What is a libertarian?

[IchabodPlain]

Clearly though government is necessary to provide infrastructure

Lots of Libertarians will disagree with you on this.

Hmm. This is kind of - squishy. On one hand the Constitution mandates post numbers and routes, so a certain amount of infrastructure is guaranteed. I suppose the question is over "how much". Personally, I would align myself more with Eisenhower, and believe public infrastructure benefits the economy, helps government monitor trade, and provide security. Some Libertarians argue against this, but it seems that the same lot also argues the USPS is a government monopoly. Again, something mandated by the Constitution.

not everyone is capable of handing their own affairs

I would like some clarification on this issue. Who is incapable of handling their own affairs? Other than obvious mental or physical handicaps, I don't see how this can be true. Social inequality is unattainable without equal opportunity. It seems, however, most attempts to the former usually involves restricting the latter. Like making the market more 'fair' by restricting free trade and introducing more government intervention.

 

[Darat]

The USA constitution is a constitution based on liberal principles not libertarian principles so it can never be squared with the principles of libertarianism (unless it is extensively reworked).

 

[Suddenly]

I see, make your money in a country with some standards then move to the third world. Seems the classic libertarian ideal of taking advantage of the benefits of a system and then opting out of it when you have to support it for others.

...then when the third world government implodes and the natives come after the rich American go running to the American Embassy and depend on the US government to save your libertarian butt.

What is a libertarian? A libertarian is someone with just enough knowlege and understanding of socio-economics to be dangerous. See also "Communist."

Furthermore, let it be known that the person who started the hating libertarian thread was in fact a libertarian trying to be clever. Par for the course.

 

[Suddenly]

Hmm. This is kind of - squishy. On one hand the Constitution mandates post numbers and routes, so a certain amount of infrastructure is guaranteed. I suppose the question is over "how much". Personally, I would align myself more with Eisenhower, and believe public infrastructure benefits the economy, helps government monitor trade, and provide security. Some Libertarians argue against this, but it seems that the same lot also argues the USPS is a government monopoly. Again, something mandated by the Constitution.

Market regulations also provide liquity, something libertarians may want to think about before getting rid of the SEC. Also can apply to other regulations. When people don't have to research and check every possible little fact commerce becomes more fluid and an economy grows.

I would like some clarification on this issue. Who is incapable of handling their own affairs?

All of us, outside of a few survivalist types. We take an awful lot of government regulation for granted. Imagine how much more time you would have to spend worrying about foods, doctors, and so on with absolutely no government regulation whatsoever. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it does help along with division of labor and make the economy less sufficient.

 

[egslim]

Again, something mandated by the Constitution.

"Argumentum ad constitutionalism" is a logical fallacy, basically an appeal to authority. In a debate about what the law ideally should be, citing what the law is is irrelevant.

In addition, the constitution was written in the pre-industrial age. Modern political issues like healthcare and public education didn't exist back then, because medication was more deadly than non-medication and most people learned their profession from their parents. Looking for constitutional guidance on those issues is therefore a lost cause.

Who is incapable of handling their own affairs?

Everyone below 30 who doesn't have above average intelligence, paranoid tendencies and does deal with professionals in a field where they are amateurs. And that's not even all inclusive.

 

[drkitten]

I would like some clarification on this issue. Who is incapable of handling their own affairs?

The same people who are incapable of making pencils. I.e. anyone, treated as an individual.

I don't know enough about medicine to know whether or not the drugs I am being offered are safe and effective. I have to rely on the judgement of experts.

I don't know enough about the power grid to make sure that I will still have electricity to my house in a winter storm. I have to rely on the judgement of experts.

I don't know enough about the city's finances and crime rates to know how many police we need to employ to keep me safe. I have to rely on the judgement of experts. Someone, down at City Hall, is actually an expert on matters relating to the police and can crunch the numbers for me. But I'll bet he's not a very good physician or power engineer.

 

[IchabodPlain]

The USA constitution is a constitution based on liberal principles not libertarian principles so it can never be squared with the principles of libertarianism (unless it is extensively reworked).

I understand this, however, it seems the modern Libertarian movement sees itself as squaring our modern era with the constitution. But how can this be when many of their causes conflict with the Constitution?

Argumentum ad constitutionalism" is a logical fallacy, basically an appeal to authority.

I don't believe that it is. I would be willing to debate infrastructure or the USPS on merits alone, I am using the Constitution for two reasons: First, many Libertarians are strict contructionalists, and/or often cite the founding fathers. Secondly I think it provides historical reference. Changing or repealing parts (or all?) of the Constitution can be done, but would require a very credible, salient argument.

Also, I seem to see some posting here take a quasi primitivst approach to this (yes, I'm talking to you drkitten). I should take the time to see what I consume, and where it comes from. But being an individual does not mean I do not rely on experts or professionals. I want disclosure of relevant information (hazardous,safety, etc) on behalf of the consumer, so they may make knowledgeable and informed decisions.
I simply ask: why not just draft laws to protect and the individual? For example food labeling laws on all consumables.

 

[drkitten]

Also, I seem to see some posting here take a quasi primitivst approach to this (yes, I'm talking to you drkitten). I should take the time to see what I consume, and where it comes from.

That, of course, is your choice.

But why should you FORCE your choice on the rest of us? And why should the rest of us give you that power?

But being an individual does not mean I do not rely on experts or professionals.

It does apparently means that you have much more free time than I have.

Besides that, you're simply wrong. Where does the power come from that you're using to read this forum? Did you generate it yourself? If not, you're relying on experts and professionals. If ou generated it yourself, how? Did you refine the fuel that it uses? Did you fabricate your own solar panels? If not, you're relying on experts and professionals.

I'm perfectly willing to rely on experts and professionals. I don't have time to run and maintain my own generator, and it costs much less to have it done by WayBig Power and Light. But I can and do use the power of government to oversee their actions for the benefit of the community of which I am a part.

I simply ask: why not just draft laws to protect and the individual? For example food labeling laws on all consumables.

Because they are demonstrably insufficient. Not everyone has time to read all the labels, and manufacturers have demonstrated a truly scary degree of ability to hide information so that people don't notice it. For example, what exactly is "monoflourine acetate"? Is it safe or not?

And because my time is more valuable that that. If 99% of the people simply want someone to stop putting rat poision in his hot dogs, and you are the only person who wants him to be able to do that -- well, why should your desire to allow rat poison trump my desire (shared by the other 99% of the community) to be able to eat what I like without fear of consuming rat poison?

 

[Admiral]

The USA constitution is a constitution based on liberal principles not libertarian principles so it can never be squared with the principles of libertarianism (unless it is extensively reworked).

The Constitution was based on classically liberal principles, which have roughly as much relationship to modern liberalism as they do to Melrose Place scripts.

Could you provide evidence that the Constitution has anything to do with modern liberal principles? Just as an example, where does it support massive redistribution on a federal level?

 

[egslim]

I don't believe that it is. I would be willing to debate infrastructure or the USPS on merits alone, I am using the Constitution for two reasons: First, many Libertarians are strict contructionalists, and/or often cite the founding fathers. Secondly I think it provides historical reference. Changing or repealing parts (or all?) of the Constitution can be done, but would require a very credible, salient argument.

If you define a Libertarian as someone who follows the constitution then it's perfectly valid to explain Libertarian positions based on what the constitution says. But it is useless if you're debating the merit of those positions, because then it becomes an appeal to authority.

 

[Darat]

The Constitution was based on classically liberal principles, which have roughly as much relationship to modern liberalism as they do to Melrose Place scripts.

Could you provide evidence that the Constitution has anything to do with modern liberal principles? Just as an example, where does it support massive redistribution on a federal level?

That the word liberal has a different meaning in the USA today has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Phrost]

The Constitution was based on classically liberal principles, which have roughly as much relationship to modern liberalism as they do to Melrose Place scripts.

Could you provide evidence that the Constitution has anything to do with modern liberal principles? Just as an example, where does it support massive redistribution on a federal level?

I'd like to know this too. "libertarian" is about as close a label as you can get to the classic Liberals of Jefferson, etc.

It'd be nice if there were less semantics involved in describing political ideologies. The word "Liberal" should mean effectively the same as "libertarian" just going off the original definition. Large government is not conducive to a "liberal" environment except in the context that they're helping themselves to a liberal portion of your paycheck to contribute to the bloat and bureaucracy.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

It'd be nice if there were less semantics involved in describing political ideologies.

...snip...

I agree: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=813978#post813978

...snip...
The word "Liberal" should mean effectively the same as "libertarian" just going off the original definition. Large government is not conducive to a "liberal" environment except in the context that they're helping themselves to a liberal portion of your paycheck to contribute to the bloat and bureaucracy.

Not true - liberalism (like libertarianism) has no set measure of how "big" a government/state can be. Indeed one of the reasons the USA can originally have been described as a liberal country is that for the time it had a large and complex government, which tends to be necessary to allow a liberal society.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Lots of Libertarians will disagree with you on this.

Like me. Why does government need to handle infrastructure?

How will you deal with adverse selection^WP? If sick people are more likely to be insured than healthy people, the costs of healthcare have to be paid mostly by the sick instead of spreading the costs and keeping premiums down.

Yes, and people who drive motorcycles are more likely to have to make motorcycle payments. If you feel some compassionate need to provide everyone with motorcycles feel free to help me with my payments, but I’m not going to force you at gunpoint.

Which is rather harsh considering that we're talking about healthcare.

It’s pretty harsh unless you consider that there is a limited amount of medical resources and that by instituting a free health care or socialized medicine system you are extending one person’s life by shortening another. At best you’re taking away the ability to choose between longer lifespan and other values a person might have. You’re telling people they are required to spend their money on their health, and more likely someone else’s health. Frankly, if I want to spend my last days motorcycling across country instead of getting hooked up to tubes to give me a few extra months, that’s my choice.

I do sympathize with those less fortunate, but I think it should be my choice to decide who is less fortunate and who is a parasite I could care less about. Certainly, I may not want to pick and choose each individual I want to help (though I may in the case of family and friends), but I can pick and choose people I trust to distribute my money.

Capitalism and libertarianism are not inherently uncompassionate or greedy systems. Both let someone fester away and die only if there is not a single person in the country who cares enough or is able to keep you alive. Capitalism gives people what they want. If they want compassion then they’ll get it, if they want wealth then they’ll get it.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Personally, that's the low point in libertarianism, it assumes an even start... for it to work, we would have to somehow rewind society into equally "starting conditions".

Eh, I would say yes and no. The general libertarian argument is that everyone does start even. Everyone starts with zero. If your parents or others decide to give you something you’re in luck, but otherwise you have to create everything you have.

Since reality is contrary to that, libertarianism in practice becomes simply natural selection of the fittest in every aspect. Somehow I expect more of the human society, since as a species we get to the place we are now (at least partially) by not just acting each one on their own behalf.

There’s nothing in pure capitalism keeping you from being charitable and compassionate. Libertarians aren’t looking to bust down the doors and arrest people who give money to the homeless. Capitalism naturally flows towards whatever people subjectively value. If most people value keeping people at a certain standard of living then that’s exactly what will happen. As an added benefit, by not using force, it encourages rather then discourages people to provide these subjective values, whatever they may be.

As i've said, this is personal opinion, but which degree of freedom can you reach with huge inequalities? I guess for the "lucky starters" the whole freedom, but for the "poor starters" quite the opposite, libertarianism in practice results in a lack of pragmatical freedom for the ones that turn out to start in the lower, poorer classes of society, which unfortunately are the majority very often.

It comes down to how one defines freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean being able to do whatever you want whenever you want to. I cannot swallow the sun or draw a square circle. That is not capitalism’s fault, and it is not corrected by socialism. Freedom is also certainly not “equal distribution”. Freedom is being able to choose how to distribute the values you create for other people, that is, negative rights, freedom from murder, theft, kidnapping. Positive rights are like square circles, it makes no sense as a concept, they can’t exist.

 

[stup_id]

Eh, I would say yes and no. The general libertarian argument is that everyone does start even. Everyone starts with zero. If your parents or others decide to give you something you’re in luck, but otherwise you have to create everything you have.

But that is exactly my point.. I mean.. we don't even start zero from birth, since birth conditions depend upon the socioeconomical status of your parents, it determines the kind of medical attention you are given access since the very beginning.. if you want everybody to start from 0 conditions, then you should be supporting socialized medicine at least for deliveries. Saying everyone starts with zero THEN you get what your parent gives you is a technicality.. is not starting with 0 in practice.

There’s nothing in pure capitalism keeping you from being charitable and compassionate. Libertarians aren’t looking to bust down the doors and arrest people who give money to the homeless. Capitalism naturally flows towards whatever people subjectively value. If most people value keeping people at a certain standard of living then that’s exactly what will happen. As an added benefit, by not using force, it encourages rather then discourages people to provide these subjective values, whatever they may be.

Yes, but individual scopes for benefit are limited, that why I said in a further post, that libertarianism would also work assuming all people is rational and not only does what is good for them but also for the "group" as a whole, giving that, we would expect people to be enough charitable and compassionate to level things up.

As an example, imagine that people is given the option of not paying taxes destined to build roads, eventually people with more money, would start just paying for their own known roads leading to frequent destinations for them, i think it can be said that rarely enough these people would feel "compassionate" or "charitable enough" to pay for building roads in the "poor sides of town", but having good means of communication in land is important for economy, it is very likely that for not "sacrificing" their tax road to the general public, they will raise prices of products just because the expenses of transporting goods become higher.
I know that this is an over simplified example, but I hope you can see my point, an efficient government for the people, comes from the people and its just a branch of the population (supposedly) that is elected to look upon the ultimate benefit for the whole group. Freedom of course should be in questioning and discussing every single part of the process, unfortunately (or not) we live in a society, and our actions have consequences well beyond our point of view.

It comes down to how one defines freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean being able to do whatever you want whenever you want to. I cannot swallow the sun or draw a square circle. That is not capitalism’s fault, and it is not corrected by socialism. Freedom is also certainly not “equal distribution”. Freedom is being able to choose how to distribute the values you create for other people, that is, negative rights, freedom from murder, theft, kidnapping. Positive rights are like square circles, it makes no sense as a concept, they can’t exist.

Well i guess that is were we diverge, to me freedom of distributing my values is pointless since I have to restrict my freedom in order to get those values, you become tied to production, I'm not for anyone getting something for free, but I consider that a society that doesn't have to worry all the time about healthcare, education and security because they pay taxes, and at the same time is not afraid of doing whatever they want as long they don't harm any others (even questioning the system itself) has more freedom that a society that let's you "distribute your richness" but makes you dependant on having enough of them whenever a tragedy happens in your life.

A perfect case escenario, would be a libertarian nation, where everyone decides by themselves that is the best for everybody to just willingly give up a little of profit in order to secure everyone's healthcare, education and security.

Again it seems to me that libertarian ideology cannot be sustained by someone who understands the chains of poverty and inequality

 

[firecoins]

A false assumption as well as many many people aren't capable of handling their own affairs, especially without public services. Libertarians are perfectly happy to sacrifice these people for their ideology.

The assumption that government can handle a persons affairs is as well unproven the main reason people become libertarians. They have the desire to have keep government out of their own affairs.

Also I have seen ZERO evidence that it even works. And a simple understanding of human nature suggests it wouldn't.

Show me the proof that human nature suggests it wouldn't. Also government does not have the right to run anyone's person affairs.

I value personal freedom but I don't believe it's the be all and end all. I believe we all need to make sacrifices to contribute to society so we all live happy and comfortable lives.

Well we can go tht other extreme of Communism. We can all live for the well being of everyone but ourselves, Of course this doesn't work.

For example I think taxes and their use are perfectly acceptable as their negative impact is far outweighed by the positive impact.

What exactly are the "positive" effects of taxes?

What many Libertarians fail to realise is that putting everything in the hands of the market simply gives you a 'for profit government'.

The government is always a for profit government. How much power do we give the government over out personal affairs. Since you say we can not handle our own affairs, who would? The government would be running our affairs. Thats seem like a for profit government to me. Its a good reason to keep them out of our personal lives.

A person should get economic, religous and political freedom. Its understandable that the government need taxes to operate but that should not be means to punish the wealthy for being so. In a free market, economic inequalites will exist. Government should work to improve the economy so everyone has plenty of opportunity. It should be in the business of playing Robin Hood.

 

[CaptainManacles]

But that is exactly my point.. I mean.. we don't even start zero from birth, since birth conditions depend upon the socioeconomical status of your parents, it determines the kind of medical attention you are given access since the very beginning.. if you want everybody to start from 0 conditions, then you should be supporting socialized medicine at least for deliveries. Saying everyone starts with zero THEN you get what your parent gives you is a technicality.. is not starting with 0 in practice.

Well, yes, but that's similar to saying no one starts even because some people are smarter and stronger and more talented too, or born in different geographic locations. It's ridiculous to expect that kind of evenness and not really neccisary for the libertarian arguement. The libertarian arguement is that it will provide the maximum value for the maxiumum amount of people, not that it will provide some impossible expectation of evenness or adhere to your personal beliefs about objective fairness.

Yes, but individual scopes for benefit are limited, that why I said in a further post, that libertarianism would also work assuming all people is rational and not only does what is good for them but also for the "group" as a whole, giving that, we would expect people to be enough charitable and compassionate to level things up.

Yes, to some degree you have to assume people are rational, or at least that they have a right to decide what they think will make them happy, or who they want making their decisions for them. If you think that you are the sole arbibtor of how people should run their lives then libertarianism is not for you.

Capitalism does not require people to gives two shakes about "group benefit" whatever the heck group benefit even means. If you want wealth, in a capitalist society, providing other people with what they value will get you wealth. If you value equal distribution of wealth, providing other people with what they value will further the equal distrubution of wealth.

As an example, imagine that people is given the option of not paying taxes destined to build roads, eventually people with more money, would start just paying for their own known roads leading to frequent destinations for them, i think it can be said that rarely enough these people would feel "compassionate" or "charitable enough" to pay for building roads in the "poor sides of town", but having good means of communication in land is important for economy, it is very likely that for not "sacrificing" their tax road to the general public, they will raise prices of products just because the expenses of transporting goods become higher.

They don't have to be charitable, there just needs to be some benefit in it for someone to build roads there. If there's no benefit to it then why do it. Before you start ranting about survival of the fittest, lets note again that "benefit" here is definied however you personally like, you may see helping the homeless as a "benefit".

I know that this is an over simplified example, but I hope you can see my point, an efficient government for the people, comes from the people and its just a branch of the population (supposedly) that is elected to look upon the ultimate benefit for the whole group. Freedom of course should be in questioning and discussing every single part of the process, unfortunately (or not) we live in a society, and our actions have consequences well beyond our point of view.

But if the whole group see a transaction as a benefit then you could do it voluntarily within a capitalist system. What you're talking about isn't benefit for the group, but the benefit of you over other people. This is why communism always leads to totalitarianism. It's not just a freak occurrence, it's a logical necessity.

Well i guess that is were we diverge, to me freedom of distributing my values is pointless since I have to restrict my freedom in order to get those values, you become tied to production, I'm not for anyone getting something for free, but I consider that a society that doesn't have to worry all the time about healthcare, education and security because they pay taxes, and at the same time is not afraid of doing whatever they want as long they don't harm any others (even questioning the system itself) has more freedom that a society that let's you "distribute your richness" but makes you dependant on having enough of them whenever a tragedy happens in your life.

A perfect case escenario, would be a libertarian nation, where everyone decides by themselves that is the best for everybody to just willingly give up a little of profit in order to secure everyone's healthcare, education and security.

There's no such thing as a society that doesn't have to worry about healthcare, education, and security. Those things are all relative and no matter how much of it you have, there is always more. We have a ridiculously awsome amount of healthcare compared to 100 years ago, by their standards none of us have anything to worry about ever. There's no such thing as a 0% chance of death. What you're talking about is sacrificing one person's healthcare for another's. I don't see how this is "freedom", and as I've explained before, it encourages healthcare quality to plummet.

 

[shecky]

I want to agree, but my state's public education system is being fined 1 million per day for not having the money to teach criminals in the criminals chosen language because criminals dont pay taxes

And health care?

UGH...good luck getting that if you are legal and/or EVER had a job

In those two cases I just dont see how it could be worse, or even as bad as what we've got now

Poor pipeline. Can't compete with non English speaking, uneducated, brown skinned throwbacks from the third world. Must suck to be you. Don't worry, America will toss them all out and give you the welfare you clearly deserve.

 

[IchabodPlain]

That, of course, is your choice.

But why should you FORCE your choice on the rest of us? And why should the rest of us give you that power?

There is no way I can force it on anyone. Even if I were to agree, there is still no feasible way to force everyone to know what they consume. But you can force disclosure of relevant health/hazardous information by listing ingredients on consumables. Or hazardous materials in products (lead in Xmas wreaths for example).

Where does the power come from that you're using to read this forum? Did you generate it yourself?

You're again under the presumption that every individual must do everything from build his own house to preform home surgery. This is erroneous.

being an individual does not mean I do not rely on experts or professionals

Because they are demonstrably insufficient.

You didn't explain how they are insufficient. I would like to know.