Ok, so why aren't you a libertarian?

[billydkid]

I honestly can't understand why anyone who doesn't have anything in particular to gain by adopting a leftist or rightest or statist agenda would not be a libertarian. Freedom is good, right? Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail? Freedom to conduct your life in the manner you think best so long as you are not interfering with another's ability to do the same? Freedom to accept ownership and responsibility for one's own life? Freedom to associate with whomever you choose and freedom to express one's opinions however unpopular they might be? Freedom from others who think they are better suited to make important choices about your life than you are? Freedom from social engineering by the goverment? All these things are good things aren't they? Well, I know some like and promote the idea of social engineering. I guess you have to hope that those doing the engineering continue to have the same vision as you do of a perfect society.

I know a fair number of you have contempt for the libertarians and that's fair enough, but I would ask those of you who have only heard about it and have based your opinions on what you have heard to check out the Libertarian Party website to find out what it is really all about. If you think it's crap then, fine. Just remember one thing - government is force. Obviously, by definition government compels behaviors and it compels those behaviors, ultimately, through the threat of force. Which may be fine for you if government agenda matches your own, but what are you going to do when it doesn't? This is precisely why the founders envisioned a strictly limited government. There, that's my little diatribe. I just hate it when folks who don't really grasp libertarianism feel free to dismiss it as whacko. Google Libertarian Party and take the little libertarian quiz and see if you're a libertarian and don't even know it. thanks, bdk

 

[Thanz]

I took the test on the website, and came out a left-liberal. This is what it has to say about left-liberals:

Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.

That is a pretty fair summation of my beliefs. I pay more taxes than the average Joe, and I would be personally better off under a more right-wing or libertarian regime. But I care about the underprivileged, and think that society as a whole has a duty to try and care for those who need the help.

I find libertarians to be too individualistic, generally speaking.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't feel contempt for the libertarians. Hell, I agree with a lot of their viewpoints, in principle. The problem IMO is that they seem to be fanatics. There is no room for compromise, no problem in society (sorry, I know that's a taboo word) which won't be automatically solved by the holy Free Market. Even after several years of pounding by our esteemed Libertarian shanek, I just don't buy it.

 

[DavidJames]

"...dismiss it as whacko"

"government is force. Obviously, by definition government compels behaviors and it compels those behaviors, ultimately, through the threat of force."

For me, quote #2 explains quote #1.

"Which may be fine for you if government agenda matches your own, but what are you going to do when it doesn't?"

I vote and deal with it either internally or through the system if my opinion is different than that of the elected officials.

"the founders envisioned a strictly limited government"

The founders were very wise and setup a very nice system but I get very uneasy when people view them in biblical proportions and assume they were inerrant and that things won't need some changes in 200+ years. Then it takes on the tone of a relgion and it's associated dogma, no thanks.

 

[Silicon]

Maybe if I say "freedom" a bunch of times in a row, it'll start to sound really wierd. Freedom freedom freedom freedom freewwdoom froeoodomm frewweeddooommm fweellldooommmmmmmmmmm


What was I saying? It sounded wierd.


Oh anyway. You can't trick me by just saying freedom over and over again! I'm still not a libertarian. You haven't hypnotized me.


What don't I have to gain from government? Well, I've never been on welfare, I haven't ever been unemployed, I pay a good chunk of taxes, more than Arianna Huffington!

What do I have to gain from government?

How about the fact that concessions made to the working poor kept this country from going communist. The Ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, as Shanek I believe quotes.

When the poor are really really hungry and desperate, as they were about 100 years ago, scary things start to happen. And folks like Bill Gates are the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[Mike B.]

I don't feel contempt for the libertarians. Hell, I agree with a lot of their viewpoints, in principle. The problem IMO is that they seem to be fanatics. There is no room for compromise, no problem in society (sorry, I know that's a taboo word) which won't be automatically solved by the holy Free Market. Even after several years of pounding by our esteemed Libertarian shanek, I just don't buy it.

Well said DD!!!

 

[jj]

I'm not a libertarian because libertarianism is an extreme position, just like communism and many other things, and extremes have been shown over and over again to be unfunctional.

Some examples of moves toward unbridled capitalism and libertarianism are the destruction of Bell Labs, the destruction of AT&T Research, the great blackout of last summer, the current utter chaos in cell phone function, long-distance billing/slamming/thievery/etc and the breakdown in load vs. supply in several key utilities.

Libertarianism, in short, can never even begin to address the tragedy of the commons, among other things.

Now, this does not assert that other extreme methods do any better, since I'm quite aware of some of the proponents here being willing to build straw men from one blade of grass.

 

[arcticpenguin]

I think the word some of you are looking for is ideologue. On some issues I will agree with the libertarian response, on some the conservative response, on some the liberal response. I will compromise where necessary. I think anyone who adheres to a particular ideology in all situations is going to be out of sync with reality much of the time.

 

[shanek]

But I care about the underprivileged, and think that society as a whole has a duty to try and care for those who need the help.

Libertarians are like this, too. We just disagree on what's the best way to do this.

 

[shanek]

What do I have to gain from government?

How about the fact that concessions made to the working poor kept this country from going communist. The Ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, as Shanek I believe quotes.

When the poor are really really hungry and desperate, as they were about 100 years ago, scary things start to happen.

Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.

 

[shanek]

Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified. 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.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?

 

[Silicon]

Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.

Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Evolver]

I agree with alot of the Libertarian ideals. I even vote for them when I can. But today when I was stuck in line behind a bunch of people who couldn't figure out how to use a self-checkout machine at a store, I severely doubt the ability of most people to govern themselves. It was damn scary to think of how many of these morons might own guns. (Don't start a gun rant, I don't think they should be banned. It was just a thought that came to mind at the moment.)

 

[a_unique_person]

Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.

The government provides the social infrastructure of a civilised society that capitalism needs to thrive. Lets take an empirical point of view. How many libertarian nations are there in the world? How many democracies that have survived under big government.

BTW. Did you know that China is tipped to pass the US as the worlds largest economy in 20 years? This from a country that is anything but the libertarian dream.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819929332.html

 

[Selvedge]

Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified. 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.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?

Here's what puzzles me about this. There's all this stuff in the world -- land, streams, rocks, clams, whatever. And there are people milling about using the land, drinking the water, eating the clams, etc. Somewhere along the line, the stuff becomes property. My land, your stream, her rocks, his clams, etc.

How do Libertarians see that happening, in a legitimate way without the use of force? How does it become my land, my stream, my rock, etc.? What if someone else wants to claim the same bit of stuff as their own, and how do we resolve that without force? Especially if the stuff had previously been used communally -- how does anyone claim it without the rest of the community experiencing it as deprivation and getting ticked off?

Also, wouldn't greed and destructiveness be concerns here? I dislike force as much as the next person, but I can see people resorting to it if one of their number wants to claim all the clams for themself, pee in the stream, etc.

Can you clarify a little? As I mentioned in a another thread, I find much of libertarianism counterintuitive, but since so many people find it so compelling, I'd like to understand it better. Is it possible for stuff to become property without force being involved?

 

[Earthborn]

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.

That's a false dichotomy. Some people might very well agree that initiation of force or fraud is unjustified, but

• Can't see a diffferent way.
• Have a different definition of force and fraud than you do. (For instance s/he sees socialized healthcare as a form of defensive force).
• Recognize that since the initiators of force or fraud will always try to justify their actions as defensive force, the difference between initiation of force and defensive force is not always clearcut. And one should not try to pretend that it is.

When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else?

Most people will agree that initiation of force is not justifiable. But that does not mean they agree wit you everytime you say something is an initiation of force. Some will think that welfare is a defensive measure against poverty, socialized healthcare is a defensive measure against epidemics, or (in the Netherlands) taxes to maintain dykes is a defensive measure against the sea and rivers.

 

[shanek]

BTW. Did you know that China is tipped to pass the US as the worlds largest economy in 20 years? This from a country that is anything but the libertarian dream.

And how well off are their poor?

 

[shanek]

Here's what puzzles me about this. There's all this stuff in the world -- land, streams, rocks, clams, whatever. And there are people milling about using the land, drinking the water, eating the clams, etc. Somewhere along the line, the stuff becomes property. My land, your stream, her rocks, his clams, etc.

How do Libertarians see that happening, in a legitimate way without the use of force?

If I'm on my land, using it, and you come onto my land and try to stop me from using it, that's an initiation of force and I am personally justified in defending myself from it. To this end, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." So a government which recognizes and defends my property rights is a tool for the protection of those rights.

The strawman the anti-libertarians here and pretty much everywhere else like to spout out is that we're against government in any form. That just ain't true. We aren't anarchists (although some anarchists are Libertarians); we're for small government, not no government.

But, since government is force, its use should be confined to protecting its people against the initiation of force or fraud by others.

 

[shanek]

That's a false dichotomy.

No, it isn't. That's the very definition of Libertarian.

Some people might very well agree that initiation of force or fraud is unjustified, but

• Can't see a diffferent way.

• 
  
  That's a justification.
  
  

  [*]Have a different definition of force and fraud than you do. (For instance s/he sees socialized healthcare as a form of defensive force).

  
  Yes, people can twist logic; we know this.
  
  

  [*]Recognize that since the initiators of force or fraud will always try to justify their actions as defensive force, the difference between initiation of force and defensive force is not always clearcut. And one should not try to pretend that it is.
  

Agreed. That's why there is and should be a system in place to examine the evidence and resolve such disputes, and that someone should only be found guilty and punished if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That concept is not opposed by Libertarians.

Some will think that welfare is a defensive measure against poverty,

But how is poverty a form of force? That's twisting logic again.

socialized healthcare is a defensive measure against epidemics,

The problem there (as with welfare, for that matter) is that the target of your force is not the initiator of said force. it's like saying, "Your brother stole from me so I'm going to steal from you." That's an initiation of force because the person you're using force against didn't use it against you.

or (in the Netherlands) taxes to maintain dykes is a defensive measure against the sea and rivers.

Again, it's not the seas and rivers who are forced to pay for it. Don't you think people living there would willingly get together and pay for it themselves? Why should others be forced to pay just because some people insist on living in a flood plain?

 

[Nasarius]

It's the insanity that kinda turns me off

I agree with the Libertarian positions on social issues, but economic...no. Sorry. I think the current system of regulated capitalism is more or less the way to go.