Ok, so why aren't you a libertarian?

shanek said:
No, it isn't. That's the very definition of Libertarian.
'The false dichotomy lies in your statement that someone is either Libertarian or thinks initiation of force is justified.

If you say that thinking initiation of force is unjustified is all that is needed to be Libertarian, you include a whole lot of people who disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda.
Yes, people can twist logic; we know this.
Something is not automatically a twist of logic just because it is a different view than yours. The logic can be sound and selfconsistent, yet be a different way of looking at things.
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.
Evidence can be presented to prove who did something, but how can courts determine what constitutes 'initiation of force' and what 'defensive force' ?
But how is poverty a form of force?
Poverty itself is not. But the taxes necessary for welfare (according to you) are.
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."
Of course you can't make epidemics pay for the expenses of epidemics. It will have to go from someone else.
That's an initiation of force because the person you're using force against didn't use it against you.
True, but they also get something in return: health. The benefit he receives from it outweighs the cost.

Without mandatory healthcare, there is an increased risk that poorer people don't insure themselves to save money and such an underclass becomes a breeding ground for epidemics. (Dang that sounds awfully incorrect. But factually it is true.)
Again, it's not the seas and rivers who are forced to pay for it.
Actually, in a way, they pay the highest price.
Don't you think people living there would willingly get together and pay for it themselves?
Apperently they have, and have decided that everyone who benefits from it has the oligation to help pay for it.
Why should others be forced to pay just because some people insist on living in a flood plain?
Some people? Half the country is below sea level! The most economically prosperous half even. And some parts of the country that are on higher grounds are likely to suffer from river floods. There isn't a single person who doesn't directly or indirectly benefit from the fact that the government ensures the continuing existence of the country. What possible justification could there be for not helping to pay for that? "Hey, it isn't my fault that everything I own is washed away when dykes aren't maintained. Why should I have to pay?"
 
I would argue that the use of force is inevitable, anyway, so it should be regulated and controlled. Too much of libertarianism, to me, opens up people for economic exploitation. Eg, the people being paid peanuts to make track shoes that sell for hundreds of dollars.
 
a_unique_person said:
Sidestep noted.

It's not a sidestep. The benefits of a free market economy extend to everyone, including the poorest people.

Also, I can't recall you ever being concerned for Americas' working poor. You have consistently attacked the minimum wage, for example.

YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR!!!! The Minimum Wage FORCES THE POOR INTO UNEMPLOYMENT!!! I proved that in a VERY lengthy thread!

You take the same dishonest tactic of all socialists: I show how your failed big government programs don't work, and your only response is how I hate the poor!

As you would well know if you were paying attention, I led a team this year at a local MS Walk that received the Top Average Donations award, and I'm leading a team in the CROP Walk later this month. BTW, this team is the Libertarian Party of Lincoln County, NC. For years, I have worked with food drives and other charitable work to help feed the hungry. I do this because it works a H*LL of a lot better than your wasteful, failed big government boondoggles!

You want to help the poor? How about making a donation? Or does your generosity only extend to using other people's money?
 
shanek said:


You want to help the poor? How about making a donation? Or does your generosity only extend to using other people's money?

I have already been giving money to charity for many years, not that it is any business of yours. I have also been paying taxes, which are used for various government programs, some of which I approve of, some I don't.
 
Earthborn said:
'The false dichotomy lies in your statement that someone is either Libertarian or thinks initiation of force is justified.

That's not a false dichotomy! It's the definition of Libertarian! If you believe that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified, you're a Libertarian!

If you say that thinking initiation of force is unjustified is all that is needed to be Libertarian, you include a whole lot of people who disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda.

So? Someone can still be a Libertarian and disagree with parts of the platform.

If you think the debates around here get heated, you should see the Libertarian lists!

Of course you can't make epidemics pay for the expenses of epidemics. It will have to go from someone else.

So you can: 1) charge the person benefitting directly from the medical care, 2) pay for it with voluntary donations, and/or 3) force others to pay for it whether they want to or not. 1 and 2 are not initiations of force; 3 is.

True, but they also get something in return: health. The benefit he receives from it outweighs the cost.

Don't look now, but you're justifying.
 
a_unique_person said:
I have already been giving money to charity for many years, not that it is any business of yours. I have also been paying taxes, which are used for various government programs, some of which I approve of, some I don't.

Does that mean you take back your accusation that I don't care about the poor?
 
shanek said:


That's not a false dichotomy! It's the definition of Libertarian! If you believe that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified, you're a Libertarian!


Since (for example, this is not suggesting you'd do such a thing) I'd cheerfully use force to keep you from injuring me or taking my posessions for no reason at all, I guess I'll never be a libertarian.
 
shanek said:
The Minimum Wage FORCES THE POOR INTO UNEMPLOYMENT!!! I proved that in a VERY lengthy thread!
That's not exactly how I remember that thread. The way I remember it is that many have critized what you consider to be proof, and you haven't answered that criticism to their satisfaction.

In fact the proof you offered at the beginning of that thread was either unavailable to most people, not available at all, or didn't even adress what you wanted to prove.

And you haven't even adressed the questions for quantifiable data I asked for in my last post.

And calling someone a 'filthy liar' is way over the top. Why should anyone continue to adress your arguments if you start verbal abuse like that?
 
jj said:
Since (for example, this is not suggesting you'd do such a thing) I'd cheerfully use force to keep you from injuring me or taking my posessions for no reason at all, I guess I'll never be a libertarian.

No, because that's not an INITIATION of force! You would be defending yourself against MY initiation of force!

Why don't you people read?
 
Earthborn said:
That's not exactly how I remember that thread. The way I remember it is that many have critized what you consider to be proof, and you haven't answered that criticism to their satisfaction.

I answered them all with rational, logical rebuttals. It's not my fault if they're not satisfied with that.
 
shanek said:


Does that mean you take back your accusation that I don't care about the poor?

It was just curious how, when I said that China was going to be more wealthy than the US, you questioned about whether or not the wealth was going to be fairly distributed. You may feel sorry for the poor, but you have never indicated that you think that wealth distribution is an issue.
 
First, anyone interested in studying the myths of Libertarianism needs to read this site.

Critiques Of Libertarianism

The crux of Libertarian mythology in my opinion is that individuals will respect the rights of others in the absence of enforcement of those rights. Some Libertarians will argue that they just want a "smaller" government, but their idea of smaller is something like less than 10% of the current government. Its that extremity is what bothers me.

Its particulary irritating as those of us that are involved in causes that intersect with Libertarian beliefs. For example, I am an anti-prohibitionist. I believe drugs should be de-criminilized and regulated. Unfortunately the LP says drugs should be decriminalized and deregulated. The prohibitionists point to THAT argument as what anti-prohibs want and we get tarred with the same brush. Its the LP that wants to sell crack in vending machines, not us.
 
shanek said:
If you think the debates around here get heated, you should see the Libertarian lists!
So there are Libertarians who are in favour of universal healthcare (as long as it isn't mandatory like the WHO demands) and big government (as long as doesn't forcibly tax people) ?
So you can: 1) charge the person benefitting directly from the medical care,
But that may not be an option: the person maybe too poor, may have chosen not to get insurance to save some money hoping s/he wouldn't get anything serious...
2) pay for it with voluntary donations,
Hoping enough is raised to cover it. If the fundraising happens before the outbreak people may not be likely to pay for a hypothetical threat. If the outbreak is already happening, you can only hope you raise enough and on time.
and/or 3) force others to pay for it whether they want to or not.
Yes, it makes sense. You make them pay so the lives of many of them can be saved when more difficult times arrive.

Even the prevention of epidemics can justify use of force (I'd call it defensive force): when someone in poor a neighbourhood suffers from tuberculosis, I want a nurse to come to him/her and make absolutely sure s/he takes the medication and I want that to continue until the cure is finished. And I also want someone to pay for it, and don't see why the poor person should be responsible for that.
Don't look now, but you're justifying.
Shocks! :)
 
shanek said:
I answered them all with rational, logical rebuttals.
But not a whole lot of convincing evidence.
It's not my fault...
I imagine that's the way people greet eachother in Libertopia: "It's not my fault!", "It's not my responsibility!" :)

It may not be your fault but, please try to understand this, you are the one who can do something about it!


Just imagine what would have happened if some of the great scientists had the same mentality as you...

[History=Alternative]

"We are not quite convinced yet, Albert."

"Oh, well, it is not my fault you don't understand Relativity."

[/History]
 
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<H1 align=center>Libertarianism in One Lesson </H1>
<P align=center><A href="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html">Part of the
"Critiques of Libertarianism" site.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html </A>
<P align=center>Last updated 01/04/03.


No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view
of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to
real libertarianism!


Introduction



One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically
a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to
learn foreign words like "proletariat".


This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground
running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and
proselytize!



<LI>Philosophy
<UL>
<LI>In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
<LI>Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all
Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
<LI>We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will
just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen
to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
<LI>Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things.
Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything
else we except but government.
<LI>Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative,
reasoning individualist.
<LI>Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they
can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
<LI>Taxation is theft because we have a
right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police,
courts, etc. without obligation. <!-- Taxation is theft! (Unless it is private: then it's called condo fees,
sharecropping, rent, etc.) -->
<LI>Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia.
Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
<LI>Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated
honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit
Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
<LI>The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary
and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals. </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Government
<UL>
<LI>Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy,
injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to
stop them.
<LI>Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra
"Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
<LI>Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by
settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved
and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are
broken by private police.
<LI>Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the
economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally
burnt.
<LI>Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated
masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an
illusion.
<LI>Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil
economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders
of Statism".
<LI>Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are
run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
<LI>Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as
everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the
world.
<LI>Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.
Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.
</LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Regulation
<UL>
<LI>The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might
have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
<LI>Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable
right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
<LI>All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated:
every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the
tobacco industry.
<LI>If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun,
why don't you have even more powerful armament?
<LI>Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and
solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have
enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of
dollars in lawsuits should shut up. </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Libertarian Party
<UL>
<LI>The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political
landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other
important officials after 25 years of effort.
<LI>The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
<LI>Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is
why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
<LI>It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child
labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts,
cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
<LI>Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism
"ruled" pamphleteering.
<LI>No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty,
guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible
dogmas.
<LI>Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
<LI>Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every
change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two
steps backwards.
<LI>Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's
not supposed to be funny or ironic! </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Political Debate Strategy
<UL>
<LI>Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of
government.
<LI>Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
<LI>All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor
libertarian claims.
<LI>Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot
protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
<LI>The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best
argument.
<LI>The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst
dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of
degree.
<LI>Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those
without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let
them find somebody else's property to complain on.
<LI>Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical
record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist
Russia, and Maoist China.
<LI>Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government:
libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
<LI>Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and
Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
<LI>Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought
not to be involved. </LI>[/list]



<P align=center>Copyright 2002 by Mike Huben</A>

This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is
reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.
</P></LI></BODY></HTML>
 
shanek said:
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.


In 1720 the plague arrived in Marseilles (fittingly enouch because merchants circumvented the quarantine restrictions imposed by the government.) In two years 50 000 of Marseille's 90 000 population died. To contain the plague, the French government sealed off Marseilles - imposing the death penalty on any attempts to communicate between Marseilles and the rest of Provence.

(As it happens, this was not enough to prevent the plague from spreading beyond Marseilles - but there was no way of knowing that ahead of time.)

This is a pretty clear occasion when the government initiated the use of force, and I would personally claim that it was also clearly justifiable use of force. Do you disagree?
 
May I suggest anyone interested in Libertarianism reads Will Kymlicka's book _Contemporary Political Philosophy_, particularly chapter four. See also the British philosopher Jonathon Wolff's excellent examination of _A,S, and U_ called _Reading Nozick_.

First of all, Libertarians aren't really libertarians. They're fake libertarians. I've mentioned this before. Libertarianism has traditionally referred to left-anarchist movements, and still does today in europe. The term started taking on a new meaning after World War II before becoming completely co-opted in the 70s.

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.

This is a point I'll harp until no end: what non-arbitrary moral justification do Libertarians have for seizing land? I've yet to see a convincing "natural right" argument (the best justification is that private property increases overall wealth, as Victor D, a liberal, argued in a previous thread. But that argument suggests it's okay to take property away from the ultra-rich if it increases overall happiness). There are further problems with the initiation of force in the form of negative externalities.

Other problems include the limited "Libertarian" understanding of freedom -- restricted to the absence of interference. Any serious understanding of liberty, I believe, incorporates positive freedom and ideals of self-mastery (and concomitant values of equality and self-management).

Following from the previous ideal of freedom is the notion that everyone's life ought to be determined by personal choices rather than uncontrollable circumstances. If a person is born into abject poverty, not provided with a decent education, then the system itself is fundamentally immoral. Similarly, a person lucky enough to be born as a heir to the Hilton hotel chain (say), has made no choices or personal sacrifices for her riches and leisurely lifestyle. This implies equality of opportunity (and liberal philosophers John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin do an admirable job of undermining the Libertarian arguments here. So much so that Robert Nozick, the most famous and brilliant libertarian, conceded important parst of _A,S, & U_ pertaining to estate taxes. (see also Chris Wilson's essay on critiques of Libertarianism website).


There are plenty other very good reasons for rejecting Libertarianism. As an ex-Libertarian, I should know.
 
Originally posted by Silicon;
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.

No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.

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.

Strange as it may seem I don't recall the hungry and desperate masses revolting against the ruling classes in Britain and the UK 100 years ago.
 
No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.

"I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." -- Henry Kissinger on Chile.

Don't worry, capitalism reasserted itself in a, um, popular uprising of the, uh, people. Yeah, the people, not some CIA supported military coup. It was the people. The people.
 

Back
Top Bottom