Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[billydkid]

yes. yes. yes.

Libertarianism knows and assumes that people fallible, greedy, stupid and every other bad thing you can think of to varying degrees. This is precisely why the libertarians are so strongly against authoratarian types of governments of any kind (left, right, center, whatever). Because people are flawed they should not be in a position to govern the lives of other people!!!! The libertarian philosphy, in a nut shell, is simply this - live and let live. I have no idea why this is so hard for people to get their brains around.

The logic goes like this - if people are not competent to govern there own lives, how on earth can they be capable of governing lives of others? You should be free to conduct your life as you think best so long as you are not interfering with anyone elses right to do the same. Your life, your body, your mind, your thoughts - all of these are your's alone and nobody has any business telling you what you can do with any of them.

Libertarians believe in personal sovereignty and that the role of the state is to maintain that right for each and everyone of us. It follows that criminal law should be based solely on that principle. Certainly, in my opinion, murder is wrong, but it is illegal because it represents someone interfering with the personal sovereignty of another and their right to their life. It also follows that the concept of a "victimless crime" is nonsense. There can not be a crime in any genuine sense without a victim.

 

[EvilYeti]

I know this wasn't meant for me, but maybe I can clarify this a little better. When he says it will be paid for by "usage fees and excises", that doesn't mean those usuage fees are directly related to the police force.

Shanek has little to offer in the way of answers, so feel free to provide any information you have. It's always appreciated.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is a radically different definition of "usage fees" than what I have encountered. When I've heard the term it was always used in the context of a payment to aquire access to a particular resource, a campground for example. You pay a "usage fee" to use the area and it's facilities. If the police required a "usage fee", to me that says you would have to pay in order to recieve their protection or other law enforcement related services.

As in income tax, the government collects money and disperses it to different programs. Your usage fee for, say, gasoline, would be paying for the police force.

That would be an excise tax. You wouldn't pay a usage fee for gasoline as it's a product, not a service.

So, no, you wouldn't have people not getting protection because they couldn't pay the usage fees. Everyone is protected.

If you have to pay for law enforcement, as Harry Brown has suggested and is implied by shanek's "usage fees", then only those who could afford justice would recieve it.
It is just a shift from where the government makes collects their money today (income tax & property tax, etc....) to a different way to collect money (usage fees and excises, etc....) But this doesn't in anyway mean there would be unequal protection from the police forces.

If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much!

 

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:

If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much!

Exactly! How is an income tax any more "extorted at gun point" than a usage fee for using the public road where my house is located? And please don't tell me that I could just have bought a house on a private road. The entire United States isn't connected by private roads, but public ones. So I have no choice.

And why should my usage fee increase, just because a neighbouring county needs a larger police force? Why should I be forced to pay for the well-being of other people?

 

[EvilYeti]

No, they would be criminals. They initiated fraud against their stockholders. They should be thrown in jail and have their assets siezed until enough money is gained to pay back every cent they swindled. I've said this to you before, so this is, survey says...ANOTHER LIE!!!

You mean fraud like this?

Former Enron Executive Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading

I'm glad to see you've finally come around and broke ranks with the LP party and no longer endorse corporate fraud. There may be hope for you yet.

Why don't you post an addendum to the insider trading threads describing your new position? I'm sure we would all find it very informative.

Show this. Show the amount of taxes in the state budges that is NOT gathered through income and property taxes and show that it is less than the amount spent on prisons.

No. YOU show how the LP plans to pay for jails and police without income or property taxes. You are trying to get my vote, remember?
"Usage fees and excise taxes" is not a good enough answer. I want a breakdown of what is going to be taxed and how much. Enough with the hand waving.

As I've pointed out to you before, cross-cultural comparisons are invalid because there are so many other variables than simple gun ownership.

No, you've pointed out that any information that contradicts your belief system is invalid.

Already done. Check the other threads.

Not interested. Show me the records of the millions of wounded and killed criminals by armed civillians, then I'll believe you. I have no use for your endless anecdotes.

That would be, uh, now. In fact, my home state just added another elected Libertarian to office this year. Libertarians ARE getting elected, and they ARE making a difference. I've given you references to them doing just that. It might not be much right now, but it is non-zero.

Ooops, my bad. .01% is a non-zero number. Let me fix that:

Why don't you wait until the LP has a >.01% amount of political influence before you go claiming they do more than real parties?

 

[Cain]

And why should my usage fee increase, just because a neighbouring county needs a larger police force? Why should I be forced to pay for the well-being of other people?

I realize you're making a point here and that you're not really a Libertarian, but the situation is interesting. Even when the government and the market function essentially the same way, we criticize the government as unfair, where as the market is automatically viewed as "rational," "objective," or "natural."

Why should I be forced to pay a higher price for a movie at night rather than in the afternoon? Or if you find yourself on an airplane, ask the person next to you how much she paid for her ticket. Chances are 99 out of 100 that you paid different rates, and sometimes the disparities are grossly uneven.

Well, that's because in a market system firms *try* to practice price discrimination. They want to get as much money from each customer as possible. I understand that if you go to Dell's site, the company will charge different rates for a computer depending on whether or not you identify yourself as a regular user or small business owner. (A recent paper by an economics professor from Texas claims price discrimination will become more prevalent as people do more of their shopping on the Internet).

The irony here is that private businesses more than anybody want to soak the rich, and sometimes develop elaborate models to squeeze that last cent out of prospective customers. Oh, but when government implements a graduated income tax, then Libertarians, Republicans and other anti-tax activits are up in arms. "It's unfair," they cry.

They may not be fond of price discrimination, especially in the case of wealthy Republicans, but their ideology insists that a firm should be able to charge whatever it wants, fairness be damned. Silliness.

If Shanek and other Libertarians finally find their nutsacks and decide to take first premises to their logical conclusion, an anarcho-capitalist society is the inevitable result. Yeah, firms will charge user fees that end up (basically) subsidizing others (just as major law firms do pro-bono work that isn't cheap). But in an unregulated market system -- which *is* tyrannical, unjustifiable and all of that -- their Libertarian "paradise" can be realized.

 

[Diezel]

If that's the case, then all you are doing is swapping a sales tax for income tax! What does it matter if I have 40% more income if everything costs twice as much!

I'm not sure if that would be the case. And I'm not sure if I am going to portray this the right way, so forgive me if I'm wrong. But I'm not sure if the LP uses the same terminology when they speak of "usage fees". Actually, I like the term "usage tax", but the LP never likes the word tax.

Here's how I see it: The gasoline tax is one of the best taxes out there, because I pay a direct amount according to my use. I drive much more than the normal person, so I buy more gasoline than the normal person. I also use the roads more than the normal person, so it makes sense I pay more taxes than the normal person.

A person without a car is going to pay exactly $0 in gas tax, which is fine, because they aren't using the roads.

Now, I can see this can quickly be jumped on and say "Well, wouldn't that work for the police then? Wouldn't the people using the service be the ones having to pay for the service?" No. Because there are other types of "usage taxes" that can cover those types of situations, where everyone needs equal coverage. I like the idea of sales tax - the more I purchase, the more tax I pay. Since sales tax on most goods wouldn't have a direct project it would be earmarked to pay for, that money could be used to pay for the police force.

As for everything costing twice as much, I don't think that would happen. You have to remember, the amount of money the government would need to take in would be dramatically less than they need now. It seems that most people arguing against this think they would need the same amount of money, they wouldn't - because most government programs you see now would be gone!

What are the figures? I have no idea. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that the government spends 50% of its intake on national defense, police forces, fire departments, transportation, etc.., and the other half on welfare programs, etc.... (I'm lumping local, state and fedral governments together here for the sake of clarity.)

Now say they aren't going to involve themselves in any of the second half stuff. So now they only need 50% of their intake, to render the same level of service in those areas they did before.

If you were paying 38% in taxes, you could now only pay 19%. And if you rearrange the way those taxes were collected, some would pay more than that, some would pay less than that, all depending on their spending habits and the services they use.

So, no, things wouldn't cost twice as much.

 

[shanek]

Shanek has little to offer in the way of answers,

I have already given you the same answer Diezel did, like I did in other threads, so quit your lying and quit your whining.

That would be an excise tax.

Hel-lo??? I SAID "User fees and excises," you liar!

If you have to pay for law enforcement, as Harry Brown has suggested

Harry Browne did NOT suggest that. He suggested that people could pay for their own personal defense, which is not the same as nor is mutually exclusive to a police force. I've pointed this out to you twice in this thread.

 

[shanek]

EvilYeti:Exactly! How is an income tax any more "extorted at gun point" than a usage fee for using the public road where my house is located?

In that case, it is only because the government has given itself a monopoly on the roads.

The entire United States isn't connected by private roads, but public ones.

Only because of government decree.

 

[Earthborn]

Because you have elected people into power that take personal profit from helping others. Some desire money, some desire that warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone out and feel they have taken the moral high road.

Either way, it is still selfish. And from what I hear, not everyone in those states are estatic about it. If we weren't selfish, nobody would have a problem with it.

I might as well argue that all human behaviour is altruistic and not selfish at all. After all, a person could be serving his own best interests to make him more able to care for others. If all people ignored their own interests, that would be bad for everybody, so taking care of yourself is an altruistic thing. You could even do it in order to not be a burden to others.

People who have a problem with welfare states, often argue that they aren't against it because it hurts themselves, but argue that it hurts everybody else. Just look at some of Shanek's argumentation.

If I give to charity, do I do it because I want to help someone, or do I do it to get a warm fuzzy feeling because of helping soemone? The truth is, it makes no difference. Both are completely interchangeable.

Yes, people are selfish. But they aren't only selfish, they can be altruistic as well. If you base your political ideas either on the fact that people are selfish or people are altruistic, you are basing it on a fallacy. All people are both, in varying degrees.

Now say they aren't going to involve themselves in any of the second half stuff. So now they only need 50% of their intake, to render the same level of service in those areas they did before.

You are simplifying the issue to a level that hasn't got anything to do with reality. In reality, the transition is going to cost money. People who depend on welfare will need to be given something else in return or else they will suddenly lose all income and not get anything for a period of time. Such a drop in income will likely increase crime (more people stealing out of what they consider necessisity) and that might eat up all the money you thought you saved by giving them nothing.

So you are going to need a program to give these people jobs or benefits from free market insurance companies. That program might be a free market enterprise itself, however it will probably want to be paid by the government in some way.

Whatever you do, there is no way you can save all the money you were spending on welfare in the first place.

 

[Diezel]

I might as well argue that all human behaviour is altruistic and not selfish at all. After all, a person could be serving his own best interests to make him more able to care for others. If all people ignored their own interests, that would be bad for everybody, so taking care of yourself is an altruistic thing. You could even do it in order to not be a burden to others.

People who have a problem with welfare states, often argue that they aren't against it because it hurts themselves, but argue that it hurts everybody else. Just look at some of Shanek's argumentation.

If I give to charity, do I do it because I want to help someone, or do I do it to get a warm fuzzy feeling because of helping soemone? The truth is, it makes no difference. Both are completely interchangeable.

Well, we could really argue if there is such a thing as altruism, but it would be a moot point (I do believe it exists, but I don't believe it exists in welfare or charity and is very rare.)

It is a moot point, because my basis of identifying people as selfish and using that for an ideology is that welfare and charity is best administered and most effiecient when based from that viewpoint. Refer to my posts on populations.

If the question is "What is the best way to deal with welfare?", then I believe that best approach to take is to say "Well, people are selfish, so [follow my points about the subject]." If you answered "Well, people are altruistic, so [insert welfare programs that have you giving money to people you don't care about.]" When dealing with large populations that feel little or no connection to each other, the second approach seems to fall apart, while the first one seems to be effective.

Yes, they may be one in the same for small populations, but if the second (altruistic) approach is equal to the first, large populations such as the US would have no problem with a welfare state. But it is obvious this isn't true.

Yes, people are selfish. But they aren't only selfish, they can be altruistic as well. If you base your political ideas either on the fact that people are selfish or people are altruistic, you are basing it on a fallacy. All people are both, in varying degrees.You are simplifying the issue to a level that hasn't got anything to do with reality.

I don't believe this to be true. We are talking about how to approach a problem. I'm an engineer and have to solve problems. Each problem can be approach in a variety of ways. Sometimes it doesn't matter which way you approach it (such as my example of small populations), but many times taking the wrong approach would leave you with less than satisfactory performance (such as approaching a large population as if they were altruistic.)

I couldn't tell you how many times I was trying to solve something, beating my head against the wall, putting band-aid after band-aid on it just trying to make it work, when it occured to me to look at the problem from a differet angle and everything worked out great.

Again, we are talking about how to approach a problem and get results. It really doesn't matter if people are all selfish or all altruistic, it only matters what the results are after you take action based on the approach.

I believe if you take the approach that people are selfish when it comes to charity and welfare in large populations, you will get better performance out of your charities and welfare programs.

In reality, the transition is going to cost money. People who depend on welfare will need to be given something else in return or else they will suddenly lose all income and not get anything for a period of time. Such a drop in income will likely increase crime (more people stealing out of what they consider necessisity) and that might eat up all the money you thought you saved by giving them nothing.

Believe me, I don't think something like this would come overnight. Actually, I don't think something like this would ever come about at all. But it is an ideal and small changes can be made based on this ideal, making progress.

So you are going to need a program to give these people jobs or benefits from free market insurance companies. That program might be a free market enterprise itself, however it will probably want to be paid by the government in some way.

Whatever you do, there is no way you can save all the money you were spending on welfare in the first place.

I wouldn't say there is no way, but I will agree it would be difficult and take generations to acheive. Anyone that offers you a quick fix, even in their lifetime, is not thinking clearly.

 

[shanek]

You mean fraud like this?

Former Enron Executive Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading

I'm glad to see you've finally come around and broke ranks with the LP party and no longer endorse corporate fraud. There may be hope for you yet.

Why don't you post an addendum to the insider trading threads describing your new position? I'm sure we would all find it very informative.

If EvilYeti weren't a complete liar, he'd tell you that not only did I state that the Enron-style trading was fraud, unlike the kind of insider trading I was talking about, I hammered that point in the thread so many times that no reasonable person could ever have been confused by this. EvilYeti is a lying troll; that's just all there is to it.

 

[EvilYeti]

If EvilYeti weren't a complete liar, he'd tell you that not only did I state that the Enron-style trading was fraud, unlike the kind of insider trading I was talking about, I hammered that point in the thread so many times that no reasonable person could ever have been confused by this. EvilYeti is a lying troll; that's just all there is to it.

If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and *******, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

Note:
The statements regarding sex offender status and NAMBLA funding are both false. They are presented to illustrate to shanek that it's not nice to falsely label others.

edited by hal pending clarification

 

[RPG Advocate]

If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

The sex offender allegation is outrageous (and also false, according to the North Carolina Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry ). That's a very serious allegation that could harm shanek's real-life repuation. As such, your post has been reported to the moderators.

Would also love evidence for the "parental failure" and "funded by NAMBLA" allegations.

 

[gnome]

If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender, he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

Vote Shane Killian, the pro-fraud candidate! (campaign funding provided by NAMBLA).

Ok, that was really below the belt and uncalled for. WTF?

Why are you bringing his personal life into it? It's nobody's business. I disagree with Shanek all the time but this the most blatantly ad hominem post I've seen in a long time, not to mention beyond the bounds of simple decency on a message board.

I was going to post some more responses but now I feel dirty joining in the debate anywhere near you.

Another thread, perhaps.

 

[shanek]

If shanek wasn't a complete liar, parental failure and registered sex offender,

This is a libelous comment. Please retract it or I may consider action.

he would admit that this is EXACTLY the kind of insider trading he wants to deregulate.

No, it isn't, and I explained why in the thread.

 

[Pyrrho]

EvilYeti, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel, but your allegations about Shanek present a danger to his welfare. I strongly suggest that you retract your statements.

In the past I might have moved the offending portions of this thread offline, but I think this needs to be seen in context by the administrators.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Now, children, play nice. Someone's going to get hurt.

 

[Suddenly]

No, it isn't, and I explained why in the thread.

Actually, you did explicitly make a difference between the two in that thread. In fact, you posted:

Again, that's not the kind of thing we're talking about. Funny book-making, Enron-style fraud and corruption, all of that is clearly fraud and should be restricted.

Or maybe I'm just being a bigoted liar and I'm changing sides at will. Who knows?

 

[shanek]

And besides, who even cares if I get my campaign funding from the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?

 

[Tez]

I1) 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".

Presumably the governement also has a function in writing new legislation, since (also presumably) the current laws are not all perfect. I personally am worried about the "human nature" of the (hypothetically very small) number of people involved in that malleable process. The primary advantage of big governement is its inefficiency.