Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Richard Masters]

No, it isn't. It's like telling an atheist that if he believes in God, he's not an atheist after all.

If you are comparing the definition of an atheist to a narrow interpretation of libertarianism, then your simile is flawed.

Essentially, the things you seem to be backing away from are the defining, core tenets of the philosophy of libertarianism.

So far you've mentioned one; and I'm not convinced it is a defining tenet of libertarianism.

If you want to disown them, good - they're absurd. But you're not a libertarian if you do.

Well, if it satisfies you, I'll stop referring to myself as libertarian, but I do agree with libertarianism when interpreted reasonably.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Or:

No, no, no! Don't you see? After enough kids fell into machines and got maimed or killed, no one would want children to work anymore, and they would draft legislation against child labor. And if children can't work, then no kids can get maimed. It works perfectly! Centraltopia is a great place for kids, at least the non-orphan ones who don't depend on their labor to eat or to live.

BZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Wrong answer!

Thank you for playing, please drive through.

 

[Francesca R]

I do agree with libertarianism when interpreted reasonably.

Oh me too. When "interpreted reasonably" means consigned to the scrapheap of reprehensible ideas where it belongs.

 

[volatile]

Well, if it satisfies you, I'll stop referring to myself as libertarian, but I do agree with libertarianism when interpreted reasonably.

If we're playing that game, I agree with fascism when interpreted reasonably. Y'know, if you strip away the totalitarian and rabidly nationalistic parts, I'm all for it. See how this works?

As Francesca and Dr. K have already pointed out, the things you balk at (no restriction of ability to consent to harm, no external definition of proportionality or a lack of governmental restriction on contract terms) are fundamentals of what it is to be libertarian. They underpin libertarian theory.

You're not a libertarian. Good on you.

 

[SaulOhio]

What on earth are you jabbering about? You are responsible for your posts no one here is forcing you to make posts that are full of fallacies.

If they are full of fallacies, PROVE IT, by actually arguing against the ideas I have expressed, instead of strawman arguments, and making ad-hominem attacks.

This is primarily a discussion Forum - what did yo expect, that you would post something and everyone would say "Yep we agree" and that would be it?

I expect that if people disagree with me, they would actually argue based on evidence and reason, not strawman arguments and ad-hominems.

I think I said something like that to your ludicrous claim that legislation/regulation didn't result in better working conditions in the 19th century. That type of claim either has to be a joke (and many folk here do make deadpan jokes as a form of satire or making a point) or a profound ignorance of the history of working conditions in the 19th century.

The only answer you have given me to my claims is to tell me I am ignorant of the history. I have heard PLENTY about the history of working conditions in the 19th century. But none of it gives me any reason to believe that it was the laws that really made the difference.

Originally Posted by SaulOhio
And you participated in a strawman of a typical pattern used against free market ideas: Because libertarians argue that the government shouldn't be trying to solve certain problems, you assume libertarians don't think they are problems, or believe they shouldn't be solved.

No. What you have created is a strawman, you can tell it is a strawman because this is not what I have posted or argued.

Then what HAVE you argued? Sounds to me, form what I even quoted, that you think that libertarians approve of the working conditions inthe 19th century. That is how I interpret it when you say things like:

You don't need to worry about any orphans and widows - the whole family would have been in the factory!

I would suggest that go back and read what I actually posted and actually address that, then we can have an actual discussion.

Right back at you.

Glad to hear that - now what about addressing what I've actually posted about?

Again, same to you. You have not said ANYTHING about the cause and effect relationship between the laws and actual improvements in working conditions. That seems to be simply asumed. All you do is tell me to go back and read somehting on the subject, without even giving me any specific suggestions on what to read.

If you are not, then you certainly do a good impression of one with the broken, inconsistent and utterly fanciful ideas you espouse.

Another ad-hominem. And the broken, inconsistent, and fanciful ideas are not the ones I espouse, but your almost seemingly intentional representations of them.

Can you prove, as is the original topic of this thread, that libertarian ideas have been implemented, and caused the current economic crisis, thus proving libertarianism false? No. You haven't even tried, because it is impossible, for reasons I have listed. For one, libertarians have not had any significant political power to implement their ideas. For another, decidedly anti-libertarian ideas have been implemented, the laundry list of regulations that are in place on the economy. Want to go back and read The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis

You can't prove that libertarian ideas have been tried and failed, so you change the subject to strawman criticisms of libertarian ideas and ad-hominem attacks.

So from now on, I am going to stick strictly to the topic. Can you prove that libertarian ideas have actually been tried, and thus caused the present financial crisis. Any discussion of anything else I will respond to only with one of these:

 

[Richard Masters]

Not at all. But it seems you are, given that "Centraltopia is a great place for kids, at least the non-orphan ones who don't depend on their labor to eat or to live" only holds true of you also believe that centrist governments would leave children to starve in the streets - which, note, would not happen. That's a classic false dilemma, right there from your own mouth.

Exactly. Did you read the context? I was satirizing someone else's absurd exaggeration.

In Libertopia, with their instinctive fear of both taxation and welfare, not so much.

You're no libertarian, Richard. You resist the core tenets of libertarian theory. For that, I commend you. Nevertheless, let's talk about what you were getting at here - in what circumstances is child labour acceptable?

In the 1800s, per context. Today, in a variety of unusual situations, for example, a village in Indonesia

How would a libertarian system benefit orphaned children

The first resource would be someone who can and wants to take of orphaned children. Relatives, Friends, Non-profit organizations.

Beyond that point, an orphan or anyone who through no fault of their own risks his/her life or risks living beneath a standard of well-being below that of the local community becomes the collective responsibility of the community, and this community decides via mutual consent on how to proceed.

Ideally, the community would request help from a non-local non-profit organization. Worst case scenario, the local government becomes involved and requests a vote on the solution, or chooses a solution and presents a tax.

, or child workers?

Would you deny a 12 year old the right to work to help his sick mother?

 

[Francesca R]

Can you prove, as is the original topic of this thread, that libertarian ideas have been implemented, and caused the current economic crisis, thus proving libertarianism false?

If you actually followed my posts you would see very clearly that I state categorically that "libertarian ideas"--and by that I mean a reasonably complete set of them--have never been implemented. And that thanks to recent events, the possibility that they ever will be recedes further into nothingness. Do try to keep up.

I am afraid that--to add to your other misconceptions about this forum, and probably almost any forum--your implication that if one is not posting about support or opposition to an opening post, then one has no business participating in a thread, . . . is invalid and something you have pulled out of somewhere I can only speculate about.

Likewise nobody is forcing you to post responses. But when you do and they are challenged, you do not have any legitimacy crying "red herring" when you are at a loss to answer challenges to you.

 

[volatile]

The first resource would be someone who can and wants to take of orphaned children. Relatives, Friends, Non-profit organizations.

Beyond that point, an orphan or anyone who through no fault of their own risks his/her life or risks living beneath a standard of well-being below that of the local community becomes the collective responsibility of the community, and this community decides via mutual consent on how to proceed.

That's called "social democracy", it involves the communal pooling of wealth, and has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism as defined.

As I keep saying, you're not a libertarian - here, you explicitly support the removal of property ("tax") from people against their will, entirely in opposition to a core libertarian principle. Good for you.

Would you deny a 12 year old the right to work to help his sick mother?

I would - as all modern democracies do - institute welfare programmes such that this is not required.

What happens in libertopia? We accept the 12 year old's "freedom" to work, and do nothing to solve the problem?

What a sick philosophy.

 

[Richard Masters]

It hardly surprises me that you miss the relevance.

The relevance is - who decides what is, and what isn't proportional? And, more importantly, how can such a process ever be describe "libertarian"?

Necessity and reciprocity describe what is proportional and what isn't.

Is killing someone the reciprocal of having your property taken?
No. Therefore, it is not proportional.

Is killing someone the reciprocal of having your life taken?
Yes.
Is it necessary to kill someone to avoid having your life taken?
Not always... whether it is proportional depends on the situation.

 

[volatile]

Necessity and reciprocity describe what is proportional and what isn't.

Is killing someone the reciprocal of having your property taken?
No. Therefore, it is not proportional.

Is killing someone the reciprocal of having your life taken?
Yes.
Is it necessary to kill someone to avoid having your life taken?
Not always... whether it is proportional depends on the situation.

I agree. Libertarian theory, however, does not.

Who decides what is, and what isn't proportional? If an external authority mandates necessity or proportionality (particularly in terms of property rights infingement), then individual rights to self-determination are limited. You're still missing the very key point - if, in the system you are proposing, anyone other than the individual involves decides what is, and what isn't, necessary or proportional - then that system is not libertarian, by definition.

You're not a libertarian. I suggest you actually read some libertarian theory (start with Ayn Rand) and see how far actual libertarian thought diverges from your social democratic principles on issues such as this one.

 

[Richard Masters]

That's called "social democracy", it involves the communal pooling of wealth, and has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism as defined.

As I keep saying, you're not a libertarian - here, you explicitly support the removal of property ("tax") from people against their will, entirely in opposition to a core libertarian principle. Good for you.

In this case, the liberty of an individual outweighs a fractional fee, and there is no other recourse.

I recognize that certain entities are shared and their fate can only be addressed collectively.

I would - as all modern democracies do - institute welfare programmes such that this is not required.

And that might be a consequence of libertarianism as well; the difference is that it would have been explicitly agreed upon.

What happens in libertopia? We accept the 12 year old's "freedom" to work, and do nothing to solve the problem?

Which problem? Is it a problem that a twelve year old chooses to help his mother even though he is not required to?

What a sick philosophy.

The same is the case with the outcomes of regulated services like Services for Children and Families. I know because I was forced against my will at the age of 13 to live in two very different places with unreasonable and unfamiliar rules; not to mention in one place I was not allowed to leave by any means or make personal phone calls; all of it government sanctioned.

That's a sick philosophy.

 

[Francesca R]

Necessity and reciprocity describe what is proportional and what isn't.

I'd be grateful if you could respond to post 260 (I edited it rather belatedly), because "proportionality" seems to be something not central (or even mentioned) in libertarian principles.

 

[volatile]

I'd be grateful if you could respond to post 260 (I edited it rather belatedly), because "proportionality" seems to be something not central (or even mentioned) in libertarian principles.

It's more than that - it's actually antithetical to libertarian principles, as it requires an external agent to proscribe individual actions, even if said actions are (contractually) agreed upon in advance.

Libertarianism cannot account for proportionality because to do so would be to give up a substantial proportion of individual liberty to a monolithic legislative or judicial entity.

 

[volatile]

In this case, the liberty of an individual outweighs a fractional fee, and there is no other recourse.

I recognize that certain entities are shared and their fate can only be addressed collectively.

Exactly.

And a recognition of this fact means, and sorry to belabour a point, that you are not a libertarian. Libertarian philosophy relies on -- indeed, founds itself on -- the supposition that the inverse of this statement is true.

Which problem? Is it a problem that a twelve year old chooses to help his mother even though he is not required to?

Which problem? Are you serious?

Also, you seem to be using a strange definition of the word "choice" I haven't come across before.

The same is the case with the outcomes of regulated services like Services for Children and Families. I know because I was forced against my will at the age of 13 to live in two very different places with unreasonable and unfamiliar rules; not to mention in one place I was not allowed to leave by any means or make personal phone calls; all of it government sanctioned.

So there is no age of majority in libertopia?

 

[Richard Masters]

I agree. Libertarian theory, however, does not.

Are you sure you are not describing the philosophy of right-wing gun nuts?
Have you ever heard of democratic libertarianism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat

Whenever I hear arguments about lethal force from so-called libertarians, the anchor point is exaggerated.

Who decides what is, and what isn't proportional? If an external authority mandates necessity or proportionality (particularly in terms of property rights infingement), then individual rights to self-determination are limited.

Your individual rights to self-determination are limited by the right to terminate someone else's, not by the external authority.

You're still missing the very key point - if, in the system you are proposing, anyone other than the individual involves decides what is, and what isn't, necessary or proportional - then that system is not libertarian, by definition.

We are talking about libertarianism, not anarchy. You are not allowed to do anything you want without repercussion.

You're not a libertarian. I suggest you actually read some libertarian theory (start with Ayn Rand) and see how far actual libertarian thought diverges from your social democratic principles on issues such as this one.

Ayn Rand was not libertarian. No libertarian I've ever met considers her so, and she did not consider herself libertarian either.

 

[Richard Masters]

I mention that in order to imply that your claim that any libertarian government would ever rule that deadly force to protect property was "disproportionate" . . . is incorrect. Perhaps you can provide a source for your view that it would. Certainly the libertarian platforms already mentioned in this thread (see drkitten's posts) would not.

ETA: from http://www.lp.org/platform

You can protect property in the same way as you can protect your life. You have the right to use force in self defence of your right to property just as you can in self defence of your right to life. You can keep and bear arms to protect your right to property.

Nothing about proportionality as far as I can see

http://www.lp.org/search/node/proportionality

I didn't see this post earlier.

Keeping and bearing arms is not the same as killing someone over property.

I've mentioned over and over on political threads that the Libertarian party is not equal to libertarianism.

 

[SaulOhio]

If you actually followed my posts you would see very clearly that I state categorically that "libertarian ideas"--and by that I mean a reasonably complete set of them--have never been implemented. And that thanks to recent events, the possibility that they ever will be recedes further into nothingness. Do try to keep up.

Then you have utterly failed to support even that. In fact, the recent crisis is a motherload of evidence that free market ideas are true, because the very regulations that free market economists criticize the most were implemented, and the very consequences they predict form them came to pass.

Very low interest rates from the Fed caused a speculative boom. Then the Fed raised rates to slow the boom, causing the bubble to burst--Just as even Alan greenspan would have known would have happened when he wrote Gold and Economic Freedom.

Measures like the GSE's, the CRA, and Clinton's "National Homeownership Strategy" (NHS) diverted the inflationary pressures mentioned above to the housing market. The low or no down-payment policies promoted by the NHS and the appearance of ever-rising home prices made the practice of "flipping" into an apparently good get-rich-quick scheme. People were encouraged to buy homes at inflated prices.

Once the Fed started to raise rates, housing prices dropped to the point that flippers, and even honest home buyers, were stuck with homes worth less than what they still owed on their mortgages.

All of this proves, not that free market ideas are wrong, but that they are RIGHT, just the opposite of what you assert.

The only reason this crisis makes it less likely that libertarian ideas will be implemented in the near future is the mainstream media keeps blaming the crisis on free markets and deregulation, contrary to all the evidence, and people like you lap it up, for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Richard Masters]

Exactly.

And a recognition of this fact means, and sorry to belabour a point, that you are not a libertarian. Libertarian philosophy relies on -- indeed, founds itself on -- the supposition that the inverse of this statement is true.

I can concede this in your favor; though many self-described libertarian democrats do indeed consider themselves libertarian.

Which problem? Are you serious?

Also, you seem to be using a strange definition of the word "choice" I haven't come across before.

We can't make progress on this point if you appeal to ignorance without elaborating.

So there is no age of majority in libertopia?

This is more of a personal opinion, but age of majority should be based on ability to make reasonable decisions, not on physical age.

 

[volatile]

Your individual rights to self-determination are limited by the right to terminate someone else's, not by the external authority.

Richard, I'll ask again.

Who decides what is, and what is not, proportional? Proportionality is subjective. Thus, if you want to create an objective or quasi-objective standard (as your responses thus far have sensibly suggested), you require an external definition, and thus you are not libertarian. Any imposed sense of what is, and what is not, proportional, infringes individual liberty in quite a profound way, as it involves an external authority proscribing behaviour.

You are not a libertarian; your beliefs stray from libertarianism in the most crucial of respects.

We are talking about libertarianism, not anarchy. You are not allowed to do anything you want without repercussion.

Quite. But the point here is how, when and in what manner repercussions are instigated. Libertarianism, by definition, resists restrictions on individual liberty - and your suggestions on imposing a definition of proportionality (particularly proportionality that goes above and beyond any lower standard that two contractual parties may themselves agree upon) certainly do resist individual liberty in ways that render them antithetical to libertarian thinking.

Ayn Rand was not libertarian. No libertarian I've ever met considers her so, and she did not consider herself libertarian either.

Really? http://www.fff.org/comment/com0502a.asp

Nevertheless, you're correct in one sense of course. Rand was indeed critical of "Libertarianism", the movement with a capital L, but only because it wasn't libertarian (ideologically) enough in practice for her liking... (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians).

 

[SaulOhio]

Keeping and bearing arms is not the same as killing someone over property.

I have mentioned, and I think it was in this thread, that a home owner has the right to kill in defense of his property because it should always be presumed that anyone willing to invade your home while you are there is willing to kill in order to carry out his crime.

This is not a strictly libertarian idea, but one that is now implemented as the Castle Doctrine.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

I gave the example of a recent home invasion that made the news here in Cleveland, of a homeowner who killed an intruder. There was a short investigation, but no charges were filed against the homeowner.

So this isn't come crackpot libertarian idea. Its the law right now.