to initiate violence (how else could they force people to pay taxes or prevent them from doing illegal drugs, selling/purchasing sex, committing truancy etc. ?)

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right. Some libertarians advocate small government (I don't understand how this would work, if a consistent libertarian believes that all taxation is theft), some are anarchists who advocate the abolition of governments. Some advocate capitalism or free market enterprise and some advocate voluntary communism.

Do you agree with the libertarian philosophy? Why or why not?

Your defiition of libertarianism is extremely simplified in parts and completely wrong in others. I was about to explain it, but you know what, I'm not going to. Just think of liberty. Communism is definitely not libertarianism.

[OrphanPip]

I have no problem with social libertarianism, I think people have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone other than themselves.

However, at a level of government it is simply self-destructive. We need to reach ideological middle grounds if we want an actual functional government. A completely hands off libertarian model would fail to protect society from "the tragedy of the commons" as the logical self-interested behavior of the few in some situations leads to the destruction of us all.

I prefer Liberalism with a touch of Socialism ;)

The first part of your definition is a little silly and sounds like it's off a propagandist pamphlet. What political ideology openly supports aggressive violence?

[African_Love]

Your defiition of libertarianism is extremely simplified in parts and completely wrong in others. I was about to explain it, but you know what, I'm not going to. Just think of liberty. Communism is definitely not libertarianism.

I realize it was overly simplified but what points were flat out wrong? Why would you not consider voluntary communism to be libertarian?


What political ideology openly supports aggressive violence?

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes?

[OrphanPip]

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes?

In Canada, the money would be seized from your bank account and you would go along with your business.

This is an issue of social contract, you are taking advantage of the state's provided resources. Those roads, schools, military protection, cost money and your refusal to pay to it amounts to theft. If you don't agree with how many taxes you have you always have the option of emigration and campaigning for a change of policy.

[African_Love]

In Canada, the money would be seized from your bank account and you would go along with your business.

This is an issue of social contract, you are taking advantage of the state's provided resources. Those roads, schools, military protection, cost money and your refusal to pay to it amounts to theft. If you don't agree with how many taxes you have you always have the option of emigration and campaigning for a change of policy.

If this is done without my consent, it is theft and I'm sure at some point, refusing to pay a fine or tax (what if one closed their bank account and withdrew everything they had) is punishable with jail time. Physically restraining someone is a form of violence, never mind that police are authorized to kill you if you resist an arrest.

A legitimate social contract requires the explicit consent of all the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. All, not the majority, of the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. Nobody chose to be born on land that a government arbitrarily considers to be it's territory. Every square inch of land on this planet is considered the property of some government so while some people have the option of emigrating and being subject to the authority of a different government, everyone is subject to the authority of a government. The things the state provide that I enjoy were paid for by stolen money, a small amount of which is my own.

Whether or not anarchism would 'work' is a separate issue from whether or not authority is just. It isn't because authority is maintained through aggressive violence and violence is only justified in defense. No one is justified in violating individual rights for the 'greater good', only individuals can be benefitted or harmed, only individuals have interests. 'Society' is an abstraction, it's a form of anthropomorphism to ascribe collective interests to separate individuals.

[OrphanPip]

A legitimate social contract requires the explicit consent of all the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. All, not the majority, of the individuals who are considered bound to that contract. Nobody chose to be born on land that a government arbitrarily considers to be it's territory. Every square inch of land on this planet is considered the property of some government so while some people have the option of emigrating and being subject to the authority of a different government, everyone is subject to the authority of a government. The things the state provide that I enjoy were paid for by stolen money, a small amount of which is my own.

Whether or not anarchism would 'work' is a separate issue from whether or not authority is just. It isn't because authority is maintained through aggressive violence and violence is only justified in defense. No one is justified in violating individual rights for the 'greater good', only individuals can be benefitted or harmed, only individuals have interests. 'Society' is an abstraction, it's a form of anthropomorphism to ascribe collective interests to separate individuals.

I don't think the practicality of anarchy is all that separate from the justice of government authority. It is an intellectual abstraction to remove the implications of anarchy from the morality of it. Can something which results in harming masses of people be considered the right thing to do? If government authority is necessary to maintain and defend certain rights, then it is certainly justifiable.

As to society having rights above the individual. We attribute rights and welfare to many things which are not individual human beings. Most people acknowledge that harm to nature as a whole is worse than harm to a single blade of grass. Does it not follow that in some cases harm to the individual human is sometimes justified in order to protect all of humanity from a greater harm, especially when that single individual would be harmed even more in the absence of intervention. The goal of taxation is not to harm the individual, it is to benefit society as a whole, the harm to the individual is an unwanted side effect.

[NASSIMLWARD2008]

thank your for all

[African_Love]

I don't think the practicality of anarchy is all that separate from the justice of government authority. It is an intellectual abstraction to remove the implications of anarchy from the morality of it. Can something which results in harming masses of people be considered the right thing to do?

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.



If government authority is necessary to maintain and defend certain rights, then it is certainly justifiable.

How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.


As to society having rights above the individual. We attribute rights and welfare to many things which are not individual human beings. Most people acknowledge that harm to nature as a whole is worse than harm to a single blade of grass.

"Nature" cannot be harmed. Only sentient beings with a preference to experience pleasure or avoid distress can be harmed or benefitted.


Does it not follow that in some cases harm to the individual human is sometimes justified in order to protect all of humanity from a greater harm, especially when that single individual would be harmed even more in the absence of intervention. The goal of taxation is not to harm the individual, it is to benefit society as a whole, the harm to the individual is an unwanted side effect.

Consciousness is something that individuals experience. Morality is a matter of maximizing happiness and/or at least minimizing distress (justice is an issue of rights). There is no collective, societal consciousness, only individuals can experience distress or pleasure, only individuals have interests. The distress of ten people does not outweigh the distress of one person since you cannot add, subtract, divide etc. a subjective, individual experience. It is not ethical to cause one person distress in order to benefit ten other people. Taxation does not benefit 'society' because 'society' cannot be benefitted, taxation benefits individuals at the expense of other individuals.

[OrphanPip]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

This is impractical to the point of being almost impossible. Voluntary co-operation as equals defies everything in human nature. Humans act self-interestedly. As groups form, even if they act co-operatively amongst themselves they are bound to come into conflict with other groups and attempt to exploit them. The absence of authority is an impossibility, authority is within human nature and erupts spontaneously. Even without institutionalized authority, like that of the state, certain individuals will always take on moral/ethical/traditional authority in the eyes of others. It is no coincidence that hierarchical society is found within every group of humans on Earth, and amongst other primates.



How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.


Certainly violating some rights of an individual is at times justifiable. It is justifiable to violate an individual's right to not be harmed if they are threatening your life. It is justifiable to constrain the right of free movement of individuals who have shown themselves to be dangerous to other individuals.



"Nature" cannot be harmed. Only sentient beings with a preference to experience pleasure or avoid distress can be harmed or benefitted.

Says you. Only fully conscious beings can act morally, but a plant can certainly be harmed. It is not sentient, but at a chemical level it will fight to survive against dangers in the environment. Pain is itself simply a different form of chemical defense, impulses are simply a different form of optimizing self-perservation.



Consciousness is something that individuals experience. Morality is a matter of maximizing happiness and/or at least minimizing distress (justice is an issue of rights). There is no collective, societal consciousness, only individuals can experience distress or pleasure, only individuals have interests. The distress of ten people does not outweigh the distress of one person since you cannot add, subtract, divide etc. a subjective, individual experience. It is not ethical to cause one person distress in order to benefit ten other people. Taxation does not benefit 'society' because 'society' cannot be benefitted, taxation benefits individuals at the expense of other individuals.

Is morality a matter of maximizing happiness? I disagree that some subjective experiences must always be subservient to others. It is not reasonable to argue that one starving person's desire to remain alive is equal to the desire of a well fed man for a filet mignon at dinner time, it would be justifiable to override one man's desire for a tasty meal to feed one who would otherwise die.

[DanielBenoit]

To add to what OrphanPip said; how is it that the definition of libertarianism becomes analogous to liberty itself? What is liberty? I agree that social libertarianism lies at the root of induvidual civil rights in that the government doesn't interfere with any person/s non-agressive behavior. But a small laisse-faire government in which the only reason for its existence is for national defense is preposterous. I don't think I even need to begin to describe all of capitalisms sins since the industrial revolution, commited by corporations/industries that took advantage of the working induvidual.

Also, in our society today in which governmental systems such as welfare end up benefiting the individual more than in the free market, then why hesitate? How can there be freedom for the working majority middle class induvidual, when the higher few (who already have a hand in government through lobbying) are so free to exploit the worker?

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, that is a a fact of life, but let's not make the poor go broke by letting the government turn its back on us. A libertarian government is a negligent government.


As a last note: I think people too often mistake political principles as set-in-stone metaphysical eternal facts. How is the structure of a tribal society the same as the globalized world market we live in today? How would both imply the same principles? A laisse-faire structure of governmental authority may have been useful in small tribes, but is utterly impractical in a complex inter-connected economy like ours.

EDIT: Also, just as some clarification, libertarian socialism is in fact a real political ideology. It advocates abolishing or at least minimalizing authoritarian institutions that own and control the productive means of private property (i.e., the government, the free market, etc.) and to place it in the hands of the people in a direct democracy (or other forms of democracy). As a matter of fact, the word libertarian stems from this idea and was originally used as a codename for French anarcho-communists who were banned from being published.

This system, just like communism, too is unrealistic utopianism, for modes of hierarchy are bound to occur in a society, as it is just human nature.

[Hurricane]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

You let me know when this works out. Humans are competitive by nature. Individuals, tribes, villages, countries, societies and civilizations all act in the best interest of themselves or their group. Conflict and hierarchy are natural. Maybe a couple of hippies stoned in the woods can live like that, but humanity as a whole will never be able to live in "voluntary cooperation."


How can an organization that violates rights be necessary to defend them? How can an organization that steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders be necessary to prevent people from stealing from one another or initiating violence? Besides, government authority isn't limited to defending rights.

I know you already rejected social contract theory, but there's a give and a take to everything. I give up my "right" to stab someone for cutting me in line so that I don't have to fear random acts of violence done against me, for example. I'm kind of okay with that.
I affirmed that I acknowledge and respect that contract by living within the borders of the United States and maintaining my citizenship. By your citizenship, you acknowledge that contract as well. If you can't handle that, then feel free to go elsewhere. You don't choose where you're born, but you can choose where you go, and frankly, I wouldn't wish living in some of the countries that don't have a government that "steals from people and initiates violence against non-offenders" on my worst enemies.

[African_Love]

This is impractical to the point of being almost impossible. Voluntary co-operation as equals defies everything in human nature. Humans act self-interestedly. As groups form, even if they act co-operatively amongst themselves they are bound to come into conflict with other groups and attempt to exploit them. The absence of authority is an impossibility, authority is within human nature and erupts spontaneously. Even without institutionalized authority, like that of the state, certain individuals will always take on moral/ethical/traditional authority in the eyes of others. It is no coincidence that hierarchical society is found within every group of humans on Earth, and amongst other primates.

Hunter-gatherers tend to form egalitarian societies. There's an interesting passage on this by David Leakey that I'm too lazy to search for and post. For example, when a Khoi-San hunter kills a large, non-human animal, he downplays how great of a success it was to avoid appearing vain and boastful. Their culture stresses humility as a means of maintaining social cohesion and equality, I admit, this has to be maintained and it doesn't come "naturally". Bonobos also form egalitarian societies. The concept of human "nature" is flawed, we are cultural animals and everything every single one of us does is human and natural. We have a genetic capacity for very different kinds of behavior, environment determines which capacity is stimulated.

Also, I think you're confusing natural born 'leaders' with 'authority'. Being a charismatic individual with social influence is not the same thing as dominating others through coercion or violence.



Certainly violating some rights of an individual is at times justifiable. It is justifiable to violate an individual's right to not be harmed if they are threatening your life. It is justifiable to constrain the right of free movement of individuals who have shown themselves to be dangerous to other individuals.

When you violate the rights of others, you forfeit your own. You can't compare shooting a would be murderer before he unfairly kills you to imprisoning a non-violent person for soliciting sex for money or smoking marijuana.



Says you. Only fully conscious beings can act morally, but a plant can certainly be harmed. It is not sentient, but at a chemical level it will fight to survive against dangers in the environment. Pain is itself simply a different form of chemical defense, impulses are simply a different form of optimizing self-perservation.

A plant can be injured, that isn't the same thing as being 'harmed'. I have a conscious preference as to whether or not I am killed, plants do not. There's no conscious intention in a plant releasing chemicals to avoid danger, intention doesn't exist for us either (the nervous system is a machine, it reacts to stimuli rather than behaving intentionally) but there is the illusion of intention/free will and a conscious desire to experience pleasure, avoid distress and, in normal circumstances, to survive.




Is morality a matter of maximizing happiness? I disagree that some subjective experiences must always be subservient to others. It is not reasonable to argue that one starving person's desire to remain alive is equal to the desire of a well fed man for a filet mignon at dinner time, it would be justifiable to override one man's desire for a tasty meal to feed one who would otherwise die.

Agreed with underlined. I wouldn't let someone starve if stealing from someone more well off could help them. Using violence against someone else (a non-offender) to help the less fortunate is something else I don't really want to get into now.

I may read and respond to the other posts later but I'm watching The Road online and I don't have much time left!

[JonathanLockely]

The absense of authority cannot harm anyone. Only an action can harm someone. Voluntary co-operation, as equals, is what would make a world without authority a liveable place.

The absence of authority is what allows people to be harmed. I would go farther but this is beat to death.


What it boils down to is Idealism vs. Realism.

Libertarians in general have a very Idealist outlook on the world. If you were to talk to a hundred people and ask them if they would rather live in a nation with our President and Congress, or live in a nation where there is no government period, I believe the overwhelming majority would choose the former. It is very easy to say we could have voluntary co-operation as equals, but it practice it doesn't work.

Think of this, we are all equal and their is no government. you need food. You can ask someone to barter for food (their would be no currency) but what if they don't want what you have? Or they don't feel like making anymore food than what they need? Furthermore, the real issue here is what is to stop them from stabbing you for what you have? or anyone else they meet?

we have become so large as a group of people that it would be impossible to exist without government.

[aquarium444]

Libertarians are opposed to aggressive violence and coercion (the threat of aggressive violence). Most people claim to be opposed to aggressive violence, in most circumstances, but libertarians are opposed to the initiation of non-defensive violence by anyone, including generally accepted authority figures. A government's authority is maintained through it's ability to initiate violence (how else could they force people to pay taxes or prevent them from doing illegal drugs, selling/purchasing sex, committing truancy etc. ?)

Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right. Some libertarians advocate small government (I don't understand how this would work, if a consistent libertarian believes that all taxation is theft), some are anarchists who advocate the abolition of governments. Some advocate capitalism or free market enterprise and some advocate voluntary communism.

Do you agree with the libertarian philosophy? Why or why not?

This kind of ideology made sense in the past but in this day and age it is all table talk and nothing more. That is not a bad thing necessarily either. If there are any kind of answers concerning liberty than look at technology for answers. Technology for example might be able to place things in perspective. It might allow us to view a specific time period more accurately and than people would take libertarianism or whatever else and use it to place it in context, and be able to leave of it in those terms.

[eric.bell]

It is not reasonable to argue that one starving person's desire to remain alive is equal to the desire of a well fed man for a filet mignon at dinner time, it would be justifiable to override one man's desire for a tasty meal to feed one who would otherwise die.

Desire is in each man's heart, so one cannot truly know who desires more than the other. I would say that it is good to feed the hungry, so long as it is your food (your resources) that is feeding the person. (I am a charitable person who believes in giving of one's self) However, it is not good to take from the well fed man, in order to feed the starving one. Be weary of beginning the cycle of "take"; for once it starts you will find that there is always someone who sees their self worse off than you, and therefore they(according to your own principles) would have the right to take from you (even if you needed it).


Quote:
"Libertarians believe in self-ownership which means that because you are the rightful 'owner' of your body and your life, you alone should have exclusive decision making control when it comes to your body and your life, so long as you don't deprive anyone else of this right."

This is probably the only part I agree on. anything a person choose's to do should be legal, even self-destructive tendencies, so long as they don't interfere with others rights to do the same.

If you agree with this, then it would seem you agree with the very essence of Libertarianism.

[JacobF]

There are quite a few typical fallacies in this thread about libertarianism -- the general one that libertarians advocate a society where a dog-eat-dog corporate hegemony reigns supreme -- but this one, I think, deserves a closer look:


The goal of taxation is not to harm the individual, it is to benefit society as a whole, the harm to the individual is an unwanted side effect.

It is ironic that libertarianism gets flak because of its airy idealism, yet some of the most common defenses of government intervention as the one I quoted deal with its "good intentions." On a very superficial level taxation seems like an honest function of government, but think about the contradiction there: how does society, which is composed of individuals first and foremost, benefit from the effective theft of its members' earnings? Libertarianism recognizes that the function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The only way to finance public spending is to reap the earnings of the individual's property, that property being his/her own labour, and in effect infringe on his/her rights. This should be immoral in any democratic society. Building new infrastructure or expanding entitlement programs may seem like loyal goals, but where do you get that money from? And by what right? If rights are to be inalienable they cannot be cherry-picked by government executives. The logic of social contract theory cannot work unless that contract, like all other contracts, is consensual and voluntary. Hence why J.S. Mill (not exactly a libertarian theorist but certainly important in advocating liberty) disparaged the ethical assumption of progressive taxation as beneficial for society.

Libertarianism is not anarchism. To put it simply, government is necessary as a referee between the affairs of individuals, but not a major player. There is debate among libertarians as to the practical applications of government, but I would say that since courts, legislatures, police, and military are tantamount in enforcing the law they require taxes. Other regulatory functions should be minimal. Libertarianism is also not corporatism. Corporations who advance purely on a government-granted privilege, whether it be through subsidies or through lobbyists who peddle special-interest laws, have no place in a truly free market. I don't wish to go much further with this point as I don't want to make this a discussion of current politics, but it can be seen today (and since the Great Depression) that "crony capitalism" is very popular during economic downturns.

There are many facets of libertarianism that I have not touched on, nor has the original poster. But Virgil put it most clearly. Libertarianism is just what its root word is: liberty. It has little to do with self-ownership (a contradiction in terms) nor is it utopian. On the other hand, trusting the government with funds reaped from private earnings is utopian. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt or anything by Milton Friedman are great books for anyone interested in libertarian theory.

[OrphanPip]

It is ironic that libertarianism gets flak because of its airy idealism, yet some of the most common defenses of government intervention as the one I quoted deal with its "good intentions." On a very superficial level taxation seems like an honest function of government, but think about the contradiction there: how does society, which is composed of individuals first and foremost, benefit from the effective theft of its members' earnings?

Let's first distance ourselves from politically loaded rhetoric, like calling taxation "theft". Firstly, I was using the Doctrine of Double Effect as merely one form of justifying taxation.



Libertarianism recognizes that the function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The only way to finance public spending is to reap the earnings of the individual's property, that property being his/her own labour, and in effect infringe on his/her rights. This should be immoral in any democratic society. Building new infrastructure or expanding entitlement programs may seem like loyal goals, but where do you get that money from? And by what right? If rights are to be inalienable they cannot be cherry-picked by government executives. The logic of social contract theory cannot work unless that contract, like all other contracts, is consensual and voluntary. Hence why J.S. Mill (not exactly a libertarian theorist but certainly important in advocating liberty) disparaged the ethical assumption of progressive taxation as beneficial for society.

Libertarianism is not anarchism. To put it simply, government is necessary as a referee between the affairs of individuals, but not a major player. There is debate among libertarians as to the practical applications of government, but I would say that since courts, legislatures, police, and military are tantamount in enforcing the law they require taxes. Other regulatory functions should be minimal.

As citizens in a Democracy, we decide our tax burden and system. The tax system has evolved by consent of the majority of people within Democratic states. Moreover, it is not logically consistent to say that you have to pay taxes to enforce the law but for nothing else. Why is it necessary to maintain the law, but not a base quality of living or public education? What is the purpose of a state if it can not protect and improve the interest of all members of the society. Natives in the Canadian Arctic have just as much a right, as Canadian citizens, to education and public services that they would otherwise never be able to afford.

[JacobF]

Let's first distance ourselves from politically loaded rhetoric, like calling taxation "theft". Firstly, I was using the Doctrine of Double Effect as merely one form of justifying taxation.

Taxation may not be as visible as a bank robbery or a mugging, but the action itself is still theft, albeit legal, socially accepted theft. Even if those taxes are taken in the name of the "common good," they have still been taken. Perhaps the word theft is more relevant to income taxes which are completely involuntary. Besides, I could have gone farther and called it slavery, but even I find that to be melodramatic. "Theft" states my point clearly enough.


As citizens in a Democracy, we decide our tax burden and system. The tax system has evolved by consent of the majority of people within Democratic states. Moreover, it is not logically consistent to say that you have to pay taxes to enforce the law but for nothing else. Why is it necessary to maintain the law, but not a base quality of living or public education? What is the purpose of a state if it can not protect and improve the interest of all members of the society. Natives in the Canadian Arctic have just as much a right, as Canadian citizens, to education and public services that they would otherwise never be able to afford.

In all of history I have never heard of a time when the citizens of a country decided to give their earnings to the government. Do you think Canadian citizens actually decided to maintain income tax, supposedly a temporary measure? We decide who our public officials are (though in many cases, like in Canada, they are appointed bureaucrats) but we do not decide the tax burden. When the government needs more funds they simply hike taxes through legislation. Sure, we can vote them out of office, and we can give them low approval ratings, but we do not play an active role in deciding legislation that interferes with our own lives. We have little to no control over regulatory functions of government and whether they decide to trust individuals in their affairs.

As for government and law, law is the only area where government can justifiably operate (with constitutional limits, of course) because the function of law is to, first and foremost, protect rights. Robbery, for example, when someone's property has been taken by force, requires government intervention to deal with in a rational manner. As the basis of law is force, the government should play a very minimal role in affairs that deal with voluntary exchanges between individuals. The government's role is not to give people tangible services at the expense of others (i.e. taxation). Some are more unfortunate than others; that, however, does not give government any privilege to trample individual rights for some greater good. Its role is to protect individual rights, not violate some and make up others.

I didn't think your Doctrine of Double Effect justified taxation. It places good intentions (though for all we know they are careless and rotten) above results. How can you serve the "rights" of one group while trampling the rights of the individual? How is that just?

[Babbalanja]

Taxation may not be as visible as a bank robbery or a mugging, but the action itself is still theft, albeit legal, socially accepted theft. Even if those taxes are taken in the name of the "common good," they have still been taken. Perhaps the word theft is more relevant to income taxes which are completely involuntary. Besides, I could have gone farther and called it slavery, but even I find that to be melodramatic. "Theft" states my point clearly enough. Oh. Kay.

So, in your libertarian utopia, who pays for roads, schools, the sewers, libraries, postal service, disaster services, and all the other things your taxes now pay for?


As for government and law, law is the only area where government can justifiably operate (with constitutional limits, of course) because the function of law is to, first and foremost, protect rights. Robbery, for example, when someone's property has been taken by force, requires government intervention to deal with in a rational manner. As the basis of law is force, the government should play a very minimal role in affairs that deal with voluntary exchanges between individuals. You seem inordinately obsessed with individual rights like owning property. This seems like the basis for a pro-business perspective. But how are we supposed to ensure that businesses don't pollute, or practice discrimination? Is it part of individual rights to do these things, or do we have the right to demand that individuals don't do these things?


The government's role is not to give people tangible services at the expense of others (i.e. taxation).To my mind, it is.


Some are more unfortunate than others; that, however, does not give government any privilege to trample individual rights for some greater good. Its role is to protect individual rights, not violate some and make up others. Through what rational process did you decide that owning property is a right, but basic human needs aren't?

Regards,

Istvan

[JacobF]

Oh. Kay.

So, in your libertarian utopia, who pays for roads, schools, the sewers, libraries, postal service, disaster services, and all the other things your taxes now pay for?

Private companies. You don't need a central body to hand out goods and services that people demand. To be honest I do not feel like going through each of those services and explaining the possible methods involved, so here is an article that deals with private funding of infrastructure: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9307


You seem inordinately obsessed with individual rights like owning property. This seems like the basis for a pro-business perspective. But how are we supposed to ensure that businesses don't pollute, or practice discrimination? Is it part of individual rights to do these things, or do we have the right to demand that individuals don't do these things?

Perhaps to you it is an inordinate obsession, but individual rights are the only legitimate rights. If a business pollutes someone's property, there is obviously going to be a lawsuit involved. Again, the government's function is to intervene when rights are being violated, so individuals who have surrendered their rights by violating another person's rights deserve punishment.


To my mind, it is.

Care to back that up with reasons? I would like to know how a just society can pat itself on the back for serving the public interest while having no issue enforcing gratuitous taxes (and spending the funds poorly, too).


Through what rational process did you decide that owning property is a right, but basic human needs aren't?

You seem to be under the impression that individual rights only include property rights. The right to own property is important, but the right to your own liberty -- the will to pursue your own affairs without interference (hence, libertarianism) -- must be sacrosanct in any society that wishes to be free. Basic human needs on their own are not a right. In a perfect world, getting something for nothing would be a right, but it simply cannot be a right, as that good or service must be taken from the earnings of someone else. If we lived in a society where entitlement trumped liberty (more and more we do) the concept of rights would be defeated altogether. Acquiring basic needs through your own free will is a right.

[Babbalanja]

You seem to be under the impression that individual rights only include property rights. The right to own property is important, but the right to your own liberty -- the will to pursue your own affairs without interference (hence, libertarianism) -- must be sacrosanct in any society that wishes to be free. Basic human needs on their own are not a right. In a perfect world, getting something for nothing would be a right, but it simply cannot be a right, as that good or service must be taken from the earnings of someone else. If we lived in a society where entitlement trumped liberty (more and more we do) the concept of rights would be defeated altogether. Acquiring basic needs through your own free will is a right.It always impresses me how deeply cynical the libertarian vision is. At its core, there's this reactionary frontier mythos that has very little to do with life in postindustrial society. There's an attitude that the government is the only coercive body in modern life.

Worst of all is the idealization of industry as the agent of liberty, and the profit motive as the lifeblood of a free and prosperous society. That this predatory sensibility has survived the wars and economic upheavals that it has caused is a testimony to limitless self-delusion.

Regards,

Istvan

[eric.bell]

How can free-market capitalism, a system that does not use coercion, start a war?

[eric.bell]

Worst of all is the idealization of industry as the agent of liberty, and the profit motive as the lifeblood of a free and prosperous society. That this predatory sensibility has survived the wars and economic upheavals that it has caused is a testimony to limitless self-delusion.

Babbalanja, name one war or recession that was caused by free-market capitalism--just one, mind you--and be able to defend your finding.

[JacobF]

It always impresses me how deeply cynical the libertarian vision is. At its core, there's this reactionary frontier mythos that has very little to do with life in postindustrial society. There's an attitude that the government is the only coercive body in modern life.

Worst of all is the idealization of industry as the agent of liberty, and the profit motive as the lifeblood of a free and prosperous society. That this predatory sensibility has survived the wars and economic upheavals that it has caused is a testimony to limitless self-delusion.

Regards,

Istvan

Cynical? Please. The belief that governments should command the affairs of individuals because they are not capable of managing themselves is the height of cynicism. I do not recall saying that industry is an agent of liberty, rather that government, through unconstitutional legislation, is a threat to liberty. Liberty is the will to do what one wishes so long as you do not violate the rights of others. It is inalienable. So naturally, any society that advocates liberty must advocate free markets. I am not against the role of government; I am only against the government's overstepping of its role. Barely a "reactionary frontier mythos."

It is because of the profit motive, that you deride as a predatory force, that prosperity has thrived in Canada, USA, and elsewhere. The sentiment that governments must, at all costs, protect society from evil greedy industrialists is a remnant of Marxist thought that has no bearing in reality. This is never backed up with reasons; it is simply stated as an irrefutable fact that one person's success leads to another person's despair. Is that not a much greater delusion? Those who are left alone to start their own ventures (see: the colonizing of America) are the ones who bring prosperity. Just look at productivity and employment rates today versus pre-Industrial times.

[Virgil]

Cynical? Please. The belief that governments should command the affairs of individuals because they are not capable of managing themselves is the height of cynicism. I do not recall saying that industry is an agent of liberty, rather that government, through unconstitutional legislation, is a threat to liberty. Liberty is the will to do what one wishes so long as you do not violate the rights of others. It is inalienable. So naturally, any society that advocates liberty must advocate free markets. I am not against the role of government; I am only against the government's overstepping of its role. Barely a "reactionary frontier mythos."

It is because of the profit motive, that you deride as a predatory force, that prosperity has thrived in Canada, USA, and elsewhere. The sentiment that governments must, at all costs, protect society from evil greedy industrialists is a remnant of Marxist thought that has no bearing in reality. This is never backed up with reasons; it is simply stated as an irrefutable fact that one person's success leads to another person's despair. Is that not a much greater delusion? Those who are left alone to start their own ventures (see: the colonizing of America) are the ones who bring prosperity. Just look at productivity and employment rates today versus pre-Industrial times.
Outstanding response!! Five stars for you. :wink5:

http://www.contracosta.cc.ca.us/math/fivestar.gif

[Babbalanja]

It is because of the profit motive, that you deride as a predatory force, that prosperity has thrived in Canada, USA, and elsewhere. The sentiment that governments must, at all costs, protect society from evil greedy industrialists is a remnant of Marxist thought that has no bearing in reality. Oh, really? Ask a worker at a maquiladora, or some undocumented worker in a slaughterhouse in Texas. Ask the folks who lost their retirement plans when the greed party crashed in 2008. Ask the people who just got laid off Tuesday at the company I work for in Massachusetts. Maybe they'll have a different story to tell about the wonderful freedoms afforded them by this economic system.

You're the one who's arguing that capitalism is the best of all possible worlds, amigo. But the system isn't devised to meet human needs or even distribute goods and services, it's simply there to create wealth for a few at the expense of the vast majority. It's a system where people are simply factors of production on one end and consumers on the other. I have my problems with government, but unregulated greed is as destructive as any terrorism you could name.

Capitalism creates its own instability with its foundation in consumer spending. Numerous boom-and-bust cycles have resulted from unregulated market forces running their course. And as a result of its supply-and-demand logic, it creates ghastly inequities and rewards behavior that doesn't benefit the community in the least. During the Depression, farmers were destroying produce rather than flooding the market with it. This wasn't a weird aberration, this was exactly what we'd expect under such a system: the farmers are merely looking out for their own interests and don't want to lose their farms and homes. So while millions starve, crops burn. Freedom and liberty indeed.

I'm no Marxist, but I've seen the havoc wreaked on communities by the cynicism of an economic perspective that values profit over people. You yourself said human needs on their own are not a right, showing your contempt for the have-nots that this system creates. It's funny to hear Christians applauding you for your cynicism: Jesus continually admonished people for their materialism and stressed that riches were an obstacle to a virtuous life.

And it's in the best interests of our beneficent corporate overlords to make it seem like this is the only system that "works." If we don't like it, say the laissez-faire acolytes, the only alternative is to suffer in a totalitarian hellhole like the USSR or China. What we're supposed to ignore is that there are plenty of examples of moderate socialist societies like those in the UK and Scandinavia. I'm not claiming any of these nations is Utopia, but at least a realistic safety net is in place there to protect people from the predations of the free market.

And in the USA, we had a strong labor movement before Wilson decided to send men in masses overseas in WWI. It's no accident that in the intervening decades, it's become unpatriotic to criticize capitalism. It's now unfashionable to even point out that there's poor people in America, or to support programs to ameliorate their plight. Initiatives like the New Deal and the Great Society are looked at with macho scorn, if they're remembered at all. And unions are mocked as antiquated symbols of cronyism and inefficiency, as if there's no reason for working people to organize in the 21st century.

Since Reagan rewrote history for a populace that was desperate to hear patriotic lies instead of the ugly truth, the shakedown of the little guy has escalated. The tax burden has shifted from Wall Street to Main Street. More and more of the financial regulatory infrastructure put in place after the Depression eroded with every subsequent administration, until now speculators are making money not on production, not on money, not even on debt, but on risk. Google credit default swaps to get a picture of the sixty trillion dollar roulette wheel that pays big money when markets are at their least stable.

I've been told plenty of times that anyone who talks about 'meeting human needs' or 'the benefit of the community' is a hopeless Pollyanna who doesn't understand the realities of modern economics. Well, if I'm going to play Let's Pretend like the libertarians, I'd rather fantasize about a system that recognizes people rather than one that benefits by deceiving and exploiting them.

Regards,

Istvan

[MarkBastable]

If I were the sort who said things like, Outstanding response!! Five stars for you and backed it up with an actual graphic of five stars, then that's what I'd be offering now, Bab.

However, I'd like to add a little to an observation you made in an earlier post...

At the core <of the libertarian vision>, there's this reactionary frontier mythos that has very little to do with life in postindustrial society.

I think it's more a kind of arrested development - a fixation at a moment of adolescent tantrum. You can't tell me what to do! I'm a grown-up!

The frontiersmen thing is a romanticisation of that impulse to escape from the parental home and get your own place, and it's deeply rooted in the American psyche because that's exactly how the country was founded, actually and metaphorically.

The problem with such behaviour now is exactly the same as it was then, which is that the pushing forward of frontiers - whether carried out by unwashed blokes in coonskin hats or by gleaming corporate capitalists - involves riding roughshod over anyone who happens to be living just beyond those ever-advancing frontiers.

But as the history of empires shows, the sacrosanct nature of individual rights does not, of course, apply to those who find themselves blamelessly in the way of the happy progress of freedom.

[eric.bell]

This was written in quite a hurry, so I hope that it is coherent.


Ask a worker at a maquiladora, or some undocumented worker in a slaughterhouse in Texas. Ask the folks who lost their retirement plans when the greed party crashed in 2008. Ask the people who just got laid off Tuesday at the company I work for in Massachusetts. Maybe they'll have a different story to tell about the wonderful freedoms afforded them by this economic system.

Our "greed party" (by which I assume you mean prosperity) crashed, because of corrupt government regulation. Organizations such as Fanny-May and Freddie-Mac forced loans, tried fervently to hide the growing problem (that no one was paying back the loans), while all the while lining their pockets with the money they were supposedly helping the poor get houses with. ACORN--do I even have to go there? The organization is riddled with corruption and has agents offering help to pimps who want to start an under-age prostitution ring. The regulators are more corrupt than the businesses they regulate. Regulations are what have put us in this mess (for they allowed for over-spending and zero-saving); and yet you want more of this? And who do we choose to fix the problem we are in? the people who put us in it. Marvelous plan...truly marvelous. If something like a mild libertarianism isn't adopted here in the U.S. soon, we are headed for economic hell.


During the Depression, farmers were destroying produce rather than flooding the market with it. This wasn't a weird aberration, this was exactly what we'd expect under such a system: the farmers are merely looking out for their own interests and don't want to lose their farms and homes. So while millions starve, crops burn. Freedom and liberty indeed.

Are you attempting to make my point for me? Farmers burned their crops in the Depression because the government had stepped in and offered them money to not grow them or to burn them. (And interesting point, at this time Stalin was getting record numbers of crops from the Ukraine, yet starving the Ukrainians to the point of cannibalism.)


Jesus continually admonished people for their materialism and stressed that riches were an obstacle to a virtuous life.

Jesus also said if man does not work let him also not eat.


moderate socialist societies like those in the UK.
The UK is in the same state of economic recession that we are. Actually all the moderate socialist states are. Have you even heard of Greece? Moderate socialist states (which we are one) have been tried and are failing all around the world. The only exceptions to this being those that were intelligent enough to be saving all the while instead of spending.


unions are mocked as antiquated symbols of cronyism and inefficiency, as if there's no reason for working people to organize in the 21st century.
You do realize that GM had to be bailed out because they were catering to the every whim and want of the Unions. There are reasons for unionization; but Unions some how got the idea that the company was there to support them and not they who were there to support the company by creating products.

As for those undocumented workers, they are coming here to work for money to help feed their families back in Mexico. If you had your way, they'd be jobless and starving, because the people who think it is "only fair" that they get paid $30 an hour (plus pension) would have the job (or at least they would till the company went bankrupt from over spending). The only regulating there should be within a work place (and this is suspect to questioning) is how safe the work place is.

[Babbalanja]

Our "greed party" (by which I assume you mean prosperity) crashed, because of corrupt government regulation. ... ACORN--do I even have to go there? :rolleyes:

Eric,

Try again. And this time, try, okay?

Regards,

Istvan

[eric.bell]

Babblanja,

I will gladly do so tonight or tomorrow morning when I am able to devote more than two minutes to it. Are you only wanting supporting arguments for regulatory systems being one of the contributing factors (if not the main contributor) to the housing market crash?

Sincerely,

Eric

[Virgil]

What a crock. There have been presidents and admnistrations from both parties equally over the last hundred years. In fact, the Democrats ruled the House of Representatives for 44 years straight from 1950 to 1994. Out of the last 110 years, going back to the turn of the new century, the Democrats have controled the House for 66 years to the republicans 42 years. There is a mutual consensus in this country for capitailism frrom both parties, despite the rhetoric. It's just that one party has to lie so they can get the left leaning suckers to keep voting for them.

I'm always amazed at how little people really know about American politics.

This thread has entered current politics.

[billl]

I think Virgil has displayed an unfair focus on only one party's lying. Let's get rid of all of this current politics stuff, and not pretend that the last word, or the latest spin or unbalanced presentation in the thread wins. Because, yes, some people don't know enough about politics, and they eat that inflammatory crap up.

[Babbalanja]

Eric,

If you're merely going to hammer away at the kind of superficial talking points that are written on Sarah Palin's hand, don't bother.

I'm not interested in discussing partisan politics or current events. My post critiqued the flawed logic, insecure foundation, and systemic weaknesses of a predatory social philosophy. If you support the notion that the financial system doesn't need responsible oversight and creates liberty, prosperity, and equality, then defend your opinion.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, yeah! Lets trust corporations to take care of the well being of the populace, no need for regulation, they've got America's back! Pffft, how amazingly, mind-blowingly stupid. What a screwed up situation. I can't even believe that some people (*cough cough*) can see what's going on and still support capitalism.

[eric.bell]

Istvan,

First of all I ask you kindly to not compare my ideas with Mrs. Palin’s. How she thinks she is prepared (at the least of which foreign policy-wise) to run this country I cannot even claim to comprehend. But then again I cannot see how a one term Senator, such as President Obama was, thinks that he (whose only accomplishments being his writing an auto-biographical book and beating an elderly black woman out of office by a legal technicality [having to do with a signature on pre-election paperwork]) has any real sense of how to lead this country either. But I digress...for this is merely opinion and nearly banter.

Free-market Capitalism, I hope we can agree, is a market in which the government never intervenes economically (a ready example of government intervention being the bank bailouts and the bailouts of businesses such as GM) nor does the government have the power of regulation except for (judicial) regulation, which protects citizens (and businesses alike) from force or fraud. (Sadly, our government, itself, uses coercive action both at home and abroad: examples being Immanent Domain, the governments “right” to take land from any citizen so that the “common good” might be achieved [i.e. groups such as TVA or DOT], and the Iraq war (i.e. if there isn’t a stabilization of governments in the near east, then we cannot get oil; and if we cannot get oil, we will be without light and most foods; so we must make stability by setting up “proper” governments by use of the United States Armed Forces {note that I did not include the Afghan war}]).
It—free-market Capitalism, that is—is Materialistic in the most basic sense: material (in this case, man) is its own entity and therefore is its own property; and that one man does not need another’s consciousness of him in order to exist just as a mountain does not need our being conscious of it in order to be. If man is his or her own property, then any thing which is created from that man’s movements belong to him (till his death at which time he gives back to earth all which he has taken). So, if a woman works the earth and grows from it a garden, the fruits thereof belong to her and she may do with them as she pleases. No man and no woman, no matter how much they plead or coerce, may take said fruit from the gardener without her consent. And if any man or woman tries coercive means to attain said fruit, then the government (in the shape of the police) must intervene on the farmers behalf to stop the person from taking the fruits of her labor from her.
Taxation is an issue that could be argued in a myriad of directions; but needless to say, it is a necessary evil. I would put forward that we use a sales tax, because it is the most equalized tax out there—if you buy things you get taxed—the taxes pay to keep up police, as well as other regulatory program. Each state would divide itself into counties or parishes, and each county would decide what form of local government they would have—and thus would establish within said county’s borders any form of self taxation thought proper.

Can we agree so far? I understand that this is nearly utopian in thought, but it can work (especially in a state or smaller country).

I believe that Charity is of utmost importance (especially in free-market Capitalism). Do not misunderstand me though: Charity comes from each man’s heart and cannot be forced from a man. It is good for this thing, which many call a soul, to give. I believe that Charity is a nourisher* (yeah, I just invented that word I think) of the soul, just as bread is a nourisher of the body; and therefore Charity is done truly out of selfishness in order to nourish the soul. But that takes not from it—Charity still is a foundation that any society would think well to establish itself upon.

Respectfully,

Eric.

[Virgil]

And in the USA, we had a strong labor movement before Wilson decided to send men in masses overseas in WWI.

What? This is absolutely delusional. This is idiocy. The US number of casualties from WWI was about 117,000. The population of the US at the time was 92 million. And that caused the labor movement to collapse in the United States? What about the other 91.89 million people? Whoa, I didn't think you were too smart to begin with, but now you're in moron land.


Since Reagan rewrote history for a populace...
Really? Where and when was that book published and who read it? Good grief.

[Babbalanja]

I believe that Charity is of utmost importance (especially in free-market Capitalism).Eric,

The point is that, if the economic system were truly fair and equitable, there would be no need for charity. This capitalist system only values people if they are producing or consuming; those marginalized by the competition for limited jobs and resources are simply out of luck. That's not a system that promotes liberty. It's predatory and immoral.


What? This is absolutely delusional. This is idiocy. Virgil, my man, I didn't think you'd be taking any further part in this discussion, since it offended you enough to alert the administrators.

I also figured that with your profound knowledge of history, politics, and economics, you'd grasp what I actually mean about WWI. Again, I've overestimated your erudition. What I meant was that Wilson had the USA enter the war and immediately characterized any domestic concerns as unpatriotic. Didn't Wilson sign laws such as the Espionage Act and Sedition Act into law after America entered WWI, and use such wartime legislation to put many of his radical political enemies behind bars?

Please, Virgil, if you're going to get so upset by this discussion that you'll complain to the moderators and resort to personal slurs, perhaps you'd be better sitting this one out.

Regards,

Istvan

[Scheherazade]

-
Discussion of current politics is not allowed.
-