I'm wavering from Libertarianism

[volatile]

Because libertarians don't trust the electorate. Specifically, they believe that just because the electorate agrees to provide a service does not constitute a reason for the government to actually provide it.

Or, in other words, there are certain things that the government should NOT do no matter how many people want it. Nothing wrong with that idea; that's what the Bill of Rights, for example, details. The Bill of Rights says that even if the entire electorate of Texas says that we should establish Southern Baptism as the state religion, they still can't do it.

But, as usual, the libertarians take a reasonable position to an unreasonable extreme.

Quite. As usual, well said.

I find these arguments about "size of government" so strange and so spurious, as they're so far from pragmatic concerns and so wedded to ideological ones. It doesn't matter if Government Intervention X is popular, or would provide a net benefit; if the government is already of the pre-determined size, this intervention is a step too far. I find it hard to fathom how rational people are so conent to construct such arbitrary barriers.

It comes up in healthcare threads quite often. As a direct answer to the question "Why are you against universal healthcare", "I want a small government" seems like such a non-answer. It short-circuits any justificatory reasoning and defaults to bald ideology. There's not even any attempt to argue why small government is better than (some) people going without healthcare. It's simply that they have settled on a size of government they are comfortable with (whatever that may mean) in advance of any rational cost-benefit analysis of making it any bigger.

What they're actually doing is starting with what the government shouldn't do, with a default answer being "anything."

Exactly.

 

[YeahDude]

Why should the "size of government" be axiomatic? That is, why should the size of government be a primary concern? Surely the government should be just as big (or small) as the electorate agree it needs to be in order to provide the services the population wish it to?

I never understood why you'd start with a size of government and then figure out what should do, rather than the other way around. I understand even less why you'd find a political party who seems to, more or less, reflect the views you've come to after careful reflection but reject them because the way they wish to implement those views is too "big", whatever that means.

Can you elaborate on a few things?

- Why do you "fear" voting Democratic, the choice of words you used?
- Why is "small government" "the most logical choice", compared to, for example "the size of government required to get the job done"?
- What, even does "small government" even mean?

1) The Democratic party doesn't really seem to care about people. They only seem to care about staying in power. This to me is in stark contrast to how they present themselves. Although they do some good things they don't do them for the right reason, in my opinion. (I live in Taxachusetts. That doesn't make me an authority, but the things the Democrats do here sometimes baffle me (Like re-zoning to keep their representatives elected).

2/3) I keep mis-speaking when I say small government. What I mean is limited government. By limited government I mean a government that doesn't infringe upon the rights of its citizens. I associate that with a government that doesn't have a lot of interaction in the citizen's daily life.

 

[YeahDude]

As a direct answer to the question "Why are you against universal healthcare", "I want a small government" seems like such a non-answer. It short-circuits any justificatory reasoning and defaults to bald ideology. There's not even any attempt to argue why small government is better than (some) people going without healthcare.

I completely agree with this.

 

[volatile]

1) The Democratic party doesn't really seem to care about people.

And yet then you go on to say "They only seem to care about staying in power" - and this is, of course, entirely impossible unless they further the interests of their electorate, which is the exact opposite of "not caring about people". Perhaps you might mean, more broadly, "political parties don't care about people like me"? I mean, even these zoning laws you talk about are supported by a particular constituency. Everything any political party does is because it cares about (the votes of) a particular subset of the people. Sometimes that subset might be larger than at other times, but you cannot please all of the people, all of the time.

The Libertarian Party, the Republican Party and the Green Party and all the rest share this quality - indeed, it is a fundamental problem in both politics and human nature. So I still don't really get why you used the word "fear". What's so scary about voting Democratic in particular?

2/3) I keep mis-speaking when I say small government. What I mean is limited government. By limited government I mean a government that doesn't infringe upon the rights of its citizens. I associate that with a government that doesn't have a lot of interaction in the citizen's daily life.

Y'see... I think the whole argument is redundant. No-one wants more government than is necessary to acheive their political ends. This is as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats. What we need to be talking about is not how big the government is, but what we want the government to do. The discussion, in my opinion, cannot start with any kind of statement as to the size of government at all - that must be reached by discussion of policy aims and objectives, and the most effective way of achieving them. Accepting, of course, that no-one, not even the most hardened communist or fascist has ever, as far as I can tell, called for unlimited government, even in your re-stated position of "limited government" I still think you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. It makes no sense to talk about "limited government" if you then wish to accomplish something that might require more governmental invention than you had previously imagined. Setting arbitrary limits per ideology in advance of a policy discussion seems a little silly to me.

An example: I have, on this forum, seen "I don't want big government" used as an argument against healthcare provision. That is to say - no matter what the benefits of UHC might be, they're irrelevant, because to achieve them one must override the pre-established size of government deemed ideologically appropriate. Doesn't that sound odd to you? That policy discussions can essentially be side-stepped with a deft rhetorical and ideological turn...

 

[drkitten]

2/3) I keep mis-speaking when I say small government. What I mean is limited government. By limited government I mean a government that doesn't infringe upon the rights of its citizens. I associate that with a government that doesn't have a lot of interaction in the citizen's daily life.

The problem with this formulation is that most of what "big government" does does not particularly infringe upon the rights of its citizens (there is no "right," for example, to drive drunk). The effect of the libertarian platform doesn't particularly change the amount of interaction, just the severity.

Drunk driving -- or drivers licensing in general -- are good examples. The Libertarian position calls for an elimination of any prior restraints on a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle. But they themselves admit that the only way this can be made to work is for the court system to step in and clean up when someone operates a motor vehicle in a way that causes injury.

The effect is that you interact less with the executive branch, but a hell of a lot MORE with the judiciary. And for a lot greater stakes. instead of looking at a few hundred dollars in fines for operating a demonstrably unsafe motor vehicle, you're looking at several hundred thousands dollars in damages and medical expenses.

 

[hgc]

The effect is that you interact less with the executive branch, but a hell of a lot MORE with the judiciary. And for a lot greater stakes. instead of looking at a few hundred dollars in fines for operating a demonstrably unsafe motor vehicle, you're looking at several hundred thousands dollars in damages and medical expenses.

Yes, this feature of Libertopia has always baffled me. It seems like an incredibly inefficient way to organize a society.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, this feature of Libertopia has always baffled me. It seems like an incredibly inefficient way to organize a society.

I think it's part of the Superman complex on the part of most Libertarians. Most Libertarians think of themselves as John Galt; if it weren't for the way "the Man" is holding them down, they could accomplish so much more than they are. Similarly, they tend to think of themselves as economic and financial geniuses; there's no way that they could ever get "done" by a sophisticated con man like Bernie Madoff. They're all medical geniuses, too -- able to distinguish effective medicine from snake oil even when there's been no studies done by the drug companies.

People like that don't need to worry about "mere" auto accidents. They're never out of control enough to be a danger on the road, no matter how much they've had to drink. So they don't need to be worried about the judiciary, and resent the way the executive keeps treating them as though they were merely human.

 

[GreNME]

Come to the dark-side. I'm a mut, a small "l" libertarian and small "s" socialist. Scandinavia and other more socialist countries high in HDI convinced me that it's possible to have a good mix of capitalism and socialism. Traffic lights (regulation) convinced me that regulation isn't per se evil or always harmful. The 1991 California quake (I drove through the epicenter the day of the quake) and subsequent quakes in third world nations convinced me that government could enact good policies to protect citizens.

I would not want the fiscal right to disappear. Social programs can be abused and it's possible to enact to much regulation. I like the adversarial system but I would like to see us move a bit more to the left.

I'll be honest, when I lost my job and my children got sick I found emergency room medicine to be an outrageous solution. Further my kids were not getting preventive care. I then found out that California had a program for folks like me. It was a god send. It wasn't great but I was damn glad for it.

If folks in Scandinavia can lead productive lives with less fear of being homeless or without health care and hard working citizens can still be rewarded for their productivity and ingenuity then what's the problem? Rich people can't become as rich as Bill Gates? Is that the problem?

How many yachts can you water-ski behind? --Bud Fox; Wall Street

Yes the left can exploit class but that is not likley our biggest worry.

One last thing, I'm not a Democrat, Libertarian or even Republican. I don't think of myself as independant but I guess that's what I am. I think political parties are woo and it's for very good reason.

Quoted For Truth.

YeahDude, I grew up in a household that was mainly centrist Democratic in political leanings, though they maintained religious views and outlooks. As I grew up, I developed more conservative ideals as far as economic concerns and I drifted slowly away from the religiosity. I, too, supported Bush in 2000 because his platforms seemed the most "common sense" to my sensibilities from an "economically conservative" perspective. I, too, soured to the Republican Party as a result of their becoming way too Christian fundamentalist for my liking. I happily voted for Obama this past election and over the years I've come to accept that some socialist programs offer value and empowerment to individual liberties, and feel that has no contradiction to my libertarian (small "L" meaning not the party) leanings.

The biggest part of what you're likely seeing is that the Republican or even the far right stance-- admittedly, sometimes the two are difficult to tell apart-- isn't any more tenable to the rights of individual freedom and personal rights than are the Democratic or far left stances taken to extreme logical conclusions. You seem to be noticing the difference between "limited" and "small" government and realizing that the two do not have to be synonymous and that you can have one without the other. Hopefully, this also means that you're seeing how "big" (meaning bureaucratic) government doesn't have to mean "ineffectual" or "overbearing" in order to exist, and that the best possible system of government is one that is "big enough" to get the jobs it's meant to perform done while simultaneously being limited in power enough to not over-reach its scope or mandate. If this is indeed what you're experiencing, then welcome to a point of view that examines political agencies with more nuance than political rhetoric typically allows for and with fewer false dichotomies as far as the options our country and localities face regarding expectations of government meeting existent challenges. It means you're not willing to take political rhetoric at face value, and more importantly it means you're in favor of taking a more critical examination of how government works to find out what best works for that "big enough and limited" type of government.

If nothing else, you're the type of person this country needs more of in order to make informed decisions regarding politics, even if your political leanings may not mirror my own (example: I wouldn't say RandFan and I agree on every aspect of every issue, but I respect and consider his opinions regardless). That isn't to say that all people out there are simply parroting partisan talking points or not capable of thinking critically, but it is to say that the general political discourse has degraded considerably and your expressed view is a shift toward the positive.

I'm not going to try to talk you into believing what I do politically in specific, but in terms of the political debate that does take place in this subforum and in any case you find yourself in a political discussion, I highly encourage using the basic principles of the Baloney Detection Kit-- explained in the link by Michael Shermer, someone who has expressed libertarian personal opinions while also promoting thinking that dissolves partisan rhetoric-- as your keystone toward assessing your own thoughts on the matter. I think that's a better filter through which you can assess issues than I could offer as advice by myself, and it's proven helpful to color my own views on political positions.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not going to try to talk you into believing what I do politically in specific, but in terms of the political debate that does take place in this subforum and in any case you find yourself in a political discussion, I highly encourage using the basic principles of the Baloney Detection Kit-- explained in the link by Michael Shermer, someone who has expressed libertarian personal opinions while also promoting thinking that dissolves partisan rhetoric-- as your keystone toward assessing your own thoughts on the matter. I think that's a better filter through which you can assess issues than I could offer as advice by myself, and it's proven helpful to color my own views on political positions.

Thanks. I wouldn't want everyone to agree with me or think as I do. Hell, I'm not that arrogant or naive. Like you I simply want an informed electorate capable of skepticism and critical thinking.

Oh, I also want Obama thrown out of office because he wasn't born in the US.

I'm not sure how much further the GOP can sink. Is paranoid delusions their only hope now?

 

[The Norseman]

Human beings are naturally and inherently flawed and selfish. Only when we work together can we seem to get ourselves to do what is right and not rip each others hair out.

That said, I believe all societies need to find a fine balance between the right to freedom and the need not kill each other or let our fellow man die in the street.

Where churches, non-profits, and private buisness can do a good job, they should be allowed to and government should stay out of the way.

But when these groups prove to be unable to provide the necessary services to keep people healthy, safe, educated, housed, and clean, then government has to step in.

IMHO.

This.

If the Libertarian Party actually said this on their homepage, I think that it'd attract a heckuva lot more people to it.

I describe myself as politically independent -- I really don't believe in political parties as such and view them all to do more harm than good these days.

I really don't think it's a bad thing to continue to rein in our federal government which has extended and bloated itself way past the Constitutional constrictions. Some of the changes made have proven to be extremely beneficial to the continued freedom and well-being of human beings over the past few centuries; others... not so much.

But don't lose hope and always vote for who best matches your ideals.

Or -- run for some government office yourself and as Ghandi says, "be the change you want to see in the world."

 

[YeahDude]

1) The Democratic party doesn't really seem to care about people. They only seem to care about staying in power. This to me is in stark contrast to how they present themselves. Although they do some good things they don't do them for the right reason, in my opinion. (I live in Taxachusetts. That doesn't make me an authority, but the things the Democrats do here sometimes baffle me (Like re-zoning to keep their representatives elected).

2/3) I keep mis-speaking when I say small government. What I mean is limited government. By limited government I mean a government that doesn't infringe upon the rights of its citizens. I associate that with a government that doesn't have a lot of interaction in the citizen's daily life.

And yet then you go on to say "They only seem to care about staying in power" - and this is, of course, entirely impossible unless they further the interests of their electorate, which is the exact opposite of "not caring about people". Perhaps you might mean, more broadly, "political parties don't care about people like me"? I mean, even these zoning laws you talk about are supported by a particular constituency. Everything any political party does is because it cares about (the votes of) a particular subset of the people. Sometimes that subset might be larger than at other times, but you cannot please all of the people, all of the time.

The Libertarian Party, the Republican Party and the Green Party and all the rest share this quality - indeed, it is a fundamental problem in both politics and human nature. So I still don't really get why you used the word "fear". What's so scary about voting Democratic in particular?



Y'see... I think the whole argument is redundant. No-one wants more government than is necessary to acheive their political ends. This is as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats. What we need to be talking about is not how big the government is, but what we want the government to do. The discussion, in my opinion, cannot start with any kind of statement as to the size of government at all - that must be reached by discussion of policy aims and objectives, and the most effective way of achieving them. Accepting, of course, that no-one, not even the most hardened communist or fascist has ever, as far as I can tell, called for unlimited government, even in your re-stated position of "limited government" I still think you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. It makes no sense to talk about "limited government" if you then wish to accomplish something that might require more governmental invention than you had previously imagined. Setting arbitrary limits per ideology in advance of a policy discussion seems a little silly to me.

An example: I have, on this forum, seen "I don't want big government" used as an argument against healthcare provision. That is to say - no matter what the benefits of UHC might be, they're irrelevant, because to achieve them one must override the pre-established size of government deemed ideologically appropriate. Doesn't that sound odd to you? That policy discussions can essentially be side-stepped with a deft rhetorical and ideological turn...

Yes, I say they only SEEM to care about staying in power. Seem being the key word. They obviously have to do something in order to get re-elected, but here in Massachusetts they go the extra step in order to ensure that.

And Captain Literal is your stage name? I think you take the word fear too literal. The contaxt I am trying to use it is something like:
*Standing above a dead body* I fear that he's dead.
Not a real fear, more of an expectation.

You'll have to excuse me, your post caught me off guard. I agree that we should be discussing what we want the government to do and not how big it is, hence the OP. An entirely new direction(At least it feels that way) in my political philosophy is hard to take. It's not as bad as when I was in my late teens and realized there probably was no god or afterlife, but sorting it all out will take at least 143.26 hours.

 

[ponderingturtle]

1) The Democratic party doesn't really seem to care about people. They only seem to care about staying in power. This to me is in stark contrast to how they present themselves. Although they do some good things they don't do them for the right reason, in my opinion. (I live in Taxachusetts. That doesn't make me an authority, but the things the Democrats do here sometimes baffle me (Like re-zoning to keep their representatives elected).

The thing is that this does not so much describe the democratic party as much as it describes all american politicians.

2/3) I keep mis-speaking when I say small government. What I mean is limited government. By limited government I mean a government that doesn't infringe upon the rights of its citizens. I associate that with a government that doesn't have a lot of interaction in the citizen's daily life.

This raises the question of do citizens have rights with out a goverment to enforce them.

Everyone is for individual freedoms and everyone is for goverment that is as small as is possible to do its job. It comes down to what freedoms are the most needed and work the best in practice and what jobs are needed for the goverment to do. For example Crassus made a lot of money running a fire department. See you can buy buildings that are on fire very cheaply. We find this unacceptable now though.

 

[drkitten]

Everyone is for individual freedoms and everyone is for goverment that is as small as is possible to do its job. It comes down to what freedoms are the most needed and work the best in practice and what jobs are needed for the goverment to do. For example Crassus made a lot of money running a fire department. See you can buy buildings that are on fire very cheaply. We find this unacceptable now though.

I should also be pointed out that, although we find Crassus' methods unacceptable, they violate no laws, even today.

Nothing in Libertopia would prevent a modern day Crassus from running a private fire department. Indeed, nothing in modern US society prevents a modern day Crassus from running a private fire department, except that there's a publically run, tax-funded, nonprofit fire department that will put out your house without insisting on buying it first.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I should also be pointed out that, although we find Crassus' methods unacceptable, they violate no laws, even today.

Nothing in Libertopia would prevent a modern day Crassus from running a private fire department. Indeed, nothing in modern US society prevents a modern day Crassus from running a private fire department, except that there's a publically run, tax-funded, nonprofit fire department that will put out your house without insisting on buying it first.

you forgot the waiting for the house on fire to threaten the neiboring houses so you can buy them cheap too. Easy to see how he became the richest man in Rome running a fire department.

 

[GreNME]

Thanks. I wouldn't want everyone to agree with me or think as I do. Hell, I'm not that arrogant or naive. Like you I simply want an informed electorate capable of skepticism and critical thinking.

You know, at this point I'd take just skepticism, and we could always work our way up to critical thinking later.

Oh, I also want Obama thrown out of office because he wasn't born in the US.

I laffed.

I'm not sure how much further the GOP can sink. Is paranoid delusions their only hope now?

I think it's a quick and easy tool for populist support. I also think it's a tool that can turn around and bite them later on.

 

[billydkid]

Sorry for this general political post, but I feel I needed to do this.

I was raised in a republican household. Both of my parents vehemently voted republican. I thought I was a republican until I was 21 years old. I voted for George W. Bush! I liked what he had to say, I paid attention (Or so I thought). Soon after the election Former President Bush decided not to follow through with many/any of his campaign promises. This was my first view of the real world of politics. These politicans really don't care about us. That's when I found the Libertarian Party.

Reading their ideals and platform was amazing to me. It felt so right. Downsize government, keep as much power out of their hands as possible. Idealistically the Libertarians are the most logical party. Everyone is responsible for themselves. As long as you aren't really affecting someone else it is your life, and your money. The government shouldn't be in the business of charity, which on its face makes perfect sense.

I've been a registered Libertarian for 7 or so years now. I am a socially liberal person. I still believe the government getting involved in anything is a bad idea. There is too much waste in government. I think that even though the most logical choice is small government, it really isn't the best choice. I've made small changes in my views, like having a basic right of living for all Americans. This includes healthcare(In its most basic form). How can I tell a 6 year old that he can't do certain things because his parents are losers? There is a lot of government waste we could cut to fund something like this. We are one of the richest nations in the world. We can afford this.

The problem I am having is I am losing faith in people. If we cut government to its barest bones I'm afraid that most people will simply just fail. What to do? There is no ending here, this is just a rant.

Isn't not having faith in people a pretty damn good reason not to give them power and authority over other people??? Who was it that said not to give power to people who are your friends that you wouldn't want in the hands of your enemies. I'm sure there are many GOP'er who were only too happy to give Dubya all the power that goes with the Patriot Act who not regret deeply having that same power in Obama's hands. Not that I remotely think that Dubya was fit to have that kind of power over the citizens of this country.

 

[psychictv]

Isn't not having faith in people a pretty damn good reason not to give them power and authority over other people???

Or it's a good reason to place power in the hands of a well regulated government system that runs with accountability, transparency, and oversight. If there are government programs operating without such transparency and oversight, it becomes necessary to reform those systems, not hand those functions over to unregulated private industry.

 

[DavidJames]

Or it's a good reason to place power in the hands of a well regulated government system that runs with accountability, transparency, and oversight. If there are government programs operating without such transparency and oversight, it becomes necessary to reform those systems, not hand those functions over to unregulated private industry.

This post is a great example of why I need to make sure to read all the new posts before replying. Excellent reply.

 

[billydkid]

Or it's a good reason to place power in the hands of a well regulated government system that runs with accountability, transparency, and oversight. If there are government programs operating without such transparency and oversight, it becomes necessary to reform those systems, not hand those functions over to unregulated private industry.

I don't know a libertarian who is not for a well regulated government system run with accountability, transparency and oversight. Have yet to run into such an animal and suspect I never will. On the other hand, there is this Moses goes to the mountain top and the people turn into sociopaths myth that purvades the fear of real liberty. Given the chance and the opportunity, people are inclined to cooperate and support each other. Our own government is a perfect example of the way government works in collusion with business to institutionalize corruption.

The powerful will always use the power of government to exploit the powerless and people will always be fooled into supporting programs which are against their own best interests. On average 65% to 70% of your total income is diverted to government. For a $20,000.00 car $10,000.00 of it goes to the government when you factor all the fees that go into the manufacture of each component and every transaction involved. If that is the government protecting you - thanks but no thanks.

People always bring up corporate monopolies, but all of these monopolies are the result of collusion between government and business. There has been an unholy alliance between powerful business interests and government since the beginning. This is what has produce our completely out of whack healthcare system. A stellar example would be the bail out of AIG and Goldman Sachs. Talk about a redistribution of wealth. Government is there to serve the interests of the mighty. The US Constitution is the law of the land and yet it has constrained the government not at all when it was not in the interests of those in power to be constrained. The singular example would be what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. And you are kidding yourself if you believe that an equivalent thing could not happen now.

US law is filled with mountains of protectionist types of laws which restrict competition and free entry into the market. We have had nothing at all resembling free market capitalism. We have an oligarchy of corporatism.

If all businesses really had to compete in the market place, had to provide the best possible product or service, had to satisfy the customer in order to stay in business, whether that means appealing to a customer's environmental concerns (Dolphin safe tuna, humane or green raised beef or whatever) or fairness concerns (the blowback against Walmart which has caused them to reevaluate how they treat their employees) or social justice concerns (the flack over the Denny's racial discrimination thing where people got fired and everybody underwent diversity training), those businesses that did that, those businesses that appealed most to what the market wants would thrive and survive while those who did not would die their well deserved deaths which is as it should be.

 

[psychictv]

I don't know a libertarian who is not for a well regulated government system run with accountability, transparency and oversight.

Um, that's kind of the point of libertarianism. The government's only function is police and military protection of private property (or something similarly restrictive). Show me a prominent libertarian who is in favor of government run health care, utilities, schools, etc.

On average 65% to 70% of your total income is diverted to government.

Evidence?

For a $20,000.00 car $10,000.00 of it goes to the government when you factor all the fees that go into the manufacture of each component and every transaction involved.

Evidence?

People always bring up corporate monopolies, but all of these monopolies are the result of collusion between government and business.

Any evidence of monopolies that are the result of government collusion? No, the post office doesn't count.