Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[Suddenly]

In another thread, shanek claimed:

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that libertarianism does NOT assume that people will behave in a rational fashion...and now, here you are, repeating the lie again

To which I pointed out the following exchange from a previous thread dealing with my hypothetical of a desert island where one person "owns" the property:

Shanek said:

No, I wouldn't be a slave. As I showed, I would be compensated for my work. If I didn't think it was fair, I would simply refuse to do the work and Suddenly would be put back in a pickle. It's in Suddenly's best interests to work with me.

I remarked:

You are making assumptions about how my motivations. In my hypothetical it is I who own the land. You are saying I will bargain in my best interests. Fact is you have no way of saying what my best interests are. We can even assume you are some sort of nature expert and you can turn the island into paradise. Makes no difference. I want no part of your help. It could be that I'm a loner and hate people, whatever. I just don't want your help. Period. It is not really a novel occurence where one sacrifices weath for bigoted ideals.

It is not unusual to reject help for silly personal bigoted reasons. My character in the hypo does likewise.

Shanek responded:

But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

It appears from this that shanek is disregarding the hypothetical because people are acting "unusual." Sticking to his story, shanek then cited an article:

This is a lie. I have refuted it every single time it has been brought up. YOU have ignored those refutations, yet seek every oppportunity to repeat the LIE whenever you can.

And it IS A LIE, since you've been pointed out several times why this is wrong.

For the curious, here's an excellent article explaining why (an article which has been referenced to jj several times, which he has never refuted):

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

So I decided to avoid further hijack of Malachi's thread and bring this over here. In my next post I will discuss the above cited article.

To be continued...

 

[Ziggurat]

I decided to take a little peak at Shanek's link about libertarianism:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21993

Here's the biggest howler so far:

"In a Libertarian America, government will be so small, there will be no need for an income tax. Thus you'll have the resources to acquire whatever you need to protect you from incompetence, double-dealing, or even violence."

I don't know who the "you" here is, but I do know that it doesn't include a lot of people.

But my favorite really is at the very bottom:

"If your retirement funds are vulnerable to market crashes, corporate scandals, wartime intrusions, or any other unexpected events, you need to make your investment portfolio bullet-proof. Harry Browne can help you do that. Just click here for information."

Actually, come to think of it, I do know who the "you" refered to earlier is. It's people with large portfolios.

In other words, this guy is hawking a cheap libertarian philosophy to get people freaked about social security, so that hopefully they run to this Harry guy with their retirement portfolios. Nice little setup he's got there. Unless Shanek IS Harry (which I'm not claiming), I'm not sure why he picked that investment porn masquerading as highschool-essay-quality store-bought philosophy as an exemplar of libertarian virtues. I think that says more about Shanek than it does about libertarianism.

 

[Suddenly]

(discussing this article)

I'll pause first to say that this article is far from intended to be a heavy statement of principles, but since shanek refered to it for that purpose, away we go...

It begins:

On Wednesday WorldNetDaily published a letter from a reader who said, "I can't be a Libertarian because their philosophy is based on people doing the right thing and minding their own business."

This is a common misconception. Actually, we Libertarians believe just the opposite.

That's why we don't want politicians running our lives. They rarely do the right thing, and they never mind their own business.

I guess the premise is here that once someone goes into politics that their brain goes haywire and they stop doing the right thing. Unless you understand that to a libertarian most all government is by definition "not the right thing." This exposes the statement for what it is, a simple tautology. People that do not do the right thing do not do the right thing.

Lets continue:

We don't expect we'll ever have a perfect world. We don't assume all people to be nice, honest, efficient or benevolent -- nor do we expect any one person to be these things at all times.

But, if you put someone in a hypo that acts in a less than efficient manner, a libertarian will call your hypo "bigoted" (see the first post).

Moving on:

That's why it's important to be able to control your own life -- so you at least have a chance to protect yourself against the meanness, dishonesty or inefficiency that some other people might want to inflict upon you. When politicians can use the force of government to control your life, you have little chance to protect yourself.

This misses the possibility that without government a powerful and wealthy person can put me into just as poor a situation as can a government. This was the point of the "island hypo" I refer to in this thread. That only government can oppress is an unsupported assumption.

Yet again:

Conservatives and liberals expect perfection
Many conservatives and liberals suffer from a common malady. They recognize the tremendous harm government does in some areas, and yet they expect government to "do the right thing" if it's something they've asked for.

Conservatives know the government can't run a health-care system or make everyone wealthy. But some of them think that same government will somehow succeed in stamping out drugs and prostitution, in making the world safe for democracy, or in keeping your irresponsible neighbor in line.

And liberals know the government can't force people to be moral, but they think that same government can somehow provide efficient health care, educate our children effectively, and lift the poor out of poverty.

Libertarians, on the other hand, know that government consistently fails to deliver on any of its promises. And so government is the last place we look for help.

The whole premise of Browne's argument is flawed. He claims that since we know a particular tool does not work for purpose A, that it is irrational, a "malady" as he puts it, to believe that tool will work for purpose B. Consider a hammer. It does not work well for purpose A, "to pick food out of teeth," but that does not mean that it fails at purpose B "driving a nail into a board."

Also, his last paragraph is interesting, as it leads to a possible conclusion other than that intended. It is consistent with the idea that libertarians consider government last as they, unlike those darned liberals and conservatives, haven't figured out that in some cases it is the best solution.

Browne then goes onto several paragraphs of describing his libertarian utopia.

The final paragraph is instructive:

SPECIAL OFFER!

If your retirement funds are vulnerable to market crashes, corporate scandals, wartime intrusions, or any other unexpected events, you need to make your investment portfolio bullet-proof. Harry Browne can help you do that. Just click here for information

The suggested link leads to another "article" that suggests the reader use Harry as an investment advisor, and has another link that promises details and prices.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Libertarians are just anarchists who are too immature and/or stupid to realize it.

Look at my sig for proof.

 

[Tony]

Libertarians are just anarchists who are too immature and/or stupid to realize it.

And you're too stupid and immature to realize you havent got a clue what you're talking about.

 

[shanek]

Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.

What big government does is actually give them an avenue for being jerks, and so we have to put up with many more jerks than we would otherwise. Case in point: I mentioned in a couple of other threads that our Commissioners a few months ago rejected a zoning plan that would allow a man to build a restaurant, even though it was approved unanimously by the planning board, because of ONE jerk who stood up during the Commissioners meeting and blathered on about how she didn't want her kids exposed to alcohol. Without big government, all she could do is b!tch and moan about it, but she wouldn't have the power to force her will on the restaurant owner without resorting to criminal activity.

You can't force people not to be jerks. All you can do is take away the big government tools that allow them to be jerks over each other, and hold them responsible when they try to force their jerkiness on others.

Furthermore, I have explained this to you both so many times that the only possible explanation for your claims about libertarianism in this thread is that you are either deliberately lying or are deluding yourselves. Either way, it is a sign of pure bigotry, and a refusal to consider the arguments of the other side. This behavior is not becoming of people who call themselves skeptics.

 

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:

Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.

No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

 

[Diezel]

shanek:No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

I'm going to regret getting into this....

First, let me state I am not a Libertarian (too bad my thread from a few years ago titled "Why I am not a Libertarian" wasn't still around .)

But I think there has been some confusion thrown around here. I can't tell you what the actual "official LP line on the nature of human behaviour" is, since I don't follow the LP. But I can tell you that as a Jeffersonian Liberal, some here have been confusing a few things.

I believe everyone is correct when they say Marxism is wrong because it goes against human nature. But they are not correct when they specify which aspect of human nature. There is no single aspect of human nature, there are many. Marxism goes against human's nature to be selfish and maximize personal profits.

Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.

But that does not mean you need to have people always act rational and be "good' to accomplish this. As much as everyone tries to paint it with the same brush, Libertarianism is not anarchy. They allow for a government to punish those that have done wrong. I have never seen anything by any Libertarian that states people committing crime will be left alone.

I will state, as a Jeffersonian Liberal, that you can take both aspects of human nature into account:

1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

 

[shanek]

shanek:No. The question is: How does the Libertarian philosophy differ from Marxism in so far as their philosophy is based on a basic (wrong) assumption concerning human nature?

It's not based on any assumptions concerning human nature! Most people aren't going to be a problem, just like most people aren't a problem now. The question is, how do you deal with the ones that are a problem? Libertarianism says that if they initiate force or fraud against others, then they're criminals; otherwise, they should be left alone.

How is that based on any kind of assumption, wrong or otherwise, about human nature?

 

[Evolver]

Well, Libertarianism doesn't allow for the jerk Suddenly describes. It is not flawless. That said, Communism & Socialism don't allow for the jerks that will leave their people basically penniless, while the jerks grow rich, fat & powerful. And Capitalism doesn't allow for a ficticious (sp?) two-party system that deceives the people into keeping them in power, or the uncaring corporations that drive them.

In each case there is are flaws, and it's up to the people to keep them under control, however daunting a task that may seem to be.

 

[shanek]

Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.

It also takes into account another aspect of human nature, which is that those who have power will generally abuse it and try to get more power. That's an important one that other philosophies, particularly Marxism and Socialism, miss.

(And maybe it isn't the only, but I really haven't seen any that are as consistent with human nature as Libertarinism.)

As far as "human's nature to be selfish and maximize personal profits," Libertarianism is perfectly consistent with this as well. That's why Libertarians advocate policies that encourage people to, say, not pollute by making it too expensive for them to do so. Making them want to behave peacefully is much better than trying to force them to behave peacefully. Again, I don't know of any other political philosphy which does this to the extent and with the consistency that Libertarianism does.

 

[Valmorian]

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

I'm not very clear on what would constitute a 'crime' in Libertarian land. It seems like the mantra is 'anything that involves initiation of force'.

Is that ALL that would constitute a crime? What about lack of help?

Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?


To me, this situation relies upon me not being a Jerk. If, through the principles of Libertarian justice, someone can explain to me how the above would be a crime, then I could see myself starting to consider it. So far as I can tell, however, it looks like 'charity' is the only answer it has.

 

[Suddenly]

Your selective quote-mining aside, I have said on numerous different occasions that there will be jerks; the only question is what should be done about them.

If I am being selective, then supply the missing context. Your baseless allegations are worthless. The thread I quote from was clear, that my island character had a very strong position and was acting in a manner other than that would be considered economically efficient, in that he just didn't like the newcomer. You declared the hypothetical invalid on that point, rather than conceed that the newcomer, under libertarian principles, was required to basically kill himself.

What big government does is actually give them an avenue for being jerks, and so we have to put up with many more jerks than we would otherwise. Case in point: I mentioned in a couple of other threads that our Commissioners a few months ago rejected a zoning plan that would allow a man to build a restaurant, even though it was approved unanimously by the planning board, because of ONE jerk who stood up during the Commissioners meeting and blathered on about how she didn't want her kids exposed to alcohol. Without big government, all she could do is b!tch and moan about it, but she wouldn't have the power to force her will on the restaurant owner without resorting to criminal activity.

Wait a minute. The one "jerk" had to get people to vote her way didn't she? Thus she didn't act alone and it isn't all her doing.
Plus, this makes that same invalid assumption that only government can put people into an oppressive situation.

Furthermore, I have explained this to you both so many times that the only possible explanation for your claims about libertarianism in this thread is that you are either deliberately lying or are deluding yourselves. Either way, it is a sign of pure bigotry, and a refusal to consider the arguments of the other side. This behavior is not becoming of people who call themselves skeptics.

I honestly feel the same way about you. The difference is I try to make some sort of effort to clarify what you are saying and maybe understand it, and you call me names, say I'm bigoted.

You have never explained anything of the sort to me. I understand what you are trying to say, and I make an effort to explain why I disagree. Unfortunately you are so emotionally invested in your worldview that you cannot see any of the points that I make, because if they differ with your beliefs you just reject them.

There is a difference between not considering something and considering something and finding it wanting. It appears you have no concept of the difference. You take it as an article of faith that anyone that considers your arguments in good faith must agree with them. That is an arrogant and unfounded assumption.

I suspect you will continue to simply try to brush off my comments as reflecting my personal bias. Every time you do that, remember that you might as well admit you are just trying to distract from your failure to respond in an intellegent and mature manner.

 

[Diezel]

I'm not very clear on what would constitute a 'crime' in Libertarian land. It seems like the mantra is 'anything that involves initiation of force'.

Is that ALL that would constitute a crime? What about lack of help?

Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?


To me, this situation relies upon me not being a Jerk. If, through the principles of Libertarian justice, someone can explain to me how the above would be a crime, then I could see myself starting to consider it. So far as I can tell, however, it looks like 'charity' is the only answer it has.

Off the top of my head, it wouldn't be a crime. Is that perfect? No.

And I can honestly say, I don't think it should be a crime either.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Diezel:

I'm going to regret getting into this....

Chicken.

Shane was correct about something, that Libertarianism is one of (not the only, I won't go that far) ideologies that does take into account human nature - but not so much the selfishness of people. Another aspect of human nature is the desire of people to live free, to make their own choices. Libertarianism takes that into account.

Naturally, I shall need very good arguments for these ridiculous assertions.

But that does not mean you need to have people always act rational and be "good' to accomplish this.

See shanek's quotes in Suddenly's thread. (Also, see shaneks's quotes since he's been on this board. )

As much as everyone tries to paint it with the same brush, Libertarianism is not anarchy.

No. It is one step away.

They allow for a government to punish those that have done wrong. I have never seen anything by any Libertarian that states people committing crime will be left alone.

I agree.

I will state, as a Jeffersonian Liberal, that you can take both aspects of human nature into account:

1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

I have no idea what a Jeffersonian Liberal is, but the problem with the above is, just like Marxism, it sounds great, but in practice will not work.

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

Punishing people just isn't enough. "Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

 

[shanek]

Suppose I live in the country, it's -35c outside and someone comes knocking at my door. His car has broken down and he'll freeze to death if I don't let him in.

I'm not initiating any force if I simply deny him access to the warmth of my house, but I would consider myself responsible for his death (and therefore culpable to some extent) if I did so. Would Libertarianism allow for this sort of culpability? How, if I'm not initiating force?

No, you are under no legal obligation to help the person. In fact, for all you know, it could be a ruse for the person to gain entry into your house and then attack you and rob you.

And not helping someone isn't a crime now, as far as I'm aware. So how is this any kind of distinction with Libertarianism?

 

[shanek]

If I am being selective, then supply the missing context.

I have explained the concept several times, and that is all that should be required of me.

Plus, this makes that same invalid assumption that only government can put people into an oppressive situation.

This is just bogus, as I have already said. The only way anyone can be oppressed is through the initiation of force. When someone resorts to that, then that is a criminal act. This isn't difficult. Look beyond your personal biases and you'll see it.

 

[Suddenly]

From what I know, Libertarianism believes the same things. To say that it relies on people to act "good" is false, it doesn't - government is still there to punish those that don't act "good".

The weird thing is that most of my beliefs are consistent with libertarianism. However, when I try to get into and question the basis of these types of beliefs I'm a lying bigot, it would seem.

Go figure.

The problem lies in how they define "good." The central problem I have is that they seek to hide complex principles in simple language, and then accuse others of being against the simple principle when they disagree with part of the complex principle.

Such as "do not initiate force."

Not a whole lot of people disagree with the simple principle. The real problem is deciding exactly what force means and what initiate means. I disagree with the nuances of the libertarian position in this regard, so I am not a libertarian. Then I see something like:

If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

This is what I'm talking about.

 

[Diezel]

Chicken.

More like: Been there, done that.

Naturally, I shall need very good arguments for these ridiculous assertions.

Aren't we all here arguing about it?

See shanek's quotes in Suddenly's thread. (Also, see shaneks's quotes since he's been on this board. )

I am really defending Shane's quotes, or the LP. I am stating my opinion of what I see.

No. It is one step away.

About the same step as Communism, being they both advocate a government.

I agree.

Of course you do.

I have no idea what a Jeffersonian Liberal is, but the problem with the above is, just like Marxism, it sounds great, but in practice will not work.

A Jeffersonian Liberal advocates the orginal mandate of the US and advocates returning to the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers.

Punishing people just isn't enough. "Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

And I agree 100% that it should be missing. We should not strive to be "pro-active", but strive to be prepared as best as we can be to be "reactive".

*Note - "pro-active" and "preventative" are not equal. I have no problem with attempts to prevent crime, as long as those preventive measures do not interfer with the personal liberties of those not committing crimes.

 

[shanek]

"Pro-active" is the term missing from the Libertarian agenda.

Libertarians aren't pro-active?

Let's see...in Bellflower, CA, crime was a major issue when a yound mayor took office. This mayor instigated a pro-active community watch program whereby residents of neighborhoods with commuinity watch programs which reduced crime were given a tax credit based on how much they managed to drop the crime rate by. He initiated a targeted crime reduction plan and made it easy for the citizens to create over 200 separate community watch programs, with the ability to meet and compare notes and target areas with higher crime. As a result, crime in Bellfower plummeted 36%.

The mayor? Libertarian Art Olivier.

Sounds pretty darn pro-active to me!