Question for Libertarians

[The idea]

Often, people who want to sell some product, service, or system try to draw attention to the benefits of that product, service, or system.

If the first rule in making changes is "do no harm", then we need to consider possible negatives or disadvantages of the product, service, or system. The existence of serious and unnecessary negatives may make anticipated benefits irrelevant.

Instead of asking other people, "Wouldn't you like to not have to pay any taxes?", Libertarians should ask themselves, "Are there any problems that might arise if the system that I am proposing were implemented?" Of course, before that question can even be asked, there has to be a specification of what actual system is being proposed. Otherwise, different potential problems can be dealt with one at a time by defining the system to have different and incompatible characteristics. In that case, there is no actual system.

Here is a link to a question for Libertarians:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51041

Of course, anyone can try to answer the question. However, most people will consider the issue to be too obvious to warrant the effort of trying to provide a foundation for the conclusion. On the other hand, Libertarians are likely to either evade the issue or express acceptance of a conclusion that they don't really accept.

This raises another question. For Libertarians, is Libertarianism simply a flawed idea, acknowledged to be flawed, but accepted as a useful tool for certain purposes? If it is not acknowledged to be flawed, then why should a Libertarian be enthusiastic about some aspects of Libertarianism while being less than enthusiastic about other aspects of Libertarianism? Is it good enough for a Libertarian who has painted himself or herself into a corner to unhappily but patiently stand in the corner? If the corner is really a good place to be, then shouldn't the Libertarian radiate joy while standing in the corner?

 

[username]

Here is a link to a question for Libertarians:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51041

The question the link asks is: Suppose it were legal for private businesses to provide facilities for students who received below average marks to kill themselves.

That's not really a question, but...

I consider myself libertarianish, but I can't for the life of me see what the suicide facilitation as a business has to do with libertarianism. Even more I don't see that a business which facilitates suicides would necessarily result in an increase in the suicide rate. It's kind of like if I start selling old smelly socks will more people wear old smelly socks? Just because something is offered doesn't make people desire it overnight, particularly when the offering isn't very appealing except to those already feeling suicidal.

So, I guess I don't get what the question has to do with libertarianism any more than it is relevant to marxism or any other political ideology.

This raises another question. For Libertarians, is Libertarianism simply a flawed idea, acknowledged to be flawed, but accepted as a useful tool for certain purposes?

Of course. Any ideology is flawed once it leaves paper and enters the real world.

The rest of your post made even less sense to me than what I have responded to so I won't comment on that.

I would suggest you read some libertarian writings to gain an understanding of what it is. It's OK to not like it, but it is best to understand it first.

I think most *real world* libertarians are simply people who value being able to come and go as they please and dislike government interfering in their affairs. In this sense most people are libertarian.

Where libertarians generally differ from other political ideologies is that just as we wish this freedom for ourselves we realize that we cannot use government to control others without allowing government to control us in that same area. We also tend to be sticklers for following the constitutional processes rather than just having a government that does whatever it feels like.

Beyond that libertarians are just normal people with normal lives.

 

[The idea]

Re: Re: Question for Libertarians

The question the link asks is: Suppose it were legal for private businesses to provide facilities for students who received below average marks to kill themselves.

That's not really a question, but...

Here's the question:

Society should look favorably upon a method for decreasing the number of such students without violating anyone's rights. If you disagree, can you explain why you disagree?

In other words, the problem for Libertarians is to:
(1) Explain why such businesses, now illegal, would be illegal even under a Libertarian system; or
(2) Explain why people should be in favor of a change of laws to allow such businesses to be established.

Even more I don't see that a business which facilitates suicides would necessarily result in an increase in the suicide rate.

The general public might oppose the establishment of such businesses even if they have no opinion on the (empirical?) question of whether or not there would be a resulting increase in the suicide rate.

We also tend to be sticklers for following the constitutional processes rather than just having a government that does whatever it feels like.

Who wants a government that does whatever it feels like doing?

 

[username]

Re: Re: Re: Question for Libertarians

Here's the question:

Society should look favorably upon a method for decreasing the number of such students without violating anyone's rights. If you disagree, can you explain why you disagree?

First, as a libertarianish individual I object to the term "society" in most cases when it is unqualified. Society can mean all people or it can mean a majority of people or it can mean those with influence over the people or it can mean 1 person with a big mouth.

However, if the proposition is that most people would like to see a decrease in the number of students with below average grades, this is a logical impossibility. The number of students with below average grades will always be whatever number represents 49% of the students.

It is also quite silly to suggest that most people would like to see a reduction via suicide. The entire example is a joke from start to finish.

In other words, the problem for Libertarians is to:
(1) Explain why such businesses, now illegal, would be illegal even under a Libertarian system; or
(2) Explain why people should be in favor of a change of laws to allow such businesses to be established.

I think you first need to show why a libertarian society would result in a business that provided students with the means to kill themselves (and why students with low grades would elect to do business there). First, the libertarian position would be that people own themselves and as such those who wish to end their life are within their rights to do so. If a person seeks the assistance of another this should also be permissible under the principle that people own themselves and this includes destroying themselves. If their getting assistance can mean an easier, less error prone process then so be it. This is the theory. To take this to the point where we have suicide stores is a bit of a stretch I think.

The general public might oppose the establishment of such businesses even if they have no opinion on the (empirical?) question of whether or not there would be a resulting increase in the suicide rate.

Libertarians don't care what the "general public" thinks about much of anything. The whole point behind inalienable rights is that they are not subject to the whims of other people whether those persons comprise a minority or majority.

Who wants a government that does whatever it feels like doing?

As best I can tell nobody except those in government. Most people (in my opinion) do wish to use government to control others in ways that no governing constitution grants government such control, though. This is the primary problem with human government. Nobody wants to be told what to do, but everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do. Unless/until people learn that giving government power either explicitly or via apathy results in power being taken from themselves they will not stop trying to use government to control others.

 

[shanek]

Instead of asking other people, "Wouldn't you like to not have to pay any taxes?", Libertarians should ask themselves, "Are there any problems that might arise if the system that I am proposing were implemented?"

This has been asked and discussed at length among Libertarians.

Of course, anyone can try to answer the question. However, most people will consider the issue to be too obvious to warrant the effort of trying to provide a foundation for the conclusion. On the other hand, Libertarians are likely to either evade the issue or express acceptance of a conclusion that they don't really accept.

Mostly because it's completely ridiculous and hardly likely to happen. And even if someone tried, free market tactics of boycotts and negative publicity would certainly set about its demise.

This raises another question. For Libertarians, is Libertarianism simply a flawed idea, acknowledged to be flawed, but accepted as a useful tool for certain purposes?

Nothing's perfect. But if the biggest flaws people can point out end up being wild hypotheticals, I'd say it's far, far better than just about any other system, with real flaws that happen often every day the system is in place.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Question for Libertarians

Society should look favorably upon a method for decreasing the number of such students without violating anyone's rights. If you disagree, can you explain why you disagree?

Libertarians reject the notion of basing policy decisions on what that mythical beast "society" wants or should do. We only believe in individuals. So the very basis of your question is flawed.

In other words, the problem for Libertarians is to:
(1) Explain why such businesses, now illegal, would be illegal even under a Libertarian system;

They wouldn't.

or
(2) Explain why people should be in favor of a change of laws to allow such businesses to be established.

Because a) it's laughable to think this will actually happen, and b) the freedom that we all gain from this will allow us to grow and prosper to our fullest potential.

Besides, someone can be against something and still argue against its criminalization.

 

[The idea]

[...] if the proposition is that most people would like to see a decrease in the number of students with below average grades, this is a logical impossibility. [...]

Sorry. Instead of "below average", I should have written "unsatisfactory." If all students got 0% then no one would be below average. If all students got 100% then no one would be below average. The issue is: how many students fail to achieve the minimum level of acceptable competence. This number could be too high, it could be reduced, and it could theoretically be zero.

It is also quite silly to suggest that most people would like to see a reduction via suicide.

Why must they know how the reduction was achieved?

I think you first need to show why a libertarian society would result in a business that provided students with the means to kill themselves (and why students with low grades would elect to do business there). First, the libertarian position would be that people own themselves and as such those who wish to end their life are within their rights to do so. If a person seeks the assistance of another this should also be permissible under the principle that people own themselves and this includes destroying themselves. If their getting assistance can mean an easier, less error prone process then so be it. This is the theory. To take this to the point where we have suicide stores is a bit of a stretch I think.

It sounds as though you are saying that it would be legal in a Libertarian society. So are you suggesting that it would not be profitable or do you think it is absurd to imagine that such a business, although both legal and profitable, would actually be established?

Libertarians don't care what the "general public" thinks about much of anything.

Yet, Libertarians would like to persuade the general public to vote Libertarian. To do that, Libertarians have to find out how to influence the thinking of the general public. If one wishes to influence the thinking of the general public, then the first step is to find out what the general public thinks right now.

The whole point behind inalienable rights is that they are not subject to the whims of other people whether those persons comprise a minority or majority.

Why do you assume that what the general public thinks is a matter of whim?

 

[username]

Re: Re: Question for Libertarians

Sorry. Instead of "below average", I should have written "unsatisfactory." If all students got 0% then no one would be below average. If all students got 100% then no one would be below average. The issue is: how many students fail to achieve the minimum level of acceptable competence. This number could be too high, it could be reduced, and it could theoretically be zero.

OK.

Why must they know how the reduction was achieved?

Well, libertarians, and I suspect most people value fully informed decisions rather than ignorant decisions so the 'how' would be important.

It sounds as though you are saying that it would be legal in a Libertarian society. So are you suggesting that it would not be profitable or do you think it is absurd to imagine that such a business, although both legal and profitable, would actually be established?

Well the problem here is that there is no supreme commander of libertarian thought. I refer to myself as libertarianish even though a year ago I referred to myself as a libertarian. The reason I changed the label I assign myself is that there is a (my opinion) lunatic fringe among libertarians that I don't care to have to defend. So, it really isn't possible to say such a thing would be legal (or illegal) in a libertarian society because there is no authority we can go to and inquire.

What I can tell you is that the principle that one owns themselves can and likely would be applied here. Suicide would be legal and therefore it stands to reason that assisted suicide would be as well. Legal doesn't mean unregulated though. Assisted suicide, particularly a for profit kind, presents a huge conflict of interest. Allowing a terminally ill patient to be euthanised out of mercy the way we would with the family dog would certainly be legal, but it doesn't follow that a business that specializes in facilitating the suicide of those with bad grades would be legal. It is entirely possible such a business would be legal, but so regulated that it was unprofitable.

Yet, Libertarians would like to persuade the general public to vote Libertarian. To do that, Libertarians have to find out how to influence the thinking of the general public. If one wishes to influence the thinking of the general public, then the first step is to find out what the general public thinks right now.

True, but if libertarians were concerned about winning above holding fast to libertarian principles they would already hold federal offices. The phase libertarianism is in right now is an education phase. It is reaquainting people with the constitution, the role of government, personal responsibilty and similar matters. Most people who vote for a libertarian cadidate likely are doing so as a protest vote rather than an ideology vote. Greens often get more votes than libertarians, but one doesn't see much debate concerning green ideology on the net, it is debate of libertarian principles. 3rd parties generally don't win in the US, they grow in influence and the major parties change in response as a survival mechanism. The point is that libertarians aren't particularly concerned about winning. Libs would like to win, but not at the expense of appealing to the masses who vote for the guy with the best smile or sound bite or the one with the most cash to spend on the campaign.

Why do you assume that what the general public thinks is a matter of whim? [/B]

Because in my experience most people don't know much about what they vote for. How many people do you know who voted in the 2004 election that knew something about every person on the ballot from federal to local offices? Why do you think there were so many swift boat veteran ads against Kerry? Does his Vietnam service decades ago really matter? What about Bush possibly going AWOL? Does it really matter decades later? From what I can see people are concerned with sensationalism, not pertinent facts. Sound bites over substance. People will weigh in with their opinions regardless of the amount of thought behind those opinions.

It has never been any different. People act in response to superficial things while not wishing to be bothered with facts of a detailed nature. People prefer to be fully informed by an attractive, professional teleprompter reader working for a powerful multinational corporation rather than actually do their own research. I mean how much evidence do you require that the masses act according to whim?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The idea [/i]


>>Here is a link to a question for Libertarians:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread....&threadid=51041

>>This raises another question. For Libertarians, is Libertarianism simply a flawed idea, acknowledged to be flawed, but accepted as a useful tool for certain purposes? If it is not acknowledged to be flawed, then why should a Libertarian be enthusiastic about some aspects of Libertarianism while being less than enthusiastic about other aspects of Libertarianism?

There is no aspect of libertarianism that has to do with the above proposition. There isn't an idea in the world that could not be portrayed as "flawed" if applied in an extreme situation and in this case has to to with the ethics of assisted suicide. The same argument, pro and con, could be used for abortion -- an issue which divides libertarians and non-libertarians alike. To equate assisted suicide with the libertarian ideals of free markets and individual libertry as a possible "flaw" in the theory is sophomoric nonsense.

 

[CBL4]

I am a libertarian. I believe that people should be discouraged from committing suicide but, as long as they are mentally stable adults, it is their choice. If someone wants to commit suicide they will even though your hypothetical business does not exist.

In fact, a business that provided 2 weeks of therapy followed by an optional painless suicide chamber might actually reduce suicides. Where can I buy stock?

CBL

 

[Kopji]

If the first rule in making changes is "do no harm", then we need to consider possible negatives or disadvantages of the product, service, or system. The existence of serious and unnecessary negatives may make anticipated benefits irrelevant.

But what if we do not accept "do no harm" as an axiom? I need to break an egg to make an omelet, isn't that doing harm to the egg?

So a more true business rule along these lines is 'what sacrifice are we willing to make in order to get something else?' Business is all about calculated risks and sometimes harm is done.

Of course, anyone can try to answer the question. However, most people will consider the issue to be too obvious to warrant the effort of trying to provide a foundation for the conclusion.

Setting aside the offensive notion of killing off the artists and dreamers who inspire many business efforts, why presume that students who 'test well' are what we want or need? Extending any argument from this extremely flawed premise creates a foundation for an elaborate strawman (somehow related to libertarian thinking).

This raises another question. For Libertarians, is Libertarianism simply a flawed idea, acknowledged to be flawed, but accepted as a useful tool for certain purposes?

This sounds a bit like asking them how often they beat their wives. To go back to the beginning of 'do no harm', the premise is flawed because it excludes making sacrifices. The 'painting into a corner' is an illusion resulting from establishing a flawed premise as an axiom.