The Libertarian philosophy

I feel bad for libertarians. The commies think they're anarchists and the anarchists think they're commies. They really can't win.

hugh damright said:

inability to accept proper authority

Click to expand...

Proper authority. lol

Quote:
because with laws against it theres no drugs or prostitution now

And here we have the "laws don't work 100% so let's just do away with them" philosophy.

Click to expand...

One of the side affects of the war on drugs is going on right now up here in northern CA. A marijuana eradication team is trying to take out many of the pot gardens in the national forest land. These gardens are thought to be the work of Mexican cartels. The gardens cause damage to the forests, cost thousands to remove and repair. There were even shots fired. Our LEO's face danger, as do recreational users of these public lands.

If drugs were not illegal, these problems would go away.

I like the philosophies of "personal responsibility" defining our basic rights, smaller, limited government etc., but I cannot and will not get behind open borders. The libertarian Party is dead wrong on this issue.

originally posted by hugh damright
It occurs to me that, if we want to hear the "libertarian philosophy", all we need to do is take any spoiled brat and threaten him with some authority, and he will cry "nobody can tell me what to do, I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt anyone". Is there some difference between the libertarian philosophy and the spoiled brat philosophy? It seems like the same think to me - inability to accept proper authority.

Click to expand...

Ad homenim. Just because the source is suspect, that doesn't mean the message is wrong. It is reasonable to suspect the motivation of the brat, but it is inappropriate to question the message, itself, by shedding suspicion on the speaker of the message.

Also, the "nobody can tell me what to do" that your spoiled brat cries is not part of libertarianism.
(1) It conflicts with freedom of speech. Anyone is free to tell anyone what to do. Whether or not the person told what to do should obey the instructions, as dictated by libertarianism, depends upon the particular circumstances.
(2) If your brat is acting in a manner that infringes upon the rights of another, then it is entirely within the other's rights to stop that infringement.

I don't think that libertarians are able to see beyond the individual,

Click to expand...

You begin to get the point. Libertarianism begins with the rights of the individual. A libertarian believes that it is abhorrent to infringe upon the rights of the individual. Society does not have rights. Government does not have rights. Only individuals have rights.

However, that does not mean that a libertarian cannot "see past the individual". Take the idea of the libertarian - a person who does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It would be someone who believes that you have a right to own your own property, and does not steal your property from you, or trespass upon your property. It would be a person who believes in your right to privacy, and does not attempt to invade your privacy. It would be a person who believes in your right to life, and avoids any action that will impede that right.

That would be a nice person, wouldn't it?

Now imagine a society of people who respect each others rights (except, obviously, for the small percentage of any society that are antisocial). Sounds like a nice society, doesn't it?

Now imagine that such a society had a set of reasonable laws, and a reasonable governmental and court system such that grievances could be redressed, in accordance with the libertarian philosophy. The individual that initiated force in the original encounter (whatever encounter brought it to the attention of the court/government) would be forced to provide restitution to the harmed individual.

Doesn't all this sound rather like how civil la is supposed to work in the USA?

but it seems clear to me that there is more to a culture and society than "defending and/or retaliating against those who initiate force".

Click to expand...

There is. And libertarianism doesn't exclude that. In fact, with everyone respecting each other's rights, there's nothing preventing anyone from doing all those other things that society does.

Geezerwithguns,

Pleaes don't confuse the Libertarian party with the libertarian movement. I, personally, am a libertarian, but not a member of the Libertarian party. I agree with you: the party is dead wrong on some issues. Open borders is an issue where it's wrong, and is one of the issues that prevents me from joining the Libertarian party.

While a few members of the LP really believe in freedom, I suspect the vast majority of them just want to be able to legally smoke pot. I suspect most are really anarchists at heart.

I don't think that libertarians are able to see beyond the individual,

Click to expand...

Read some F A Hayek.

It's not about "seeing beyond the individual", it's about the belief that free individuals will organize themselves, and that the spontaneous organization is superior to "command and control" government organization.

I was just watching some history profs talk about Deadwood, circa 1877. They said that what is interesting is that, even though there WAS no law, no authority, people sought and built a community. Western boomtowns may have been "lawless", but they were not without organization. Humans naturally seek to do what works for us, including forming communities that go beyond the individual. We don't need to be forced to. History just does not support the idea that we need to be coerced into "seeing beyond the individual."

I suspect the vast majority of them just want to be able to legally smoke pot. I suspect most are really anarchists at heart.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's your opinion, no supporting facts.
Now my opinion (with no supporting facts) I suspect the majority of drug prohibitionists are just tyrants who want to force others to behave as the tyrants wish.

I suspect the vast majority of them just want to be able to legally smoke pot.

Click to expand...

And buy cheap machine guns. Legally.

I was just watching some history profs talk about Deadwood, circa 1877. They said that what is interesting is that, even though there WAS no law, no authority, people sought and built a community. Western boomtowns may have been "lawless", but they were not without organization. Humans naturally seek to do what works for us, including forming communities that go beyond the individual. We don't need to be forced to. History just does not support the idea that we need to be coerced into "seeing beyond the individual."

Click to expand...

Works at the micro level. Doesn't work at the macro level.

Interesting posts...

Only in America would a person be accused of being an anarchist for suggesting that our government obey it's laws....

Works at the micro level. Doesn't work at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Define macro and micro.

BTW, could the notion that it DOESN'T scale up infinitely be one reason behind the idea of a weaker Federal government and stronger State and local governments, in our country as originally organized?

As in, maybe the Founders knew about this...

But I still say, read some Hayek. Your simple response indicates that you're unfamiliar with his work.

He shows how spontaneous organization DOES work, at least in many spheres of human endeavor and interaction.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Generally, libertarians are close to Hayek, and see that governments to exist to ALLOW free association and free markets, and enforce laws that facilitate these things (e.g. laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc.), lead to the best societies.

<Grammaw had to do some cleanup>



The enemy of Libertarianism, in a 4-part nutshell:

1. Insecurity is the enemy of liberty.

2. The majority of people are insecure.

3. Socialism attracts insecurity.

4. The majority of people are insecure.

Well said!

Click to expand...

+1
The older I get the less I associate with the Democratic or Republican parties. I would now define myself as more of a Constitutionalist or Libertarian. While I am fiscally conservative I'm socially liberal.

3. Socialism attracts insecurity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and it causes insecurity too. Great feedback loop.

David Friedman pointed out that libertarian systems where no one is above the law (like Iceland from 950-1100) are stable once established.

However, centralized systems are also stable once established (and they tend to take more and more of the resources of the society )

The real problem is that there aren't any genuine socialists nowadays. If there were, they would establish at least one libertarian society as a control group .

Werewolf said:

Works at the micro level. Doesn't work at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Define macro and micro.

Click to expand...

Micro - small town...
Macro... National Government

I remember reading a number of studies that suggest that in any human group with a population over 300, that peer pressure, group pressure that tends to insure proper behavior in individuals begins to dilute. Unfortunately it's been a while so I cannot cite a source.

In other words a pure libertarian style of government may be possible in small communities but not be viable as a state or national government. It takes peer pressure to make those otherwise irresponsible members of a community act responsibly and that pressure just doesn't exist in large communities.

Funny how all of those who attack libertarianism shrug off the failure of the current system with "Aw well, nothing's perfect". To some of us, that's a dishonest cop-out, and a symptom of irresponsibility. The present system, i.e. the "status quo" is broken, and it has been for quite some time now.

And many who attack libertarianism and libertarians are no better in any way than the anti-2nd amendment jagoffs they rant about. It doesn't matter to me if you're trying to take my rifle or my copy of Hustler. It's the same damned disease of "the state/majority knows better". Libertarians, such as myself are those unforgivable folks who tell the state/majority "No, you do NOT know what's best for me, so kindly burn off!"

They, like the antis are the same type of fearful and timid souls who wants laws out of fear of what so-and-so might do.

Libertarians, such as myself are those unforgivable folks who tell the state/majority "No, you do NOT know what's best for me, so kindly burn off!"

Click to expand...

No one is disagreeing with that. Most here are all for personal responsibility.

Unfortunately most of humanity isn't. So how do you go about making a Libertarian government based on the assumption that everyone's responsible and will contribute his/her fair share to the public coffers so the state can defend itself work. Libertarians (capital L type) believe that involuntary taxation is theft. If I don't wanna donate to the public coffers how ya gonna make me? Take my money by force? So much for the libertarian form of government.

So lets hear from you libertarians. How in the world are you gonna set up a libertarian government at even a state level that can support itself? Please enlighten us? I for one would move there in a minute if such existed but I'm not holding my breath waiting for any such utopia to appear.

I know of very few "libertarian utopians", they're called anarcho-capitalists.

Want my plan? Well here it is...

1. Censorship and gun control legislation, swept away.
2. No more standing army. The AF and Navy are fine, though the expenditures should be reduced in line with a defensive position rather than global hegemon.
3. Taxation realigned to a 3% national retail sales tax with food, medicine, shelter, water, and clothing exempt.
4. End all welfare, including corporate welfare.
5. Narrow the scope of the commerce clause, by legislation if need be.
6. Term limits for congress. "Professional politician" is synonymous with "career criminal".
7. Reasonable immigration policy. Make it easier to secure US vistas, while having zero tolerance for illegal immigration or those that employ them.
8. Repeal the death penalty, but add a new one, for corruption and/or abuse of power by federal officials.
9. Replace punitive or "rehabilitationist" sentencing for crimes with restitution.
10. Remove victimless crimes from the books. If no one is harmed directly by something, there is no rational basis for a law against it.

Now I'd like an explanation for the continued support, against libertarian ideas, of the obviously broken and failed system we are presently subject to?

You've made some pretty good points below Hiro. All of them, with the exception of your suggestion concerning standing armies, could be - assuming we had the will - easily integrated into our current Republic and would go a long ways towards fixing what many, myself included, consider the parts that are broken.

HiroProx said:

Want my plan? Well here it is...

1. Censorship and gun control legislation, swept away.

Click to expand...

Sounds good...

HiroProx said:

2. No more standing army. The AF and Navy are fine, though the expenditures should be reduced in line with a defensive position rather than global hegemon.

Click to expand...

The realities of contemporary modern warfare demand a very high state of training for any Army to be effective. This cannot be achieved without a standing army. Units must train together, learn how to operate cooperatively with other units, maintain equipment etc. National Guard? It takes about a year to train existing NG units up just to go to Iraq and those guys live and work together in the same communites. If some country blows by the Navy and AF do we have a year to get the NG up and running? What if we don't even have a National Guard because that would be like a standing Army? Do we just fight a guerilla war with an unorganized militia? Sorry but no standing army? That dog just won't hunt. Without one the nation goes down pretty quickly.

HiroProx said:

3. Taxation realigned to a 3% national retail sales tax with food, medicine, shelter, water, and clothing exempt.

Click to expand...

If that level would cover national defense (meaning a standing army) and maintenance of highways and federal lands then OK.

HiroProx said:

4. End all welfare, including corporate welfare.

Click to expand...

Good idea and as much as I hate welfare of any kind I have to wonder what the unintended consequences might be of eliminating it entirely. 10% unemployment or maybe 1% - I don't know. But we've got a lot of dead beat won't work types out there as well as those who cannot work even if they wanted to. Do we just let 'em starve (that's exactly what I do to the won't work types - but - can you say food riots)? Depend on charities (maybe). Lots'a pitfalls with that one. Here's one example from personal experience. I lost a very well paying job because my employer moved the operation to Singapore. OK - I saw the logic and didn't hold it against the company. BUT because the job went overseas I qualified for a government retraining program. Guess what because I already had 3 years of college they paid every penny of the last year. Add in Pell Grants and I could continue to support my wife and 3 daughters and finish my degree. Once I got my degree I started making almost twice what I used to make. The government is ahead. The extra taxes I paid was enough to cover the governments investment in me in about 4 years. IS THAT WELFARE or a GOVERNMENT investing in it's people? Do we do away with those types of programs?

HiroProx said:

5. Narrow the scope of the commerce clause, by legislation if need be.

Click to expand...

Ought'a be done anyway regardless of whether we're talking libertarian government or not.

HiroProx said:

6. Term limits for congress. "Professional politician" is synonymous with "career criminal".

Click to expand...

Ought'a be done anyway regardless of whether we're talking libertarian government or not.

HiroProx said:

7. Reasonable immigration policy. Make it easier to secure US vistas, while having zero tolerance for illegal immigration or those that employ them.

Click to expand...

Ought'a be done anyway regardless of whether we're talking libertarian government or not.

HiroProx said:

8. Repeal the death penalty, but add a new one, for corruption and/or abuse of power by federal officials.

Click to expand...

What's this got to do with a libertarian style goobermint?

HiroProx said:

9. Replace punitive or "rehabilitationist" sentencing for crimes with restitution.

Click to expand...

And how do you propose that your average criminal payback his victims for economic loss? Indentured servitude maybe? If he could hold down a job or had the temperament for holding a job he wouldn't be a criminal in the first place. What if the victim is killed? Restitution? I for one wouldn't be interested in an economic payback - would you?

HiroProx said:

10. Remove victimless crimes from the books. If no one is harmed directly by something, there is no rational basis for a law against it.

Click to expand...

Libertarian or Republic - ought'a be done no matter what.

HiroProx said:

Now I'd like an explanation for the continued support, against libertarian ideas, of the obviously broken and failed system we are presently subject to?

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the current system is broken but nothing you've suggested above are concepts that wouldn't work in our current Republic.

Many libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, including me.

The objections I'm hearing in this thread all take the same form: without government, there will be bad guys, including gangs of bad guys, and the good guys will all be defenseless. Since crime then has no repercussions, everyone gets in on the act, and pretty soon we're all lying, cheating and stealing, and a goodly number are actually robbing, raping and killing.

There are two parts to the answer. First of all, those things happen today--so we shouldn't lose sight of that and start thinking as if having a government eliminates those threats. It doesn't.

Secondly, though, it's fallacious to assume that the good guys are defenseless. If government disappeared tomorrow, so that there were no police or military of any kind, there might well be looting and whatnot--but there are lots of armed good guys out there, present company especially included. The image of "criminal gangs" running around Mad Maxx style proves that we all believe bad guys will band together--so why not good guys? In the EOTWAWKI scenario, armed good guys will immediately see the need to band together for mutual security.

In less apocalyptic scenarios, it doesn't even boil down to armed gangs. Anything the government does today to protect us from crime can be done just as well by private businesses: beat cops can be replaced with security guards; judges can be replaced with private mediators; investigative services can be provided by specialized laboratories, which will usually be paid from insurance; etc.

In essence, free-market anarchy would look rather similar to the US under the articles of confederation: lots of little "governments," where it's extremely easy to move from one "government's" jurisdiction to another's if you didn't like how they did things.

It would go the Articles of Confederation one better, though: suppose that in early America you could declare yourself a citizen of any state you chose, without actually relocating? You could live in PA but declare yourself a citizen of VA; if anyone in PA has a beef with you, you have the right to get the VA embassy involved on your behalf. You could join any "state" you like, as long as you and the "state" agree mutually on the terms, or you could declare yourself "stateless." In the latter case, you wouldn't pay any "taxes," but you would also not enjoy any services or protections--so, for example, if PA had a beef with you, you'd either pay some lawyer-type through the nose, or just suck it up and hope for the best.

PA and VA would not go to war over your petty problems; on the other hand, they would have to stay on their toes, or else PA would find that all its citizens had defected to VA.

--Len.

Werewolf-

Hayek has nothing whatsoever to do with peer pressure.