What is a libertarian?

[firecoins]

There is a long thread on why someone hates libertarians. At the beginning there seems to be alot of bad definitions. I will try to define libertarian beliefs here. I am not going to contribute to long, long thread. I don't know everything. I am not good at debating. I promise nothing.

A libertarian is some one who beliefs in indivual freedom. The free market is the best way for for individual to be free and thrive economically and a democratic government with limited power is the way to politically free.

Libertarians do not support anarchy. We are not anti government nor anti legislation. Libertarians don't support legislation, government programs or agencies that interfere on indivdual freedom. Clearly though government is necessary to provide infrastucture and protect the public from foreign entities, predatory behavior from other indivduals, businesses and the government amoung other things. Government should protect indiual freedom.

Taxes are money from indivuals as should be as low as possible. Government waste at all levels is abundant and is slow if rarely cut.

Healthcare should be in general free market. It doesn't mean governement programs should not exist. They should not be all encompassing. You should not be required to participate as a providee. Of course you should not than expect to receive benefits. You should not be forced to provide healthcare as a provider. Government should not set the prices providers receive for service. The market should.

 

[Earthborn]

Clearly though government is necessary to provide infrastucture

Lots of Libertarians will disagree with you on this.

You should not be required to participate as a providee.

How will you deal with adverse selection^WP? If sick people are more likely to be insured than healthy people, the costs of healthcare have to be paid mostly by the sick instead of spreading the costs and keeping premiums down.

Of course you should not than expect to receive benefits.

Which is rather harsh considering that we're talking about healthcare.

You should not be forced to provide healthcare as a provider.

You don't have to force any doctor to provide care in a system where they can be sure they are paid for their work. They can only be sure that they are paid for all patients by having a system that spreads the costs, and that requires a system that counteracts adverse selection.

 

[Darat]

That doesn't seem to gel well with any of the usual definitions of libertarian ideology I'm familiar with, which are usually of two kinds - "rights theorists" or "consequentialists".

Your definition sounds a somewhat muddled definition which takes bits from both camps e.g. the rights theorists usually maintain that all transactions should be of the "no force at all" i.e. consensual and voluntary, whilst the consequentialists (or "classical libertarians") don't have a moral objection to force and compulsion and usually agree it can sometimes be necessary (e.g. to provide the funds for a government/military and so on).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's probably worth pointing out that libertarian <> Libertarian.

 

[stup_id]

Personally, that's the low point in libertarianism, it assumes an even start... for it to work, we would have to somehow rewind society into equally "starting conditions".

Since reality is contrary to that, libertarianism in practice becomes simply natural selection of the fittest in every aspect. Somehow I expect more of the human society, since as a species we get to the place we are now (at least partially) by not just acting each one on their own behalf.

As i've said, this is personal opinion, but which degree of freedom can you reach with huge inequalities? I guess for the "lucky starters" the whole freedom, but for the "poor starters" quite the opposite, libertarianism in practice results in a lack of pragmatical freedom for the ones that turn out to start in the lower, poorer classes of society, which unfortunately are the majority very often.

I guess i'm from libertarianism to the point it affects individual choices, one should be able to chose whatever they want... but I think that paying a debt to society according to the profit earned, and of course assuring is a reasonable cut, is ultimately for the individual's own sake, again.. if he wishes not to take part into that (providing help) it should be its choice, but then shouldn't be able to receive benefits neither.. i bet my hat that comparing costs and benefits the majority of individuals will see this system to be the most beneficial, instead of keeping your taxes but taking your chances of getting ruined by a costly treatment for a disease

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Libertarians, well, libertarians are EVIL, evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do you understand?

(Mr. Garrison- edited)

Actually, I don't like libertarians because they want to abolish public education, which I think is the dumbest idea ever.

They vary from those who are opposed to the use of "force" to those who want freedom from hierarchy.

I have a soft spot for their ideas. But they apply them blindly to anything and everything regarding government.

Though I think the ones who are opposed to the use of "force" are a tad stupid for thinking that only the government is the cause of "force" and not corporations.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Actually, I don't like libertarians because they want to abolish public education, which I think is the dumbest idea ever.

I want to agree, but my state's public education system is being fined 1 million per day for not having the money to teach criminals in the criminals chosen language because criminals dont pay taxes

And health care?

UGH...good luck getting that if you are legal and/or EVER had a job

In those two cases I just dont see how it could be worse, or even as bad as what we've got now

 

[Prometheus]

I describe myself as a libertarian, though most of what passes for libertarian opinion makes no sense at all to me, and I've only once voted for a "Libertarian" candidate.

All institutions which exert any sort of control (physical, psychological, economic, etc.) over individual behaviour are de facto government; all government action should be confined to protection/maximization of individual rights.

 

[firecoins]

Personally, that's the low point in libertarianism, it assumes an even start... for it to work, we would have to somehow rewind society into equally "starting conditions".

No such assumption is made. There is no assumption that everyone starts as equals. It assumes that you are capable of handling your own affairs and should have the freedom to do so.

Since reality is contrary to that, libertarianism in practice becomes simply natural selection of the fittest in every aspect. Somehow I expect more of the human society, since as a species we get to the place we are now (at least partially) by not just acting each one on their own behalf.

See first response.

As i've said, this is personal opinion, but which degree of freedom can you reach with huge inequalities? I guess for the "lucky starters" the whole freedom, but for the "poor starters" quite the opposite, libertarianism in practice results in a lack of pragmatical freedom for the ones that turn out to start in the lower, poorer classes of society, which unfortunately are the majority very often.

Personal freedom is the goal. Not necessarily social equality.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

What exactly is the general libertarian position regarding positive liberty? From my experience they wholly ignore the concept, but do they even believe in the idea of positive liberty? Or do they discount it entirely and only believe in negative liberty?

 

[NeoRicen]

It assumes that you are capable of handling your own affairs and should have the freedom to do so.

A false assumption as well as many many people aren't capable of handling their own affairs, especially without public services. Libertarians are perfectly happy to sacrifice these people for their ideology.

Also I have seen ZERO evidence that it even works. And a simple understanding of human nature suggests it wouldn't.

I value personal freedom but I don't believe it's the be all and end all. I believe we all need to make sacrifices to contribute to society so we all live happy and comfortable lives.

For example I think taxes and their use are perfectly acceptable as their negative impact is far outweighed by the positive impact.

What many Libertarians fail to realise is that putting everything in the hands of the market simply gives you a 'for profit government'.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I define my beliefs as a 'small l' libertarian. Much of what Firecoins states I can support. Please note - I'm not an American (and never have been) and I understand that there have been some rather loopy 'Libertarians' in the past - which is unfortunate.

I support my beliefs strongly enough that I am voting with my feet. I am leaving Canada permanently to live in a country that (strangely enough) probably offers less than ideal Civil liberties, but allows me to deal independently with personal issues such as healthcare. While I would never give up the passport, I simply cannot continue to abide by their ecomonic policies. So - I'm taking my toys and leaving the sandbox. No hard feelings, Canada - you just simply aren't for me.

I should also point out, that I have a somewhat unique perspective - I have no children (and never will have), and while I am not 'rich', I am sufficiently wealthy to make emigration a viable option for me to leave the economically oppressive Canadian regime - something which many Canadians could not (and probably would never be in a position to) do.

I suspect that no major Western power will ever come close to forming a government that is based on 'small l' libertarian concepts in my lifetime - so I'll just go somewhere where I can afford to pretty much do as I please. Plan on being able to visit me in Cambodia, or Vietnam, perhaps Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Indonesia or Mexico in 2009 or so...

Is this an insidious / callous / 'evil' approach to life? I don't think so - and don't really care if people label me as such. I'm simply being practical and pragmatic. I have sufficient to semi-retire quite happily in one of the above countries. If I chose to stay in Canada, I'd need to work until I'm 65 to continue to enjoy the lifestyle with which I am accustomed. I choose beaches over bureaucracy.

-AH.

 

[Darat]

What exactly is the general libertarian position regarding positive liberty? From my experience they wholly ignore the concept, but do they even believe in the idea of positive liberty? Or do they discount it entirely and only believe in negative liberty?

I'd say that's the major difference between a rights theorist and a consequentialist libertarian; the consequentialist values positive liberty, the rights theorist doesn't.

 

[Schneibster]

What many Libertarians fail to realise is that putting everything in the hands of the market simply gives you a 'for profit government'.

AKA government by the rich, for the rich. We tried that. For a few thousand years, I do believe. It didn't work out all that well. We had, you know, revolutions and stuff. In some of the places where it was the worst, they were so pissed off they killed all the rich people and tried Communism. That didn't work out real great either.

The Western liberal democracy thing still seems to be working better than anything else, so far. As usual, everyone decides in the end that it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Plan on being able to visit me in Cambodia, or Vietnam, perhaps Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Indonesia or Mexico in 2009 or so...

Careful! Some of us may take you up on that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A libertarian is about as realistic as a parkinsons sufferer attempting to keep a model of the human genome balanced on their head whilst riding a caffeine addicted rhino.

 

[stup_id]

No such assumption is made. There is no assumption that everyone starts as equals. It assumes that you are capable of handling your own affairs and should have the freedom to do so.

As been pointed before, it is also a false assumption, not everyone is capable of handing their own affairs, and most of the times is because the "starting conditions" (being born poor, in a distant town.. etc, etc.). This means that in practice freedom becomes only for the people who can afford it.

Personal freedom is the goal. Not necessarily social equality.

Social inequality transforms in lack of freedom for the unlucky ones, not in law, but in practice.. their lack of "competitivity" and "productivity" narrows their choices to de facto slavery, it is very easy to blame people themselves for being unsuccesful when yourself were born with at least some inicial conditions that let you made the choices you wanted.

I think social equality is something desirable, and something beneficial to all the individuals in a given group.. (guess we should check about game theory and Nash equilibria), it is our evolutionary heritage that make us risk for short-time, greedy impulses, if all people were thoughtful and rational, there wouldn't be any problem with libertarianism since everyone would be doing the best for them minding the others... that is not the case, and a completely free market society, unless given steady economic growth (and significant), tends to distribute richness unevenly, strangely enough, one shouldn't check upon US to look at that, since although it is namely the most free market society in the world, in practice developing countries such as Mexico, Brasil and India are places where corruption allows people to do whatever the hell they want (inculding not paying taxes), and in practice (but not in law) everybody can virtually do what they want. Check upon the distribution of goods trough societies and i think we can say at least it is a consequence of that very fact

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is a long thread on why someone hates libertarians. At the beginning there seems to be alot of bad definitions. I will try to define libertarian beliefs here. I am not going to contribute to long, long thread. I don't know everything. I am not good at debating. I promise nothing.

A libertarian is some one who beliefs in indivual freedom. The free market is the best way for for individual to be free and thrive economically and a democratic government with limited power is the way to politically free.

Libertarians do not support anarchy. We are not anti government nor anti legislation. Libertarians don't support legislation, government programs or agencies that interfere on indivdual freedom. Clearly though government is necessary to provide infrastucture and protect the public from foreign entities, predatory behavior from other indivduals, businesses and the government amoung other things. Government should protect indiual freedom.

Taxes are money from indivuals as should be as low as possible. Government waste at all levels is abundant and is slow if rarely cut.

Healthcare should be in general free market. It doesn't mean governement programs should not exist. They should not be all encompassing. You should not be required to participate as a providee. Of course you should not than expect to receive benefits. You should not be forced to provide healthcare as a provider. Government should not set the prices providers receive for service. The market should.

So as an EMT you should have the freedom to ignore patients then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I define my beliefs as a 'small l' libertarian. Much of what Firecoins states I can support. Please note - I'm not an American (and never have been) and I understand that there have been some rather loopy 'Libertarians' in the past - which is unfortunate.

I support my beliefs strongly enough that I am voting with my feet. I am leaving Canada permanently to live in a country that (strangely enough) probably offers less than ideal Civil liberties, but allows me to deal independently with personal issues such as healthcare. While I would never give up the passport, I simply cannot continue to abide by their ecomonic policies. So - I'm taking my toys and leaving the sandbox. No hard feelings, Canada - you just simply aren't for me.

I should also point out, that I have a somewhat unique perspective - I have no children (and never will have), and while I am not 'rich', I am sufficiently wealthy to make emigration a viable option for me to leave the economically oppressive Canadian regime - something which many Canadians could not (and probably would never be in a position to) do.

I suspect that no major Western power will ever come close to forming a government that is based on 'small l' libertarian concepts in my lifetime - so I'll just go somewhere where I can afford to pretty much do as I please. Plan on being able to visit me in Cambodia, or Vietnam, perhaps Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Indonesia or Mexico in 2009 or so...

Is this an insidious / callous / 'evil' approach to life? I don't think so - and don't really care if people label me as such. I'm simply being practical and pragmatic. I have sufficient to semi-retire quite happily in one of the above countries. If I chose to stay in Canada, I'd need to work until I'm 65 to continue to enjoy the lifestyle with which I am accustomed. I choose beaches over bureaucracy.

-AH.

I see, make your money in a country with some standards then move to the third world. Seems the classic libertarian ideal of taking advantage of the benefits of a system and then opting out of it when you have to support it for others.

 

[richardm]

This means that in practice freedom becomes only for the people who can afford it.

In discussions I've had before with libertarians, the general reaction to this is "So what? Why is it my problem that these people aren't as fortunate as me?" It seems a reprehensible attitude to me.