Question for libertarians

[megaresp]

That's it, I'm voting Green Party this time

(They won't let me have nuclear weapons either, but they will send me a lovely poster of a whale when I sign up)

Even better, once the Greens get in, we will finally be free of the tyranny of personal hygiene that is mercilessly forced upon us all by the evil corporations that constantly manipulate social convention.

 

[drkitten]

Actually, there is another way to answer such a question.

A libertarian society of some kind need not be as you imagine. For example, imagine a city owned by a private entity. One's citizenship in such a state would be provided by consent of the owner(s), and under contract. That contract may well forbid the ownership of private weapons.

Yes, and the problem with this is that a state with a contract-of-adherence for citizenship that enumerates the fundamental rights enjoyed by non-owner citizens is called a "slave-owning" state.

If I can set up a contract of adherence that prohibits gun ownership among the people on my plantation -- sorry, city -- why can't I set up a similar contract of adherence that prohibits job mobility, unapproved speech, practicing of unauthorized religions, ownership of private property? (Heck, we've already got contracts in place that prohibit petitioning the government for redress of grievance [they're called 'mandatory arbitration']; the difference is that they're not contracts of adherence.)

Of course, the alternative is that you can "magically" prohibit contracts of adherence in general in Libertopia; but in that case, such a prohibition is itself a contract of adherence (as is the Libertopian government itself) and as such, cannot be enforced.

The end result is that among the other things libertarians favor is chattel slavery.

But I'm sure that megaresp will be happy to issue a blanket denial of this as well.

I repeat : libertarianism is concerned with MY freedom to act as I please, without YOU being able to impose any restraint whatsoever. Libertarians are all for slavery as long as they expect to be the slave-owners.

 

[drkitten]

Less credible than who?

Less credible than they already are.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Robert A. Heinlein wrote a short story in which the carrying of weapons (some kind of hand laser, IIRC) was the norm and those who went unarmed wore brassards signifying such. That society had developed elaborate rules of courtesy and decorum. Logical, if you consider that deliberate rudeness and/or bad behavior would get you challenged to a duel that might result in your death.

So you support death for people who offend others?

Then you think that homosexuals should be less in the public face as there are those who find them offensive and thus attack them. Rather like your system comunity standards are achieved through dirrect force.

 

[Mark6]

Kitty --

I think Libertarian answers (which I do not necessarily agree with) to your questions are:

Robert A. Heinlein wrote a short story in which the carrying of weapons (some kind of hand laser, IIRC) was the norm and those who went unarmed wore brassards signifying such. That society had developed elaborate rules of courtesy and decorum. Logical, if you consider that deliberate rudeness and/or bad behavior would get you challenged to a duel that might result in your death.

We live in an increasingly rude, crude, selfish, sometimes dangerous, culture. Going armed is difficult to impossible for most of us. It's specifically prohibited by my employer, for example.

First, American society is NOT dangerous by historical standards -- in fact, it is amazingly safe. A man can go through his entire adult life without getting into a single fistfight. Two generations ago that was unbelievable; in much of the world it is still unbelievable. (OTOH, most of Western world is even safer in that regard than US is.) Now, a Libertarian may claim that rudeness you mentioned is a CONSEQUENCE of this unprecedented safety -- for the first time in history you can insult people with little or no chance of getting beaten up or shot. A bit of violence, and more importantly, expectations of violence would go a long way to curing this cultural rudeness.

I have some big problems with all-private schooling. This is the US, after all, and the majority of private schools existent now are religious. Can this country afford a private school system that will continue to educate children in superstition and nonsense?

A Libertarian answer is -- so what? If American parents want to teach their chidren nonsense, America's technological superiority will decline, and some other country which take science more seriously will take its place. Such things happened many times in history. Foolish decisions have -- and deserve, -- negative consequences.

 

[GreNME]

What the heck does any of this have to do with libraries?

 

[uruk]

I am quite attracted from libertarians, and I like Ron Paul quite a lot, as you can see from my avatar.
One thing I do not understand.
How can such pacific people can be against gun control?
I mean, this is the reason to be against gun control, according to RP:

Gun control would represent government control or regulation of a personal freedom. Libertarians are against that sort of thing.

But, how can you rule out that a "psycho" get one of the guns, and kills 30 people?
How can a "responsible person", take a gun, and fire back?
If he is in the midst of a massacre, he will not think about getting back to the dorm room, take his gun and go back to shoot the offender.
If he has the possibility, he will fly away.
How can RP say something like that?

If you had a concealed hand gun with you, you would not have to run back to your dorm to get it. You have the gun on your person at the time.
Re-imagine that "psycho" scenario with 30 armed people. Psycho brandishes a gun, 30 armed people point thier guns back at the psycho.
That's not to say that everyone will chose to carry a concealed handgun but you know there would alot more who would given no regulation.

What about people who can use guns under the effect of narcotics (since RP is also against criminalizing some kind of drugs)?

Am I missing something?

How is that diufferent from right now? Guns are being used by those under the influence right now. If more people were packing, the doper causing mayhem would not last quite as long. Or so the line of thinking goes.

 

[dudalb]

The only reason Matteo likes Ron Paul is that Matteo hates the United States, and he supports Paul's policy of a total US withdrawal from world affairs so he won't be bothered by all those Nasty Americans any longer.


As an ex Libertarian, I have to sadly agree with Dr. Kitten:

libertarianism is concerned with MY freedom to act as I please, without YOU being able to impose any restraint whatsoever. Libertarians are all for slavery as long as they expect to be the slave-owners.

Oh, the Libertarians say that is not true, but look at their actions. They would weaken government to the extent that it is simply not capable of enforcing any laws,even those that are still on the books. One of the things that turned me off to Libertarianism is that, when among other Libertarians, how many of them had a "The weak should serve the strong" attitude. Ayn Rand, whose books constitute Sacred Scripture to many Libertarians, is basically peddling a variation on the Nietzsche Superman theory.


Strict Gun control is a dead (no pun intended) issue in the US. Being against it is a main platform of the GOP, and the Democrats have decided it is a losing issue for them.
I think most people would support stricter pre purchase checks for Criminal records and Mental problems for Gun Owners,but beyond that support for really strict gun control is restricted to a few zealots in urban areas.
And anyway, enforcing a Gun Ban in the US would make Prohibition look like a picnic,such would be the popular opposition to it.

 

[dudalb]

That's it, I'm voting Green Party this time

(They won't let me have nuclear weapons either, but they will send me a lovely poster of a whale when I sign up)

The Green Party is just as screwed up in a different way then the Libertarians.

 

[dudalb]

That's true. In the Libertarian world-view, am I allowed to own a nuclear weapon and carry around a rocket-launcher in public?

Yes. This blind adherence to an abstract ideology, the hell with real world consequences, is why I am not a Libertarian, despite having a great deal of sympathy for the basic ideas of individual liberty,a pretty much Free Market economy,and limited Government.

 

[balrog666]

I must admit that I am having some difficulty drawing a distinction between the caricature of libertarianism (as discussed in this thread) and outright anarchy.

And, while the Libertarian Party may advocate pacificism, I know damn few libertarians who do so.

 

[drkitten]

I must admit that I am having some difficulty drawing a distinction between the caricature of libertarianism (as discussed in this thread) and outright anarchy.

That's because there's not much difference, and the differences themselves are often dwarfed by the differences among the various libertarian splinter group advocates (if splinter groups can have splinter groups).

But as an example, one of the the largest philosophical movements associated with the Libertarian party are the self-declared "Anarcho-Capitalists" (q.v.). Since "capitalism" is basically the economic system that prevails in the absence of any rules, anarcho-capitalism is more or less indistinguishable from pure anarchy --- but "anarcho-capitalism" sounds and looks more intelligently-thought out.

Of course, most Libertarians would not self-classify as anarchists instead preferring to describe themselves as "minarchists" (i.e. they want the smallest possible government, which mathematicians would quickly point out is none --- which is why few mathematicians are libertarians). The problem is that this concept of "minarchy" quickly breaks down under scrutiny, because in order for the "minarchy" to have the ability to stay in power, it needs more authority than the libertarians are typically willing to grant it --- for example, it would need the ability to tax, which violates one of the primary driving factors behind Libertopia.

 

[Elaedith]

Actually, there is another way to answer such a question.

A libertarian society of some kind need not be as you imagine. For example, imagine a city owned by a private entity. One's citizenship in such a state would be provided by consent of the owner(s), and under contract. That contract may well forbid the ownership of private weapons.

The problem with all theoretical barbed hooks such as yours, is they imply the kind of civil structures we're used to.

Yet a libertarian society could, in theory, have a communist regime within in it (albeit and ironically under some kind of ownership).

My point is, it's not possible to know in advance what a libertarian society might be like, because the principle of ownership allows for any kind of society you might image, assuming you (or some like-minded group), have the resources to create it.

Which is one (of many) absurdities of libertarianism. Every country on earth could be set up under private ownership to resemble the most brutal and tyrannical state that has ever existed, and everyone without property resources could have less rights than under the most authoritarian government that has ever existed, and also have less prospect of changing their circumstances than under the most rigid social structure that has ever existed, and all of this would be ideologically righteous and pure as long as it came about as the result of property rights.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes. Of course, there are certain cynics, such as me, who point out that "being forced to take a bullet and die" is "contrary to my own will", and therefore have no more problems with forcing you not to carry guns than we have with forcing you not to pour raw sewage into the community drinking water.

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to environmental limitations, too. So maybe a better analogy would be "forcing you to allow me to ramble freely over your land and gather mushrooms to feed myself and my family."

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to that as well. So maybe a better analogy would be "forcing you not to offer drugs for sale that have been clearly shown to be ineffective."

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to drug regulations, too.

So a better description, when you actually look at the libertarian platform, is that "Freedom to act as one pleases, regardless of the consequence of those actions to others, is a fundamental libertarian principle.

The real problem is that libertarianism is sociopathy in a three-piece suit. In broad terms, libertarianism is concerned with MY freedom to act as I please, without YOU being able to impose any restraint whatsoever.

100% accurate

 

[dudalb]

Advocating a Free Market and Limited Government is one thing , the nonsense that Libertarians advocate is another.
The key is that the difference between Anarcho Captalists and Minarchist is the classic "Distinction without any real difference". It is just that Anarcho Capitalist are a bit more honest about wanting Anarchy.

 

[drkitten]

Advocating a Free Market and Limited Government is one thing , the nonsense that Libertarians advocate is another.

I notice with a certain amount of amusement that our resident libertarian, megaresp, isn't even trying to defend it any more. Aside from a rather pathetic blanket denial earlier, he's evidently got nothing to say in defense of his political beliefs.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

If you had a concealed hand gun with you, you would not have to run back to your dorm to get it. You have the gun on your person at the time.
Re-imagine that "psycho" scenario with 30 armed people. Psycho brandishes a gun, 30 armed people point thier guns back at the psycho.
That's not to say that everyone will chose to carry a concealed handgun but you know there would alot more who would given no regulation.

<snip>

And one of those people has been trained in the use of handguns by The Libertarians 'R US School of Training in Everything (motto we don't need no Government Regulation of our Teachers) and in getting the gun out of his pocket manages to accidentally shoot someone else at the party.

By the time its over there are thirty-one dead and dying lying all over the place. Those with wealthy enough families hire assassins to exact revenge, and . . . .

It's been tried. I does not work.

 

[balrog666]

That's because there's not much difference, and the differences themselves are often dwarfed by the differences among the various libertarian splinter group advocates (if splinter groups can have splinter groups).

But as an example, one of the the largest philosophical movements associated with the Libertarian party are the self-declared "Anarcho-Capitalists" (q.v.). Since "capitalism" is basically the economic system that prevails in the absence of any rules, anarcho-capitalism is more or less indistinguishable from pure anarchy --- but "anarcho-capitalism" sounds and looks more intelligently-thought out.

Of course, most Libertarians would not self-classify as anarchists instead preferring to describe themselves as "minarchists" (i.e. they want the smallest possible government, which mathematicians would quickly point out is none --- which is why few mathematicians are libertarians). The problem is that this concept of "minarchy" quickly breaks down under scrutiny, because in order for the "minarchy" to have the ability to stay in power, it needs more authority than the libertarians are typically willing to grant it --- for example, it would need the ability to tax, which violates one of the primary driving factors behind Libertopia.

Yes, anarcho-libertarians exist, and even thrive, as long as they do not get their silly wishes granted. Fringe groups of all stripes and beliefs exist in every political direction you can think of and it matters not to the ordinary citizens' life.

The question is, from the standpoint of where are today, that is with respect to speaking of the current political, regulatory, and restrictive social environment we live in, in which direction are the most effective goals worth pursuing - where we should direct our near term efforts for maximum gain? To state it more directly, should our immediate goals be directed towards enhancing government intrusions into our bedrooms (and phones and computers and cars and businesses) or towards more individual responsibility?

Libertarians steer in one direction, fascists and socialists steer in others; conservatives and their ilk just tend to spin in circles depending on the issue of the day.

And, unfortunately, our government controlled educational system has no interest in actually helping or encouraging citizens to really think for themselves about issues that impact their daily lives; in fact, government schools have been a complete and utter failure towards any goal but enhancing control by the AFT and NEA of the educational system and it's very large public expenditures. Of course, steering dollars to cronies and fools has been the direct result of almost every government program in our recent history, especially those concerned with so-called social issues.

But there's nothing new about that.

 

[uruk]

<snip>

And one of those people has been trained in the use of handguns by The Libertarians 'R US School of Training in Everything (motto we don't need no Government Regulation of our Teachers) and in getting the gun out of his pocket manages to accidentally shoot someone else at the party.

By the time its over there are thirty-one dead and dying lying all over the place. Those with wealthy enough families hire assassins to exact revenge, and . . . .

It's been tried. I does not work.

Its called "thinning the herd".

If more irresponsible gun yahoos take themselves out of the evloutionary gene pool the better off we'll all be. ;P

Yea it'll be bloody and tragic at first, but an equalibrium will achieved.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]

• Your rational mind concludes one thing
• Your heart overrules

I will go with the mind..

That's true. In the Libertarian world-view, am I allowed to own a nuclear weapon and carry around a rocket-launcher in public?

Exactly.
Or build a small bomb, capable of killing hundreds of people?

There has to be a limit, somewhere..

[..]
I have some big problems with all-private schooling. This is the US, after all, and the majority of private schools existent now are religious. Can this country afford a private school system that will continue to educate children in superstition and nonsense?

If all the employers would start to refuse candidates with such degrees, soon such schools would disappear..

Matteo, are you perhaps concerned about Ron Paul's version of pacifism? The kind of pacifism that makes him dismiss the idea of the US Government helping the people of Darfur?

I have a lot of problems believing the US or Europe or anybody else is really interested in Darfur..