Libertarianism Declared Dead

[volatile]

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

And Kim Jong Il calls himself a Democrat. Doesn't make it so.

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

What do you mean?

The problem, Richard, is that 12 year olds have no business even needing to "make a choice" to work to support their families - they should be in school, learning enough to make their lives, and the future of their community, better. And any political system or ideology that accepts child labour as a choice and not as a problem is one roundly deserving of condemnation.

That you do not see child labour as a problem that needs to be addressed speaks volumes about the hideousness of the ideology you purport to support.

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

Good luck figuring out a system, especially one consistent with libertarian ideals, that turns this fantasy into a practically workable system. It seems that the sensible bits of your "libertarianism" aren't libertarian at all, and those that are libertarian in bent are complete, utterly absurd, fantastical, unworkable nonsense.

 

[volatile]

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

Only in areas of the world pre-disposed and prone to crackpot libertarian ideas.

 

[SaulOhio]

Only in areas of the world pre-disposed and prone to crackpot libertarian ideas.

[sarcasm]Nice argument.[/sarcasm]

 

[YoPopa]

Only in areas of the world pre-disposed and prone to crackpot libertarian ideas.

Expect Darat to point out that this is pure ad-hom, when heck freezes over.

 

[volatile]

[sarcasm]Nice argument.[/sarcasm]

Thanks.

It's true, though. Things like "The Castle Doctrine" are only enshrined in law in countries (or their administrative subdivisions) where libertarian thinking has somewhat of a toe-hold. You're trying to make out that libertarianism isn't barmy because some places have statues that superficially resemble libertarian positions.

The inverse is true - some places have statues that superficially resemble libertarian positions (and we can go into detail as to why the Castle Doctrine is not really libertarian at all if you give it more than a passing glance) because those places are riven with barmy superficially-libertarian thinking.

 

[Richard Masters]

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.

External to what? libertarianism?

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.

Individual liberty isn't strict anarchism. You cannot avoid external authorities or minimal consensus in every situation. Just about everything that requires evaluation is subjective.

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

Which one?

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.

No, the definition of proportionality is a necessity that follows from having to weigh one person's liberty against another's.

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).

So you are saying I'm not an Objectivist, which is quite different from saying I'm not a libertarian.

 

[D'rok]

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.

I can't speak with certainty as to how the common law has evolved in America on this point, but suspect that your statement, particularly the bolded bit, is wrong. I would be very surprised if there isn't a proportionality element to defending oneself from trespass much as there is in other common law countries - even when the common law has been codified into statute. In fact, the wikipedia article you linked to suggests that there is.

In other words, there is a good deal of liberalism in your example of a so-called libertarian doctrine.

 

[volatile]

Expect Darat to point out that this is pure ad-hom, when heck freezes over.

It's not pure ad-hom. It's true. I suggest you look up the definition of "ad-hom", and also the location, political history and dominant ideology of regions of the globe with statutes comparable to the Castle Doctrine in scope, rhetorical support and intention.

I don't know why you find it surprising that the enacting of a crackpot libertarian law should necessarily be preceded by a political climate expedient to and welcoming of crackpot libertarian ideas, but there you go.

 

[Richard Masters]

And Kim Jong Il calls himself a Democrat. Doesn't make it so.

Kim Jong Il differs greatly from self-described Democrats; so that's not a very strong objection.

The problem, Richard, is that 12 year olds have no business even needing to "make a choice" to work to support their families - they should be in school, learning enough to make their lives, and the future of their community, better. And any political system or ideology that accepts child labour as a choice and not as a problem is one roundly deserving of condemnation.

You are arguing against something completely different, then. I'm not judging whether a child should have to work; I'm pointing out a rare situation where libertarianism is beneficial in the context of child labor.

I also did not specify the context fully. That is because it could be a developing country, a remote farm, a child that goes to school but works part time, a child that doesn't get enough allowance to buy herself a video game, etc...

That you do not see child labour as a problem that needs to be addressed speaks volumes about the hideousness of the ideology you purport to support.

Child labor is only a problem if there are alternatives. There have been since the industrial revolution. Like I said you are misinterpreting my argument.

Good luck figuring out a system, especially one consistent with libertarian ideals, that turns this fantasy into a practically workable system. It seems that the sensible bits of your "libertarianism" aren't libertarian at all, and those that are libertarian in bent are complete, utterly absurd, fantastical, unworkable nonsense.

It seems you object to your own straw-men, and equate libertarianism with anarchy.

 

[YoPopa]

It's not pure ad-hom.

Of course it wasnt' pure ad-hom. My comment was a sarcastic comment on Darats' misuse of the term recently.

It's true. I suggest you look up the definition of "ad-hom", and also the location, political history and dominant ideology of regions of the globe with statutes comparable to the Castle Doctrine in scope, rhetorical support and intention.

I don't know why you find it surprising that the enacting of a crackpot libertarian law should necessarily be preceded by a political climate expedient to and welcoming of crackpot libertarian ideas, but there you go.

Your over reliance on the term crackpot suggests that you are unable or unwilling to argue the points rationally.

 

[volatile]

External to what? libertarianism?

External to the individual's own capacity to freely decide what is, and what is not, a proportional response.

As soon as you start setting limits on what is acceptable behaviour (especially behaviour, as I said, that the parties involved have otherwise consented to!), then you cease to be espousing a libertarian philosophy, as you are explicitly stating that an individual's freedom can -- indeed, should -- be subject to limits beyond those determined by the non-aggression principle.

You are advocating an external - read, governmental - definition of proportional response that overrides the liberty of individuals. This directly contradicts a core tenet of libertarian thinking, as DrKitten pointed out to you some good while ago.

Individual liberty isn't strict anarchism. You cannot avoid external authorities or minimal consensus in every situation. Just about everything that requires evaluation is subjective.

Exactly. Acceptance of this, too, contradicts libertarian thinking.

Which one?

That individuals should be self-determining. You are advocating the granting of a substantial tranche of determination to an external authority. If a pre-determined "proportionality" regulation can supersede an individual's right to go beyond such a regulation (as in the contract hypothetical that started this line of discussion), then your thinking cannot be described as libertarian - you are apportioning your liberty to make autonomous decisions to a superlative, collective agency.

No, the definition of proportionality is a necessity that follows from having to weigh one person's liberty against another's.

Again, exactly. But this "weighing" is inconsistent with libertarianism, because the decision will infringe on one of the party's "freedoms" in quite a profound way. Indeed, even the acceptance of this fact -- that an external authority is required to do this weighing in the first place -- is quite far from core libertarian principles of self-determination.

So you are saying I'm not an Objectivist, which is quite different from saying I'm not a libertarian.

No, I'm saying you're not a libertarian. Rand critiqued the Libertarian party for not being libertarian enough; indeed, for being hypocritical. You're neither an Objectivist nor a libertarian, as it happens, because you explicity reject the underlying ideological pillars of libertarianism.

 

[SaulOhio]

I can't speak with certainty as to how the common law has evolved in America on this point, but suspect that your statement, particularly the bolded bit, is wrong. I would be very surprised if there isn't a proportionality element to defending oneself from trespass much as there is in other common law countries - even when the common law has been codified into statute. In fact, the wikipedia article you linked to suggests that there is.

I didn't say there wasn't a proportionality element involved. In the case here in Cleveland, the homeowner first told the intruder to stop, pointing his gun. He fired only when the intruder came at him.

 

[volatile]

You are arguing against something completely different, then. I'm not judging whether a child should have to work; I'm pointing out a rare situation where libertarianism is beneficial in the context of child labor.

I also did not specify the context fully. That is because it could be a developing country, a remote farm, a child that goes to school but works part time, a child that doesn't get enough allowance to buy herself a video game, etc...


Child labor is only a problem if there are alternatives. There have been since the industrial revolution. Like I said you are misinterpreting my argument.

Child labor is only a problem if there are alternatives? What are you talking about?

The point of a political platform is to address problems and, if the solutions to those problems do not exist, provide them. Your alternative seems to be to praise child labour as not even a problem, because it fulfils some kind of ideological niche that you need to wedge yourself into.

You asked earlier "Is it a problem that a twelve year old chooses to help his mother even though he is not required to". Yes, it's a damn problem. If your position is that child labour is to be praised as a "choice" because no alternatives are available rather than to condemn it and seek to introduce the alternatives that would render it unnecessary, then your position is disgraceful.

 

[volatile]

Your over reliance on the term crackpot suggests that you are unable or unwilling to argue the points rationally.

Neither unable, nor unwilling. Just simply content to call crackpot ideas, well, crackpot.

 

[D'rok]

I didn't say there wasn't a proportionality element involved. In the case here in Cleveland, the homeowner first told the intruder to stop, pointing his gun. He fired only when the intruder came at him.

You said there was always a presumption that the intruder was there to kill and therefore there is an absolute right to always kill an intruder. In reality, the situation is much more "liberal" - i.e. legal constraints on absolute liberty.

 

[SaulOhio]

volatile: You keep saying libertarian ideas are crackpot, but you don't actually say anything about them. How about an argument, based on evidence and logic?

Expect Darat to point out that this is pure ad-hom, when heck freezes over.

I would have emphasized the last part, instead of minimizing it.
when heck freezes over

 

[volatile]

I didn't say there wasn't a proportionality element involved. In the case here in Cleveland, the homeowner first told the intruder to stop, pointing his gun. He fired only when the intruder came at him.

It never ceases to amaze me what some people will describe as proportional. The right to life is below the right to stuff on the libertarian agenda - good to know.

Anyway, that set of issues is for another thread. Let's not derail this into a gun-rights argument.

 

[SaulOhio]

You said there was always a presumption that the intruder was there to kill and therefore there is an absolute right to always kill an intruder. In reality, the situation is much more "liberal" - i.e. legal constraints on absolute liberty.

I didn't say there was an absolute right, and I didn't say always.

Not did I say what volatile describes. My whole argument is based on the presumption that an intruder is willing to kill, which means that in the act of protecting your property, you are also protecting your life. Life comes first.

 

[D'rok]

I didn't say there was an absolute right, and I didn't say always.

If a right exists based on a condition that is always true, then that right is by definition absolute. And you did say the condition is always true:

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.

 

[volatile]

volatile: You keep saying libertarian ideas are crackpot, but you don't actually say anything about them. How about an argument, based on evidence and logic?

Did you not see my posts over the last few pages where following the logical and evidential argument I proffered at least one of your purported ilk actually agreed with me?

Libertarianism is a selfish, irrational, antisocial philosophy that combines the worst parts of liberalism with the worst parts of capitalism to produce an introverted, destructive, depressing ideology.

As a liberal socialist, I have a certain sympathy with some "libertarian" positions, particularly on determinative autonomy over one's own body (which is why I read Ayn Rand in the first place), but the self-centred ideological foundations these are built upon in libertarian thought are enough to turn my stomach.

I agree wholeheartedly with what DrKitten said earlier - libertarians want freedom without the responsibility such freedom entails. Might I suggest reading Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir if you are truly interested in a liberal political philosophy that understands the tension between individual and collective freedoms...