What is a libertarian?

[stup_id]

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.

And again, the argument is only feasible in theory but not in practice, since differences among economic status of people predetermine their chances (and thus their "freedom") to succeed in life, this seems like a minor disadvantage when you are with the group who can have control over their own life, but believe me it is huge when you are born within the lower class group, and it is not just a few people, there's an army of people doing jobs to eat something, and i dare to say many are as talented, hard-working and smart people, as many of the lucky ones who were simlpy born with better conditions. In computer simulations of game theory, and in mathematical models, it is evident that groups in which individuals who are just seeking their own benefit even when altruism is encouraged tend to group "richness" (and by your own defitnition their "freedom") in very few generations, and overcome those tendencies is virtually impossible.. i know i have to post evidence right now.. but i can't seem to find that article i've read in the spanish version of scientific american.

Of course we can say.. "well bad luck for those.. they will dissapear eventually...", and i agree that this particular point of mine of saying that that attitude is wrong, is a personal opinion.

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.

I don't think i'm the sole arbitror of how people should live, but the only way to assess that in groups, (since governement and laws affect groups) is to do it trough statistics, show everybody which system works better and let them chose. It seems to me that sometimes the attitude is "who the heck cares about the group.. i care about myself"... that is simply not noticing you ARE PART OF THE GROUP

And there's also a big IF in this sentence: "If you want wealth, in a capitalist society, providing other people with what they value will get you wealth." this is assuming you are capable of producing wealth.. what if you are not?, what if you lack opportnity because applying for proper education of your talents requires wealth to get started... also not everybody can have wealth... since it is finite, and since you are defining freedom as the capability of distributing your wealth.. then it follows that not everybody is as free as others...

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".

Precisely! can't you see the benefit in having free healthcare?

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.

But what if the MAJORITY of the group see it as a benefit but only the wealthy don't?

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.

Have you ever lived in Spain, France, UK...? Even the richest people are grateful for healthcare, they are not constantly worrying about the "lazy people who just live from government", and they keep demanding everything they can from their governments.

Where do you get the evidence that this encourages the healthcare to plummet? have you reviewed the ranking of best health systems in the world?, the most healthy populations? are you arguing that healthcare is like a finite thing which can be taken from one and given to the other,, if that is the case. how come free healthcare countries are consistently showing better life expectancy? also.. i've read this argument that someone wishes to spend his last months surfing somewhere instead of getting hooked with tubes in the hospital.. who says that because of free healthcare they FORCE you to use it?, you are paying the service.. just like you are paying an insurance company... and you are also free to chose which doctors to visit and which treatments (and by the way.. paying insurance companies doesn't also limit the hospitals you can visit and the doctors and treatments they pay?)

I'm not talking about "michael-moore-like" arguments, i mean looking at the raw data...

 

[IchabodPlain]

And again, the argument is only feasible in theory but not in practice, since differences among economic status of people predetermine their chances (and thus their "freedom") to succeed in life, this seems like a minor disadvantage when you are with the group who can have control over their own life, but believe me it is huge when you are born within the lower class group, and it is not just a few people, there's an army of people doing jobs to eat something, and i dare to say many are as talented, hard-working and smart people, as many of the lucky ones who were simlpy born with better conditions

You are making the case that everyone has 'relative sameness' in terms of talent, diligence, and intelligence, and it is only our financial standing at birth that determines our level of 'freedom'. It seems you have a problem of distinction between economic freedom and personal freedom.

It seems to me that sometimes the attitude is "who the heck cares about the group.. i care about myself"... that is simply not noticing you ARE PART OF THE GROUP

Which group? Human beings? American citizens? Economic class? Race? Gender? These grouping are arbitrary, and are irrelevant to the discussion. The individual is the center, not the group he/she supposedly comprises.

 

[CaptainManacles]

And again, the argument is only feasible in theory but not in practice, since differences among economic status of people predetermine their chances (and thus their "freedom") to succeed in life, this seems like a minor disadvantage when you are with the group who can have control over their own life, but believe me it is huge when you are born within the lower class group, and it is not just a few people, there's an army of people doing jobs to eat something, and i dare to say many are as talented, hard-working and smart people, as many of the lucky ones who were simlpy born with better conditions. In computer simulations of game theory, and in mathematical models, it is evident that groups in which individuals who are just seeking their own benefit even when altruism is encouraged tend to group "richness" (and by your own defitnition their "freedom")

What was my definition of "freedom" and how is it relevent to your undisputed claim that there are different economic statuses in life? Please go back and read what I have wrote up to this point, because you're either not reading it or trying real hard not to understand it. Never did my logic require economic evenness or did I define "freedom" as "richness", and I've pointed this out many times in as many ways as I could think of to help you understand this issue. I'm not going to repeat myself again, suffice to say I could copy and paste my last post and it would be an adequate answer to these new ramblings of yours.

In computer simulations of game theory, and in mathematical models, it is evident that groups in which individuals who are just seeking their own benefit even when altruism is encouraged tend to group "richness" (and by your own defitnition their "freedom") in very few generations, and overcome those tendencies is virtually impossible.. i know i have to post evidence right now.. but i can't seem to find that article i've read in the spanish version of scientific american.

This is more of a result of the faulty assumption of the zero sum game, which I see at the core of most socialist arguements. Wealth is generated, it doesn't just fall from the sky and get hoarded by whoever is most selfish. Such game theory is certainly proof that group thinking leads to poverty. But as demonstrated in every communist country ever, this isn't because wealthy people are "hoarding" money from the poor. Forcing everyone to group think only forces everyone into poverty.

Yes, people who value building wealth will build wealth. People who don't won't. Capitalism is fantastic that way.

Of course we can say.. "well bad luck for those.. they will dissapear eventually...", and i agree that this particular point of mine of saying that that attitude is wrong, is a personal opinion.

As I've stated a few times, nothing in capitalism requires us to say "bad luck for those...they will dissapear eventually...." You can chose your values in capitalism so if you think life is fundementally valuable then you can feel free to feed the homeless and so on. No one is going to bust down your door to stop you from being charitable, but yes, sinking money into societal leaches is going to leave you with less resources at the end of the day they investing in productive businesses. Forcing productive people to sink money into societal leaches isn't going to fix that reality, it's only going to make our long term quality of life even worse until we can't support those people any more. Thus the compassionate ever caring socialism always takes the same road: charity, poverty, genocide.

I don't think i'm the sole arbitror of how people should live, but the only way to assess that in groups, (since governement and laws affect groups) is to do it trough statistics, show everybody which system works better and let them chose.

But you're not letting people chose. You're forcing the will of 51% of the population on the other 49%. Your whole statement entirely ignores the issue at hand, whether "assesment in groups" is neccisary for a smothly functioning society. I think I have demonstrated in a number of ways that it is not, and you have failed to address these arguemetns.

It seems to me that sometimes the attitude is "who the heck cares about the group.. i care about myself"... that is simply not noticing you ARE PART OF THE GROUP

Right, but you're not talking about things that benefit the whole group, if you were, everyone would participate voluntarily. You're talking about screwing over one group to help another.

And there's also a big IF in this sentence: "If you want wealth, in a capitalist society, providing other people with what they value will get you wealth." this is assuming you are capable of producing wealth..

No, the big IF in this sentence is "IF you want wealth" not "IF you're able to produce wealth" no where in that statement does it require you being able to produce wealth. It requires you to be able to produce values for other people, and when one really stops to think about what that means, it's not a tall order. It just means that you generate SOMETHING, ANYTHING within society besides misery for everyone besides yourself. Someone values somethign that you do. It doesn't even have to be a product or service, you, for example, being the compassionate guy you are, might value someone simple for existing. Parents value their children just for existing, and try to save for them.

what if you are not?, what if you lack opportnity because applying for proper education of your talents requires wealth to get started... also not everybody can have wealth... since it is finite,

It is finite, but it is not a zero sum game. There is not a set amount of wealth just sitting around waiting for the first jerk to snatch it up. And what is your solution to the immutiable reality of limited goods? To institute socialism thereby snatching magical goods out of the sky? You are correct, there are not enough resources to send everyone to school. Arbitarily "evening out" the distribution of educational resources does nothing to increase the amount of educational resources available. In fact, as I previously demonstrated, in capitalism, there will be MORE educational resources to go around, MORE people educated, and MORE people wealthy, because it encourages production and discourages waste, socialism does the opposite.

and since you are defining freedom as the capability of distributing your wealth.. then it follows that not everybody is as free as others...

It does not follow from the finite nature of wealth that some people will have none. It's not a zero sum game, that is, there are not a limited amount of wealth that will never grow or decrease. And please note, I did not define freedom as the capability of distributing wealth, I defined it as the capability of distributing YOUR wealth, maybe more accurate to say you can decide who gets your wealth without interference from other people. And that was a definition in a specific context, it's broader, but the point is that you negative freedoms, not possitive freedoms. You have freedom from murder, not freedom from death. Freedom from death is impossible.

Precisely! can't you see the benefit in having free healthcare?

There's no such thing as free healthcare. Personally, I see little benefit in supporting the healthcare of impoverished people, but if anyone you can convince can donate to your cause. But you dodged the main thrust of the arguement. Socialism is not required for charity to exist.

But what if the MAJORITY of the group see it as a benefit but only the wealthy don't?

Then you're not talking about helping out the whole group, just screwing over one group to help another.

Have you ever lived in Spain, France, UK...? Even the richest people are grateful for healthcare, they are not constantly worrying about the "lazy people who just live from government", and they keep demanding everything they can from their governments.

If this is true, then why do they have to take the money to support the healthcare by force? Why don't the rich people just agree to finance these health care systems voluntarily?

also.. i've read this argument that someone wishes to spend his last months surfing somewhere instead of getting hooked with tubes in the hospital.. who says that because of free healthcare they FORCE you to use it?, you are paying the service.. just like you are paying an insurance company... and you are also free to chose which doctors to visit and which treatments (and by the way.. paying insurance companies doesn't also limit the hospitals you can visit and the doctors and treatments they pay?)

Because free healthcare isn't free. You take the money I would have spent on something else and spend it on healthcare, whether or not I care to use it. That's like saying "we're not FORCING you to buy a car, but we're taking $10,000 from you and buying one, if you care to drive it that's your choice"

Where do you get the evidence that this encourages the healthcare to plummet? have you reviewed the ranking of best health systems in the world?, the most healthy populations? are you arguing that healthcare is like a finite thing which can be taken from one and given to the other,, if that is the case. how come free healthcare countries are consistently showing better life expectancy?

Yes, healthcare is a finite thing. Are you arguing that healthcare is infinite? You seem to be.

I provided my arguement as to why it causes health care to plumet earlier, but I'll repeat, it's not difficult. The only difference between private medical care institutions and public ones is that public ones are able to force you to deal with them by force. This leaves absolutely no modivation for efficiency. They can charge you whatever, give you poor service, ect. There's little to no modivation to continue to expand medical technology and healthcare becomes more and more expensive while becoming worse and worse.

and you are also free to chose which doctors to visit and which treatments (and by the way.. paying insurance companies doesn't also limit the hospitals you can visit and the doctors and treatments they pay?)

It limits it, but it doesn't force me into that situation. I can chose not to deal with any particular insurence company.

 

[dudalb]

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

I applaud wildly. Both are guilty of sacrificing reality to fit an ideology.

 

[Phrost]

Way to cop out of actually having to to think critically by painting everyone with broad strokes. I'm a libertarian who doesn't have any issue with a moderate level of government regulation.

Anyone who blindly follows any economic model or ideology for its own sake, instead of for the sake of achieving a result beneficial to the maximum number of people, is an idiot.

 

[Kerberos]

Sometimes I get the impresion that a libertarian is someone who read the first chapter of an economics textbook and then got distracted by a shiny object*.
















*For the sake of Phrosts blood preasure I should emphasize that this comment is directed at libertarian fundamentalists.

 

[Darat]

Way to cop out of actually having to to think critically by painting everyone with broad strokes. I'm a libertarian who doesn't have any issue with a moderate level of government regulation.

Anyone who blindly follows any economic model or ideology for its own sake, instead of for the sake of achieving a result beneficial to the maximum number of people, is an idiot.

Sounds to me like you are a rational person with libertarian leanings... having such leanings is nothing shameful , for some people it is perfectly normal...

 

[Phrost]

Sounds to me like you are a rational person with libertarian leanings... having such leanings is nothing shameful , for some people it is perfectly normal...

I'm completely out of the closet about my love of smaller government and my concerns about ceding my personal sovereignty over to Government in exchange for the illusion of security, financial or otherwise.

I'm constantly amazed at the religious degree of faith that a lot of skeptics implicitly put into the goodness of Government given the historical lessons about what happens when the State is given progressively increasing amounts of authority over how individual citizens run their lives.

It's almost as if Government has replaced the Church for these people, when it comes to not only their willingness to 'sacrifice for the common good', but compel others to do so as well in the form of increased taxation.

Andrew Bernstein had a great lecture on this a few years back that I happened to catch on C-Span. I listened to it while doing 5 other things, but one of the points he made was about how Government (specifically taxation) is a tool wielded by the weak and inept, to extract value out of those who actually contribute to society, and how this practice ultimately penalizes and discourages people from seeking to go that extra mile, or create that new, revolutionary product.

Small "L" libertarianism, as a philosophy, has a great deal of merit. Collectivism or Economic Statism is abhorrent and should be an anathema to rational people of integrity and merit everywhere who do not seek to exist forcibly on the efforts of others.

 

[Sefarst]

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

I don't understand, no one can take care of themselves?

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.

Which is why I would hope you would have the good sense to only take drugs prescribed by your doctor. Wouldn't a libertarian just counter your argument by pointing out that their model would simply give you the choice of whether or not to rely on the judgment of experts? As it stands right now, there are many drugs you can get OTC that are dangerous and easily abused. We all ready trust you to make your own decisions when it comes to drugs like nicotine and alcohol

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.

True, but again I think a libertarian would argue that you aren't relying on a government bureaucracy to do this, you are relying on an expert that works for a corporation.

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.

Again, this is true, but I don't think very many libertarians would disagree with you that no person can live in a vacuum. Obviously, none of us can an entire society all on our own, libertarians are just arguing that we don't need the huge governmental bureaucracy we have intervening every step of the way.

 

[Suddenly]

Way to cop out of actually having to to think critically by painting everyone with broad strokes. I'm a libertarian who doesn't have any issue with a moderate level of government regulation.

Anyone who blindly follows any economic model or ideology for its own sake, instead of for the sake of achieving a result beneficial to the maximum number of people, is an idiot.

Most people can be described as a libertarian who is okay with moderate government regulation. It is a vague descripton in that opinions as to what is "moderate" can vary quite a bit. It is self-evident that a person is not going to advocate for more government regulation than that person believes necessary. Just that to some people what is necessary can be far different than what another thinks.

You describe yourself more as a pragmatist than a libertarian, or at least a pragmatic libertarian. Which isn't bad, by definition that includes the ability to modify a view based on evidence. Which leads to the question: "At what point does pragmatism make someone not a libertarian?" How much regulation is too much?

I agree with the blind ideology. The problem is there are a bunch of people out there who suscribe to the ideology and then are unable to see reality in any way but as conforming to that ideology.

 

[Suddenly]

Obviously, none of us can an entire society all on our own, libertarians are just arguing that we don't need the huge governmental bureaucracy we have intervening every step of the way.

So is a somewhat large bureaucracy OK?

Kinda large?

Significant?

Any whatsoever?

So many people claim to be libertarian or mostly libertarian. I used to. I guess it sounds nice or appeals to some inner need. Thing is, nobody will agree what it means, expansion of the acceptable level of government regulation is the universal defense against basic criticisms.

Drunk driving for instance when the driver violates no other laws of the road. Not an initiation of force, doesn't hurt anyone. Very dangerous, but once you start legislating that it opens a whole bunch of doors, like it being dangerous to drive with little sleep...

 

[Nathyn]

There is a long thread on why someone hates libertarians. At the beginning there seems to be alot of bad definitions. I will try to define libertarian beliefs here. I am not going to contribute to long, long thread. I don't know everything. I am not good at debating. I promise nothing.

A libertarian is some one who beliefs in indivual freedom. The free market is the best way for for individual to be free and thrive economically and a democratic government with limited power is the way to politically free.

Libertarians do not support anarchy. We are not anti government nor anti legislation. Libertarians don't support legislation, government programs or agencies that interfere on indivdual freedom. Clearly though government is necessary to provide infrastucture and protect the public from foreign entities, predatory behavior from other indivduals, businesses and the government amoung other things. Government should protect indiual freedom.

Taxes are money from indivuals as should be as low as possible. Government waste at all levels is abundant and is slow if rarely cut.

Healthcare should be in general free market. It doesn't mean governement programs should not exist. They should not be all encompassing. You should not be required to participate as a providee. Of course you should not than expect to receive benefits. You should not be forced to provide healthcare as a provider. Government should not set the prices providers receive for service. The market should.

The idea that only Libertarians descended from Classical Liberalism, that they're synonymous with Classical Liberalism, or that they're the only ones that support true freedom is absurd. See the life of the classical liberal, John Stuart Mill: capitalist in his youth, socialist in old age. His life is a personification of the change that went on in Liberal thought, among many (but not all) Liberals. Classical Liberals (Adam Smith is an ideal example) did not see any conflict between social and economic freedom, seeing property rights as essential but only because they contributed to the common good, reduced poverty, and while allowing for some equality, not so much, and there was plenty of social mobility. The conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression challenged this view.

In America, when this ideological shift happened, many called themselves "Progressives," to distinguish themselves. But because of the many Liberals, like Dewey and Rawls, believed in both Liberalism and Progressivism, justifying the former on the latter, the term Liberalism came to take on a new meaning. Libertarians are the American remnant of economic liberals, influenced by individualist anarchism, that either disagree that social and economic freedom are contradictory, or value economic freedom on ethical grounds while having little regard for poverty, equality, social mobility, or the overall well-being of every person.

Meanwhile, in Europe, where Liberals were more directly threatened by Socialism, the meaning of Liberalism did not considerably shift, and those Liberals who shared the same kinds of ideas as American Liberals called themselves "Fabian Socialists" and "Democratic Socialists," which, while Socialist, were highly alienated from their staunch Leninist counterparts that simply wanted to lynch factory-owners.

Libertarians are often quick to cite European Liberalism's similarity with Libertarianism as proof that American Liberalism isn't "real Liberalism," but there are some huge differences between the two.

Despite the fact that Liberalism in Europe didn't considerably change the same way it did in America, it did change. John Maynard Keynes was a highly influential European Liberal that contributed to the idea that government plays a useful role in regulating the economy. The success of governments worldwide establishing Keynesian policies to address the Depression solidified his influence on both mainstream economics and Liberalism. While the failure of Keynesian economics to adequately explain stagflation and a number of other criticisms led Keynesians to reform, Keynesianism still remains highly influential in both economics and European Liberalism. In Germany, after World War II, under the influence of economist, Wilhelm Röpke, Germany established the "social market economy," and most economies of the world tend to follow a similar model to this, today. It is also often referred to as the "mixed market."

This is what distinguishes European Liberalism from Libertarians: Some Libertarians seem to have no regard for the poor, which is unheard of among European Liberals, and in my view, anti-individualist. While European Liberals establish their views on mainstream economics -- which holds no conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, no support for silly things like the gold standard -- while Libertarians appeal to Austrian economics or ethics, rooted in American Anarchism. If you are a Liberal today, whether American or European, and a student of economics, the idea of either minarchism or market anarchism is preposterous!

Libertarians are best described as a fringe group of radical economic liberals. Many Libertarians, like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, are referred to as "Libertarians," but they do not share the same uncontestable support for minarchism, and certainly not anarchism, precisely because mainstream economic thought simply can't allow for it. Meanwhile, people such as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman are far more representative of what Libertarianism actually is.

In reality, Classical Liberalism was highly influential -- not just on American and European Liberalism, and Libertarianism -- but on Conservatism as well. Everyone here believes freedom is valuable, but we disagree as to what degree it ought to be restricted. There are clearly many cases, such as with central banking, that government regulation makes us all better off without making anyone worse off.

Conservatives share similar ideas, but on sociological grounds rather than economic (the "moral fabric" of society, etc..). If it is true that homosexual marriage contributes substantially to overall immorality (and thus to theft and murder) at the kinds of apocalyptic levels claimed by Conservatives, even a Libertarian should concede that restricting gay marriage benefits the individual, giving him a greater degree of freedom from theft and murder, no different than the result of establishing a police force through compulsory taxation. That is, if restricting gay marriage prevents everyday people from acting like Katrina looters, sure, banning gay marriage makes sense. Of course, this idea is absurd, but I use it simply as an example to demonstrate the motives behind why Conservatives believe what they do, that not only Libertarians support freedom, but that we all define, support, and believe in justifiably restricting freedom in different ways.

 

[Sefarst]

So is a somewhat large bureaucracy OK?

Kinda large?

Significant?

Any whatsoever?

So many people claim to be libertarian or mostly libertarian. I used to. I guess it sounds nice or appeals to some inner need. Thing is, nobody will agree what it means, expansion of the acceptable level of government regulation is the universal defense against basic criticisms.

You would need to examine every branch of the bureaucracy and decide whether or not the services it provides could be more efficiently performed by the free market.

It seems like you're just repeating the same criticisms that could be made of any party, i.e. that party lines are not as clear cut as you would like them to be. You might have the same problem with democrats and republicans. People self-identify with a party, even though they may not accept all the positions of that party's platform. I think you're frustrated because people's political beliefs tend to be too vague for you to give a blanket criticism. As such, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. You can't just criticize the idea of "smaller government" because it's too ambiguous. What you need to do is wait for a libertarian or libertarian leaning person to actually advocate the abolishment of a particular branch of the bureaucracy and THEN debate them on it's merits. Thus, if someone like Ron Paul says they are in favor of smaller government, you can't offer much criticism because he's only elaborating a general attitude he has. However, if Ron Paul says he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, now you can actually have a debate.

Drunk driving for instance when the driver violates no other laws of the road. Not an initiation of force, doesn't hurt anyone. Very dangerous, but once you start legislating that it opens a whole bunch of doors, like it being dangerous to drive with little sleep...

We all ready have legislation like that. Those doors, by your estimation, are all ready wide open and we still manage to have a nice traffic system.

 

[CaptainManacles]

So is a somewhat large bureaucracy OK?

Kinda large?

Significant?

Any whatsoever?

So many people claim to be libertarian or mostly libertarian. I used to. I guess it sounds nice or appeals to some inner need. Thing is, nobody will agree what it means, expansion of the acceptable level of government regulation is the universal defense against basic criticisms.

Drunk driving for instance when the driver violates no other laws of the road. Not an initiation of force, doesn't hurt anyone. Very dangerous, but once you start legislating that it opens a whole bunch of doors, like it being dangerous to drive with little sleep...

Well, no one can agree what "democrat" or "republican" or "communist" or "athiest" or "skeptic" exactly mean either. It doesn't mean these terms are useless, they're just, like almost any word in the english language, fuzzy but generally useful. There is a lot of debate to be had within the details, just as there is a lot of debate to be had when discussing the broad strokes. Drunk driving could be seen as similar to pointing a gun at someone. Oh, they haven't pulled the trigger YET, but who cares? It's a threat, you dont' have to wait until you're dead to defend yourself or punish the other person. How about when they fire at you? Oh, well maybe they claimed they missed on purpose. They're just that good of a shot. Well, I may have wounded you, but I specifically wounded not to kill. A certain degree of preemptive striking is needed in a society. This can be used to support a whole host of things depending on how far you take it, like restricting the ownership of nuclear weapons, some environmental controls, ect.

 

[Beerina]

This is what distinguishes European Liberalism from Libertarians: Some Libertarians seem to have no regard for the poor, which is unheard of among European Liberals, and in my view, anti-individualist.

Depends on what you mean. If "the poor" live better, thanks to more rapidly advancing technology, in a libertarian society than in a "caring" one, have you helped anyone?

Remember that the degradations of slower technology development per capita in more socialist countries are partly ameliorated by technology sharing. They get a "free ride", so to speak, getting the drugs, the iPods, the whatever, even though their economies, per person, are less capable of generating these advancements.

Hence they don't look as bad as they actually are.


Like religion, it's 99% hot air. Just as people can go along for their entire lifetimes believing God exists, laboring to donate money to help this infinite creature, limiting their own lives in what they do in their private lives, etc., can people live an entire life convinced of some political concept, even, as per religion, it harms and hampers them as a parasite would.


"Civilized" society has learned to let people be free in choice of religions, or none. It's time we did the same for politics.

(some long stream of words), and therefore you must believe in my god and give money to me, his representative, or be placed in jail, is now rejected.

We should similarly reject (some long stream of words) and therefore you should be forced to join my health care system or be placed in jail.


Nobody sits around arguing about which god everybody should be forced to worship. Humanity won't fully progress until it learns the same about politics.

 

[dudalb]

I'm completely out of the closet about my love of smaller government and my concerns about ceding my personal sovereignty over to Government in exchange for the illusion of security, financial or otherwise.

I'm constantly amazed at the religious degree of faith that a lot of skeptics implicitly put into the goodness of Government given the historical lessons about what happens when the State is given progressively increasing amounts of authority over how individual citizens run their lives.

It's almost as if Government has replaced the Church for these people, when it comes to not only their willingness to 'sacrifice for the common good', but compel others to do so as well in the form of increased taxation.

Andrew Bernstein had a great lecture on this a few years back that I happened to catch on C-Span. I listened to it while doing 5 other things, but one of the points he made was about how Government (specifically taxation) is a tool wielded by the weak and inept, to extract value out of those who actually contribute to society, and how this practice ultimately penalizes and discourages people from seeking to go that extra mile, or create that new, revolutionary product.

Small "L" libertarianism, as a philosophy, has a great deal of merit. Collectivism or Economic Statism is abhorrent and should be an anathema to rational people of integrity and merit everywhere who do not seek to exist forcibly on the efforts of others.

You have been reading Ayn Rand,have'nt you?

 

[Suddenly]

People self-identify with a party, even though they may not accept all the positions of that party's platform. I think you're frustrated because people's political beliefs tend to be too vague for you to give a blanket criticism.

Whoa... As to the Libertarian Party I can look at a platform and the writings and comments of the candidates that run in that party. That is a whole different issue. Their candiate in 2004 was a conspiracy theorist of the first order, who wrote a book advocating all sorts of militia grade nonsense theories. Ron Paul wrote a glowing foreword that recommended it for schoolchildren.

Not a problem there. I'm pointing to those that claim they are "libertarian" because they don't want "any more government than necessary." That describes everyone. Without specifics it is meaningless twaddle.

As such, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. You can't just criticize the idea of "smaller government" because it's too ambiguous. What you need to do is wait for a libertarian or libertarian leaning person to actually advocate the abolishment of a particular branch of the bureaucracy and THEN debate them on it's merits.

Thus, if someone like Ron Paul says they are in favor of smaller government, you can't offer much criticism because he's only elaborating a general attitude he has. However, if Ron Paul says he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, now you can actually have a debate.

I can criticize his and everyone else describing their political philosophy in meaningless terms. When I say I am a Democrat, I to some extent tie myself to those that identify themselves as Democrats. If I say I'm a democrat or republican, I'm talking out my hat seeing absent a few nuts all Americans are for democracy and a republican form of government. Meaningless.

Likewise, everyone is a libertarian in that nobody wants more government than they think is necessary. That describes everyone from Ron Paul to Stalin.

We all ready have legislation like that. Those doors, by your estimation, are all ready wide open and we still manage to have a nice traffic system.

That wasn't the question, but the answer seems to be that there is no inherent principle to being a libertarian that does not apply to everyone.

Claiming to be a libertarian is meaningless like claiming not to be a jerk is meaningless, unless there is some real identification of principle.

Like the Libertarian Party's non-initiation of force principle. That however leads to the conclusion that driving drunk, in and of itself, is just fine. If you hit someone it could enter into possible penalties, but until then it is nobody's business.

That is often when a libertarian starts pointing out he is not a Libertarian...

 

[dudalb]

.

Drunk driving for instance when the driver violates no other laws of the road. Not an initiation of force, doesn't hurt anyone. Very dangerous, but once you start legislating that it opens a whole bunch of doors, like it being dangerous to drive with little sleep...

So you think Drunk Driving Laws are a violation of individual liberty?
This is the kind of thing that ,frankly,makes most people look at Libertarians as a bunch of kooks.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, no one can agree what "democrat" or "republican" or "communist" or "athiest" or "skeptic" exactly mean either. It doesn't mean these terms are useless, they're just, like almost any word in the english language, fuzzy but generally useful. There is a lot of debate to be had within the details, just as there is a lot of debate to be had when discussing the broad strokes. Drunk driving could be seen as similar to pointing a gun at someone.

Only if you don't know the gun is pointed at you. The difference is a specific implied threat designed to cause apprehension. The drunk violating no laws has no such intent. He's just trying to get home.

Oh, they haven't pulled the trigger YET, but who cares? It's a threat, you dont' have to wait until you're dead to defend yourself or punish the other person. How about when they fire at you? Oh, well maybe they claimed they missed on purpose. They're just that good of a shot. Well, I may have wounded you, but I specifically wounded not to kill. A certain degree of preemptive striking is needed in a society.

Sounds like a basis for gun control. Using a gun intentionally to bring about a reaction of fear is a clear intiation of force. A wound is an initiation of force. Driving drunk would be like owning a rifle in a house where there are children, a risk of causing harm if the child plays with the gun, or if the gun is stolen. We can even cite the greater risk of harm from accidental shootings than benefit from self-defense.

So much for the individual knowing best. Why is it you think the government knows better than an individual whether he can drive safely?

Statist.

This can be used to support a whole host of things depending on how far you take it, like restricting the ownership of nuclear weapons, some environmental controls, ect.

It can support anything. You've opened the door to government knowing best. It can now legitimately force you to stop using your own property for the common good, whether it be to combat the evil of global warming or the public health hazzard of people living in dire poverty.

Congratulations, you are now a full fledged statist. Your statist name shall be "CaptainRegulation"

 

[Sefarst]

Not a problem there. I'm pointing to those that claim they are "libertarian" because they don't want "any more government than necessary." That describes everyone. Without specifics it is meaningless twaddle.

Has anyone here put that down as their sole reason for being a libertarian yet? If they have, I would agree with you that it's meaningless.

Like the Libertarian Party's non-initiation of force principle. That however leads to the conclusion that driving drunk, in and of itself, is just fine. If you hit someone it could enter into possible penalties, but until then it is nobody's business.

Your argument with the non aggression principle seems to be based on a straw man, in that, as I understand, the non aggression principle does not exclude self-defense against the use of force or the threat of force. I think to most libertarians this would entail a threat emerging from an individual's willful recklessness by drunk driving. The same could be said about a law against driving tired, though I think most people would be against such a law simply because it's too difficult to standardize the point at which a person is too tired to drive. In principle, however, someone getting behind the wheel when they are too tired to drive would be considered willful recklessness, at least to me.