The Libertarian philosophy

[TallPine]

That's why we have a Constitutional Republic with three branches of Federal government, each with enumerated, limited powers, and a bicameral Congress.

Well, it isn't working anymore.

Let's see, we have had:
1. a war to enforce executive will upon the rest of the union
2. an amendment that takes away the states representation
3. legislation from courts
4. legislative branch abdicating its responsibility to the executive via
a) bureacratic regulations
b) refusing to either declare or forbid war

 

[BigG]

Libertarianism is about not wanting to pay taxes and wanting to legally smoke joints while bloviating about the lesser of two evils.

This is as good a working definition of the concept as I've seen, Boats.

 

[JerryM]

{"In a free society, you have personal rights. You can live however you want to, so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property. You decide what risks to take, what to believe in, and how to entertain yourself."}

That approached anarchy in my view, and assumes that every man is an island, and that people will take responsibility for their actions. It also ignores that in a society the good of others sometimes trumps our own desires.

I don't intend to argue the point, but that statement distances me from the Libertarian party.

Best,
Jerry

 

[atk]

It also ignores that in a society the good of others sometimes trumps our own desires.

Yes and no. It makes no direct statement about the good of others, but it lets individuals decide what good and which others that the individual wants to assist.

 

[ArmedBear]

1. a war to enforce executive will upon the rest of the union
2. an amendment that takes away the states representation

These things were the result of military actions by states that were decidedly UNlibertarian, however.

This doesn't look like a Libertarian utopia to me, anyway...

So you've brought up a serious problem with liberty. Some will use their votes to enslave others for their own profit. I'm not talking about companies paying people to do jobs; I'm no leftie. I'm talking about actual force being used to literally enslave.

Sometimes a strong government that initiates force is necessary to enforce liberty.

And that strong government can be and is abused by others who seek to steal and enslave.

However, the answer is not simple. "Eternal vigilance" is indeed the price of liberty.

 

[frank23185]

Liberty is scarwy...

 

[Owen Sparks]

TallPaul said:

I wonder if there is some genetic component to being a "free spirit" or if it just occurs randomly ...???
______________________________________________________________

If you really think about it, the closest mankind has ever come to a true Libertarian society was in the early years of the United States.

My guess as to the reason is as follows.

Before the Revolution, the typical person who would have immigrated to the new world would probably be the boldest and most adventurous young man in his village. He would have had to leave every thing behind and embark on a perilous two month sea voyage with a real chance of going down in a storm.

After arriving, he could expect to face starvation, Indian attacks, disease and a myriad of hardships and dangers.

He probably would have little money but access to plenty of free land. That meant building a log cabin with only hand tools and muscle power (ever cut down a tree with an ax?) There were no grocery stores or food stamps on the frontier so he had to provide for him self by hunting and farming (again, with only crude muscle powered implements)

It was this type of "rugged individual" and their direct descendants who founded this country. That's why traditional values like hard work and ingenuity were so valued by early Americans, because they meant SURVIVAL.

The Atlantic ocean acted as a "filter" that precluded many timid, less self sufficient people. Of those that did come here and make their own way, the idea of being told what to do by anyone, much less a distant British king was unconscionable. They loved their new found liberty and were willing to kill to keep it. So they did. This was the American spirit at it's finest.

After seven or eight generations and wave after wave of immigrants this spirit is all but extinguished in most people. It dwindles first in the cities and more populated areas where living becomes increasingly easy. As a result some of the oldest population centers in the country like Boston, New York have become the most socialistic. About the only place you still find concentrations of people with this spirit is out West or in the rural South which were more recently settled and the "rugged individualism" has not been completely bread out of the people yet.

Just my observation,

OS

 

[Werewolf]

Just my observation,

And an astute one at that.

 

[Glock Glockler]

You can live however you want to, so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property

Jerry,

According to libertarianism if I were to break your fence I would have to make restitution to you, with anarchism that would not be the case because there is no govt. whatsoever to see that your rights are upheld.

Anarchism and libertarianism are actually quite different from one another.

 

[TallPine]

Just as food for thought, I would suggest that 90% of social activities are even now still mostly "anarchy"

For instance, when you or I go into a restaurant and order a meal, go into a store and find what we want on the shelves, or pump our own gasoline (except in OR and NJ), we pay our bill not from fear of arrest but from an attitude that we are making a fair and voluntary exchange.

Sure, there are exceptions - people who shoplift or drive off from gas stations - but still the vast majority of us play nice most of the time. Otherwise, retail establishments would not be as free and open as they are.

Of course the exceptions need to be dealt with, but there is no reason to believe that cannot be accomplished through market transactions (private subscriber "police"). Or at least get back to a system of law that does not prosecute victimless crimes, where no "force" (or fraud) has been initiated against persons or their property. But I see no chance of that happening with our current national govt (it cannot be any longer termed "federal" in the original meaning).

 

[BigG]

If you really think about it, the closest mankind has ever come to a true Libertarian society was in the early years of the United States.

Owen Sparks - with all due respect, your submission is a bunch of romantic hogwash. The guys who came to America typically sold themselves into indentured servitude for a period of seven years. Pretty free all right.

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, the white Brits only had to serve out their seven years, and they generally signed up for it themselves. Not everyone was so lucky.

Insofar as there are good things about our history, let's build on them, even restore them when we need to. Insofar as there are bad things about it, though, let's neither whitewash nor resurrect them.

 

[Owen Sparks]

BigG said:

with all due respect, your submission is a bunch of romantic hogwash. The guys who came to America typically sold themselves into indentured servitude for a period of seven years. Pretty free all right.
__________________
BigG, are you implying that people don't have enough sense to commit themselves to long term contracts? What about people who join the military or sign on as hands for long dangerous commercial fishing jobs?

Those who contracted as indentured servants did so
OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE
because they decided that the trade off was eventually worth it.

Now THAT is freedom. To be the master of your own destiny by using your own property, your body, to fulfill your dream of living in a free land.

OS

 

[Werewolf]

Owen Sparks - with all due respect, your submission is a bunch of romantic hogwash. The guys who came to America typically sold themselves into indentured servitude for a period of seven years. Pretty free all right.

According to one source I've seen as many as 2/3 to 3/4 of all colonials arrived in America as indentured servants.

That in no way negates the argument Owen Sparks made especially when one considers that in most cases the servitude was voluntarily entered into in order to get to America. In fact one might easily contend that it strengthens his hypothesis. That one so wanted to be free and make a new life that one was willing to suffer the indignities of indentured servitude to achieve the goal strengthens the argument that it was the bold, courageous individual that primarily immigrated to America from Europe. A craven or layabout, a comfortable subject who chose to stay in europe could hardly be said to have the same spirit of adventure or boldness as one so wanting to start a new life that they'd willingly become indentured.

 

[ArmedBear]

I know a lot of people want to ignore this, but 1/5 of the population of the 13 colonies in 1776 was made up of slaves.

They didn't sign any contract.

Again, that doesn't negate the great principles of the Revolution or the Constitution, but I have a difficult time seeing a society where 20% of the population are the legal PROPERTY of other people as the "most libertarian."

Libertarianism is really about self-organization and free exchange. That's probably existed in a nearly-pure form in smaller communities, in various places and different times in the history of the world.

 

[JerryM]

A major problem that I see is that people are by nature selfish and self centered. They care little for others it is interferes with their own desires in any way.
An example might be, that my next door neighbor might wish to have loud all night parties. They would prevent me and my family from getting any rest. But he does not see that as a problem, I should just get ear plugs.

Or he might wish to raise horses or a pig next door in a city. The smell would be bad, but he does not see it as a bother. He has a right to do as he pleases on his property as long as he does not "break down my fence."

While most of you might not do such, or Walter Williams (He is standing in for Rush today, and he is a jewel.) my own observations indicate many people care not a whit how their own actions impact others.

I realize that we cannot discuss moral issues here, but the moral positions of the Libertarian party also cause me to not even consider it.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[ArmedBear]

JerryM-

Regardless of "morality", which even an attempt to define could ignite a debate, your demonstrates a practical issue that philosopher types don't want to carry through to its conclusion.

If a Libertarian government exists only to prevent the taking of one neighbors rights by the other neighbor, then there STILL needs to be a process by which we decide and codify exactly what that means. The Athenians found out what it meant when everybody sues everybody and juries just decide the verdicts. It was ugly, to say the least. Socrates' mandated suicide is an example of just how ugly. So we need the rule of law, right?

So, we vote, or our elected representatives vote, about whether or not one has the right to enjoy his property in the city without the stench of someone else's pig farm. Then this is codified into law, case law is built around it, do that enough times for enough situations and voila! we have exactly the same system that we have now, we just call it different.

 

[Justin]

I love it when people conflate libertarianism with outright anarchism.

Just based on that, I know pretty much that they've never perused any of the content of the CATO Institute, or so much as thumbed through a copy of Reason Magazine while waiting at the dentist's office.

 

[ArmedBear]

I wish my dentist had Reason magazine, though thankfully I don't have to wait more than a minute, anyway. The free market at work. I'd rather have no wait than to have to peruse even the best magazine for a half hour.

I personally don't equate serious libertarianism with anarchism, however it does appear that a lot of people here -- people who think they're espousing libertarianism -- do, if unconsciously.

All of that said, one can avoid the pompous stuff and get a lot of Cato and Reason while enjoying it more, simply by reading P J O'Rourke.

Of note, neither Cato nor Reason want any more than a passing and coincidental association with the LP, from what I can tell.

So I can hardly blame a liberal, with all the prejudices his own worldview entails, failing to see the difference between some Libertarians and some Anarchists. It's up to us to communicate that, but we ourselves need to understand it first.

I personally haven't seen much in this thread about the rule of law, for example. Libertarianism without the rule of law? How does that really differ from anarchy, and how long could it last?

 

[JerryM]

ArmedBear,
[I personally haven't seen much in this thread about the rule of law, for example. Libertarianism without the rule of law? How does that really differ from anarchy, and how long could it last?]

That is my problem. It is not always obvious what is harmful to another. That requires law to settle arguments about such. That being so, why would one think a Libertarian government would be any wiser than a Republican for instance. We are the same people with the same attitudes, and I do not believe we could long have a government where the representatives would not be power hungry, and begin to pander to those who could get them elected.

I wish we could have a government of people who placed the interest of the nation above their own political power, and desires.
But then I suspect that many liberals do believe that their ways are best for the nation, but their minds do not work in a logical, real world way.

Man does a poor job of governing himself, and I do not see any party making a real improvement over the long haul.

If the Libertarians are not for anarchy, I do not see much that convinces me on these threads. There is a hate of government, and of anything which restricts the rights of the individual.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[ArmedBear]

It is not always obvious what is harmful to another.

Oh, it gets worse.

I hate freeway noise. But I love being able to get to work in 10 minutes.

If a freeway is built near my house, and my commute is shortened from 30 to 10 minutes, but I also have to tolerate some freeway noise, is that harmful to me, or helpful? Who decides? Is that an infringement on my property rights, or does my use of my property actually benefit from it?

Maybe my neighbor and I agree about noise and commute time, but I place a slightly higher premium on total quiet, and he places a slightly higher premium on commute time. Then what? Sometimes a simple philosophy can't solve the problem. Furthermore, privatizing the freeway doesn't really solve it, either. We'd just sue the freeway company, and each other, and the company would then sue us, for infringing on each others' property rights.

And while we're all in court with 25 lawsuits per person, Mexico could invade and take over, thus ending our libertarian paradise.

So we need something like the Rule of Law.

Now I'm not saying that libertarians -- and I consider myself to be one in general -- have no answer to this. I am, however, saying that the answer will probably end up looking a lot more like our current system than a lot of us want to admit. Either that, or it will look a lot more like the anarchy we say we don't want.

There's nothing anti-liberty about the Rule of Law. In fact, no society has remained anything close to free without it. Democratic, perhaps, but free, no.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Anarchy is the total absence of any government. This may sound good at first until a large gang of armed thugs come kill you and take your stuff.

A Libertarian society HAS government but it's only function is to protect it's citizens from force or fraud by others.

In other words you are free to do anything you wish as long as it does not harm, defraud or endanger others.

Want to drive without a seat belt? That's your business.

Want to ride your Harley without a helmet? That's your business.

Want to drive around town without tail lights? That's MY business because it endangers me. (me being the general public)

Some people assume that "harming your neighbor" means only physical harm.
It could be anything from loud music late at night to public indecency.

If you want to play your music loud, fine. Just don't play it so loud that it enters my home and wakes me up.

Want to run around naked? That's fine too. Just don't do it where I can see it.

Want to take in a little target practice? Sure, just find a safe backstop so that your bullets can't hit me.

Liberty works just fine when tempered with a little common sense.

OS

 

[TallPine]

Anarchy is the total absence of any government. This may sound good at first until a large gang of armed thugs come kill you and take your stuff.

But what if the "large gang of armed thugs" are from the government ?

The issue with "anarchy" is not that life would be so horrible in that situation, but rather that (human) nature abhors a vacumm. If there were suddenly no government, then about ten minutes later a couple of busybodies would get together and start to form one.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

Is this the one about how government has no right to define marriage, pass laws against prostitution, drugs, etc.?

because with laws against it theres no drugs or prostitution now

 

[hugh damright]

Why would the government ever have the right to define marriage? Marriage is a religious sacrament. Stay the hell out of my church!

Because Virginia government represents Virginians, and it is our State, and we will define marriage however we fancy. Stay the hell out of my State!

In a free society, you have personal rights. You can live however you want to, so long as you don't initiate force or fraud against others or their property.

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.

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.

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