Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Libertine Conservatives
lewrockwell.com — Libertarianism is not just a libertine brand of Republicanism and definitely not just a social club for party animals with money. Libertarians are concerned with principles, not life-style choices.
wpwbigdaddy- 631 diggs
- digg it
- cheez, on 11/11/2007, -11/+22If you want to find out if you are a libertarian (I am) take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
If you are in the bottom right (fourth) quadrant, you are a capitalist libertarian. The libertarian party believes in capitalism (deregulated economy) and extremely small government.- daonlyfreez, on 10/22/2007, -58/+20OMG, I'm in the bottom-left corner with Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama!
No libertarian, no 'survival of the fittest', no 'the economy is the one and only important thing in this world', no 'we don't need government, my boss knows what's best for me'...
But I don't mind: Libertarianism is just a nice word for "I'm an egotistic assh*le" anyway. - joybran, on 11/11/2007, -15/+41This test is seriously flawed because it is written by statists who are so biased toward state authoritarianism, they don't even understand what liberty means. In fact, many of the questions can't be answered by a libertarian because either choice would violate libertarian principles. If you don't notice the violations, then you probably aren't as libertarian as you think.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19@ daonlyfreez
My previous comment was meant for cheez. You obviously have no idea what libertarian means at all. You also proved my point about how worthless this "test" is. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -35/+11@joybran: Like I said, libertarian is just a nice word for egotistical assh*le, which part you didn't understand?
Sure, most socalled libertarians are more like anarchist libertarians, just ask a bit more:
- Do you think the freedom to do whatever you want is the priority rule?
- Do you think the strongest should survive?
- Do you think there is no need to protect those that cannot protect themselves?
If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are an anarchist libertarian, which simply means: "I'm only interested in taking care of myself, and I don't care about those pussies who can't". - unicronband, on 10/12/2007, -27/+15The problem with most libertarians is that they don't want to recognize that there are certain services that the government can provide more effeciently than the private sector. There are already way too many important government functions being outsourced (voting equipment, military contracting and just about every pork barrel project on the books). How about we outsource police dispatching to India?
- joybran, on 11/11/2007, -5/+48@ daonlyfreez
"- Do you think the freedom to do whatever you want is the priority rule?
- Do you think the strongest should survive?
- Do you think there is no need to protect those that cannot protect themselves?
If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are an anarchist libertarian, which simply means: "I'm only interested in taking care of myself, and I don't care about those pussies who can't"."
Your questions are ridiculous and only show how little you know.
No libertarian, including anarchist libertarians, would say that "freedom to do whatever you want is the priority rule." They would say that freedom means making your own decisions and taking responsibility for your own actions, which includes facing the consequences for infringing on the freedom of other people to make THEIR own decisions.
Libertarians, including anarchist libertarians, believe that the best chance for the survival of the greatest number of human beings (which includes the weak as well as the strong) is freedom.
Libertarians, including anarchist libertarians, believe that the best protection for those who can't protect themselves is freedom. In fact, the greatest threat that people need to be protected from is the criminal organization called government. If no group of people were allowed a legalized monopoly on the use of violence (which is the primary definition of government), there would be so much wealth created through voluntary actions and so little incentive for violence, there would be fewer people needing others to care for them.
The whole point of libertarian philosophy is to find better ways to solve social problems. Given the reality of human nature with all its greed, laziness, and selfishness, freedom works better than coercion in providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
If you want to let greedy, lazy, selfish, egotistical assholes call themselves a government and run your life, you should be free to enslave yourself to them, but don't ask me to do the same. - cheez, on 11/11/2007, -6/+11@unicronband (#6034769) said: "The problem with most libertarians is that they don't want to recognize that there are certain services that the government can provide more effeciently than the private sector. There are already way too many important government functions being outsourced (voting equipment, military contracting and just about every pork barrel project on the books). How about we outsource police dispatching to India?"
but there are also things that the private sector does more effectively (I believe "effeciently" is a combination of efficiently and effectively) and efficiently than the government, like health care. Look at Walter Reed. Anarchist libertarians may say that, but the majority of libertarians are "minarchists". they believe that some taxes and government services are a necessary evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Minarchism_and_Anarcho-capitalism - joybran, on 11/11/2007, -6/+31@ unicronband
"The problem with most libertarians is that they don't want to recognize that there are certain services that the government can provide more effeciently than the private sector. There are already way too many important government functions being outsourced (voting equipment, military contracting and just about every pork barrel project on the books). How about we outsource police dispatching to India?"
There is NO service that the government provides coercively that couldn't be provided more efficiently if it were voluntary. "Outsourcing" so-called government services just means adding another layer of corruption to the government's monopoly. Libertarians don't advocate the government contracting any services to private companies. We advocate the government just getting out of the way and letting people voluntarily buy and sell the services they want. - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Libertarianism is an attempt at the idea that free market forces are more efficient and better at enforcing the needs of the individual. An economic power is perfectly regulated by how content its benefactors are, the moment that it does something that is against the will of its benefactors they 1) search for some entity that will better fit their needs, or 2) eliminate the need altogether thereby eliminating the problem. This happens over the course of days or weeks rather than in the case of government, years.
Economic entities continually attempt to benefit the entirety of the population to the best of their ability and have proven themselves to be extremely efficient at this because of increased business as a result. A government has no necessity to accomplish this end because it will always retain its ability to create income through coercion, it simply must maintain enough contentment or fear to keep revolution at bay.
Free markets also benefit the entirety of the population. By eliminating regulation there is limitless possibility for entity creation and therefore job creation. Those businesses that are not viable dissipate and those that are continue to create more jobs. This is evident if you compare business regulation to the economic power of countries. There is a positive correlation to the lack of regulation on business to the economic power of that country. Deregulation also decreases unemployment rates (unemployment is largely due to minimum wage which was instated initially to keep blacks out of the market), increases wages (decreases business expenses on rediculous and expensive regulations and taxes), and creates a employee supply controlled market. When demand for employment rises because of increased business inevitably wages rise and working conditions get better.
Try looking at the theory before describing how bad it is. - JDenigma, on 11/11/2007, -11/+24@daonlyfreez
Your illogical, uninformed rant in which you're calling us egotistical a-holes shows that you don't know what you're talking about and that you are clearly immature. You have the childish point of view it seems in which you must think being rich is for the greedy, powerful people who are bad and being poor is somehow saintly and innocent. Class warfare at its finest. Rich bad. Poor good. Childhood logic.
Let me first address your three questions.
"- Do you think the freedom to do whatever you want is the priority rule?"
-- That question implies unlimited freedom without any constraints. That would in turn mean chaos because you could do whatever you wanted without consequences. You could freely take a persons life without consequences. That is not libertarians vision of "freedom" or "liberty". We support liberty up until the act you take infringes upon another persons "natural rights". So that is the extent we support freedom and liberty. So long as you aren't hurting another person and infringing upon their property and their natural rights, you are free to do what you want and it is no one else's business. Does that answer the question for you?
"- Do you think the strongest should survive?"
-- That is a loaded question. It depends upon what you mean by that. As far as evolution goes with respect to natural selection, yes the strongest survive, but only in the primitive animal kingdom such as in the wildlife in the Serengeti plains of Africa because for lower life forms, it is the law of the jungle. There it is a ruthless life where it is survive or be killed and every animal for itself so yes, in that respect, it is meant to be that the strongest survive. However, you are making the mistake in trying to apply that system of living to ***** sapiens. We are mammals and are a higher life form that has a self-aware consciousness and have free will and the ability to think and act in terms of moral choices, unlike the animal kingdom. We have an awareness and understanding of morality that has been developed through our evolution of which liberty is a part of that very moral evolution so we can use our free will to make "moral" choices that can benefit us or benefit others as we voluntarily choose to help another person out of our kindness instead of chasing down another person like they're prey and clamping down on their neck with our powerful jaws and carniverous teeth and snapping their necks and ripping open their flesh as we happily lay lazily under the African Sun, proud of our trophy meal. Human beings have become a much kinder, more civilized species that knows how to peacefully live amongst others. It is our intelligence, our reasoning ability, our self-awareness and our moral consciousness that separates us from the lower animal kingdom so it is disingenuous to use the line "survival of the fittest" when it comes to us. Sure, there are extreme exceptions that will tend to bring out the primitive, bad side in human nature when there is panic in the streets for example and people are starving and seeking food. Then the mechanism of self-preservation kicks in and people will tend to become more uncivilized towards each other, however that can all be tamed and nipped in the bud with liberty and a free market. It is rather government that devolves human nature. Human beings are a spiritual animal and people will help others out voluntarily if given the chance. Do you have no faith in the human race when it comes to that? If you don't then it baffles me as to why you would then trust the human beings when it comes to the dangerous entity of government. It would not be survival of the fittest like you would see in the animal kingdom because unlike the animal kingdom, you would see plenty of people voluntarily sacrificing to help those who are weaker so your survival of the fittest argument isn't even relevant to all of this
"- Do you think there is no need to protect those that cannot protect themselves?"
-- A need to protect someone who is physically and/or mentally handicapped for example? Yes, those people do need help, but what makes a huge difference is in HOW you help them, through what channels. If you're talking about using some bureaucratic agency to help others by using force (with unintended consequences) to make someone else give something up and sacrifice in order to serve something you deem as noble then it becomes wrong and immoral at that point. If you're talking about voluntary acts of kindness on the other hand, then that can be a good thing.
-- First of all, let me quote Ayn Rand here. "You have no UNCHOSEN obligations in life". (emphasis added) I have nothing against a person voluntarily sacrificing of themselve to help someone else. That can be a decent thing. The problem comes when you force people to do that. Morality requires having free will and the ability to make choices. When you take the voluntary choice out of it and make a person do something, then you take the moral goodness out of it. When you say someone should be given something free and that they should get it free through the use of force much like what would be done through socialized health care, you are requiring someone to sacrifice and give something up in order for the other person to receive the free help. That in itself, mandatory sacrifice, is immoral.
-- Another thing is, when you try to implement acts you deem as noble, through government, you aren't going to get exactly what you expect as you will have unintended consequences and it will be delivered in a much less effective, efficient, and compassionate manner than some individual or business would be able to provide it in the free market. Government can no do anything as well as the free market does and there are countless examples of that so if you are truly compassionate and really want to see people get the best help they can get, then what you would want is to allow the free market to help people because then people will get much more effective and compassionate help than what they would get from the government. There is no customer service with the government and no incentives and profit motive and all those self-interests as well as altruism that you would get in the free market.
-- Visualize this. Some group of people come marching down to your house and pound at your door. They have guns that they point at you and they are lecturing to you that there are some sick, dying, starving people that need some food and money and they also have some homeless person with them who needs some shelter. You're an every day, decent person who of course looks out for yourself and your family, but also performs acts of kindness every now and then to help others. You have problems of your own. You and your family are kind of struggling right now and are just barely getting by and are waiting on your next pay checks. These thugs at your door bust into your home and shove you out of the way. They walk around your house looking for any goods that they deem as being necessary to take to provide to these other people they say are suffering. They go into you bedroom and your childrens bedroom. They steal some of the clothes that your family owns. They take some furniture and take some food out of your refrigerator. After all, this is all going to be donated to these suffering people...don't you know. Then they tell you take your wallet out of your pocket for their own perusal. They look through it and grab a couple greenbacks. Oh, and one last thing. Before they go, the scruffy homeless person they have with them....They tell you that you must take this homeless person into your home because he needs shelter and on top of that, he's going to have to shack up in your childrens bedroom. Some grown stranger sleeping in the same room as your kids. Now you've just lost some of your spare cash in your wallet that was going to be used towards God knows what. You're out of some food that was previously in your refrigerator and just lost some of your furniture and clothing. You thought your family was already trying to make ends meet. Well now its gotten worse and you've lost some of your necessities. After all, with government, it's always an inefficient reallocation of wealth distribution all the while there is no net gain for all parties involved. Oh, and some of your stolen money in your wallet was actually going to be donated to your favorite charity. Not now though. Your daughter out of some clothing in her room also has to deal with the distraction of this strange man in her room while she has to do her homework. You also can't go do some grocery shopping this week because things were tight for you and just got tighter. Ok , yeah, maybe some of what I'm saying here is sounding facetious and silly, but it all applies. Think about this.
Now, wasn't that easy? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@daonlyfreez:
- Do you think the strongest should survive?
As opposed to what? "The strongest should be killed?" (Did you mean to say "ONLY the strongest" or something? But libertarians, whether anarchist or misguided^Wminarchist, certainly don't believe that. Your straw-man model of "libertarians" is just that) - cheez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@JDenigma
great answers. on the first one, essentially what you are talking about as rights as side constraints on what we do. (there are two interpretations of rights, and that is the classic libertarian way) any action is just so long as the action does not violate the rights or liberties of another person. If an action does so, it is simply removed as a possibility. - eexlebots, on 11/11/2007, -12/+18"
-- First of all, let me quote Ayn Rand here."
Please don't. - JDenigma, on 11/11/2007, -9/+4@eexlebots
There there eexlebots. I know you secretly love Ayn Rand lol Try not to get yourself worked up there too much. It must be past your bedtime. I have a bedtime story for you. It's called "Atlas Shrugged". Sorry, no pictures. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Go figure... I'm closer to Gandhi than anyone else. But I do like to play devil's advocate and try to make people think about their position.
- tech42er, on 11/11/2007, -2/+14Nice to see some more libertarians on Digg! In truth, I don't know exactly what I am. Informally, I'll refer to myself as a "libertarian" or "classical liberal" but I'm not entirely sure what I'd technically be. I prefer to identify my politics with my positions on issues (gay rights, gun rights, marijuana legalization, etc.), my Political Compass location, my support of free markets and capitalist society, my general support of the Cato Institute and Mises Institute, and my opposition to authoritarian nanny states.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@cheez and JD
Maybe you guys can help me. I was talking to my Republican, conservative friends about libertarianism, specifically the legalization of marijuana, abortion, and gay rights, and tried to tell them how libertarianism allows for everyone to exercise their rights, providing it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. They claim they have the right to not be offended by, for example, gay marriage, and want to know why gays' right to get married trumps their right to not be offended and emotionally harmed by their marriage. What would you say? - JettaMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6About the best newby introduction to these principles is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, or possibly Atlas Shrugged. Both excellent books that really helped me sort out my beliefs.
- mlfoley, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9The original Libertarians were left wing socialists.
These capitalist clowns have stolen the good name of true Libertarianism. Instead of getting rid of all sources of unjust "authority," the capitalist Libertarians would simply have us exchange government for corporations. - Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"They claim they have the right to not be offended by, for example, gay marriage, and want to know why gays' right to get married trumps their right to not be offended and emotionally harmed by their marriage. What would you say?"
They have no right to not be offended.
You have the right to walk away and ignore them, though.
I have the right to call you every name in the book, but your right to be offended ends when you try to stop me. - crispee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@tech42er
There's no such right to not be offended. This is fundamental to our constitution. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech -- even offensive speech. I may not agree with a racist, but I will defend their right to speak hateful words. However, their rights stop at words. If their racist ACTIONS infringe on the rights of others' freedoms then they've crossed a line and deserve punitive action.
Edit: @Lyph4 yep - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@tech42er
I'm surprised to hear that that is your friends central argument. That's a weak argument and if they consider that to be their biggest argument than they're on weak ground. That is absurd if they claim they have a right to not be offended. No one has any such right. If people had a right to not be offended then it would logically follow that free speech could be quelled. I could claim that something offends me and thus that something should be banned and outlawed. They're making up rights out of whole cloth there. They are also insecure about the institution of marriage if they think allowing same sex couples to marry, would destroy the institution. Marriage was first of all around even long before the American republic was in existence. If your friends are married, ask them if they would get divorced if suddenly tomorrow same sex people were allowed to get married. Given that your friends are also conservatives, it's also likely that they're concerned about promiscuity. Tell them that if they are worried about homosexuals being promiscuous, then why wouldn't they support the idea of homosexuals getting married. After all, encouraging them to marry would discourage promiscuity and isn't that what they want? Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry and shouldn't have to seek permission from the State to get married by way of a government license. The original intent of the marriage licensing in the U.S. was to prevent interracial marriage. The real answer is to get the government completely out of marriage in the first place. The moral state of the culture isn't going to degrade and fall apart if we allow same sex marriage. It's just irrational fear and religion underlying this. They're just afraid and they're using emotional arguments against you. These same sex leaning people aren't any less human than the rest of us. They need to get beyond this fear they have of their lifestyle. They aren't hurting anyone else and taking away anyone else's rights. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@tech42er
Have you heard of this show? http://www.freetalklive.com/
I would highly recommend you check that out for all sorts of libertarian ideas being discussed. - mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@tech42er - "They claim they have the right to not be offended by, for example, gay marriage, and want to know why gays' right to get married trumps their right to not be offended and emotionally harmed by their marriage. What would you say?"
Where's the offense? They cannot claim a "right" to not being offended - there is no such thing. If that were the case, we should ban everything that could ever possibly cause somebody else to be offended. "I don't like your tie - it offends me!" or "OMG! He just took the Lord's name in vain! On a Sunday! Burn him!"
Really, there's no damage being done to them by allowing gay's to marry each other. They are not being forced into it [gay marriage], and they can choose to simply ignore or turn away from it. It does not pose any physical threat to them and it does not impinge on their rights to act freely in return. That is the essence of libertarianism.
My definition is simple - It's none of your damn business what I do as long as I do not harm the person or property of another. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ dannolyfeez
Look up the harm principal by John Stuart Mill. Then go read some Locke. Until then, don't play philosopher, and don't pretend that you know what jack about anything, you have no clue what the f$%& you are talking about. - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The politicalcompass test is useless.
You will get a lot of guided consensus on carefully worded, generalized statements of principle.
But what really determines your political compass is your views on *real current issues* which seldom if ever live in a hypothetical vacuum or lack conflicting interest.
A perfect example would be;
"I believe all citizens should have unfettered access to quality healthcare"
vs.
How you vote on a proposition for middle class americans to have a 4% federal income tax hike to provide government-subsidized healthcare services to low-income individuals. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Libertarianism is UTTERLY simple and an eternal truth. You own yourself.
This idea has been bastardised to a certain extent by anarchocapitalists and others who believe the freedom of the individual extends to the freedom of the market or the corporate entity.
The flaw is of course that the freedom of the corporate entity often infringe upon the freedoms of the individual. It is at that point that the individuals band together into committees/governments and put limits on the freedoms of the corporate entity. (similarly governmental entities often infringe upon those freedoms too and must be kept in check)
To think you can be an anarcho-libertarian too is a falsehood... you simply don't live outside of the system... the logical conclusion of libertarianism is that every individual on the planet, indeed every organism and every element on the planet is equal and lives in equilibrium with every other part. The worlds not ready for that though... Lets start with equality for every man, woman and child and go from there. Let's live ethically. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ha ha ha, someone didn't like me recommending http://www.freetalklive.com/ to someone else and buried me.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@tech42er (#6037994) said: "@cheez and JD
Maybe you guys can help me. I was talking to my Republican, conservative friends about libertarianism, specifically the legalization of marijuana, abortion, and gay rights, and tried to tell them how libertarianism allows for everyone to exercise their rights, providing it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. They claim they have the right to not be offended by, for example, gay marriage, and want to know why gays' right to get married trumps their right to not be offended and emotionally harmed by their marriage. What would you say?"
I agree with what crispee and JD are saying. There are no such rights as not seeing something. For instance, I have a right to play violent video games. Hillary Clinton has tried to ban such games from being sold to children and teens. She has no right (nor does the government) to make any law to inhibit free speech or expression in any form, even video games. She can say that these games are bad and that we SHOULD not play them, but she cannot prevent people from doing so.
The key definition is the line that is drawn between SHOULD and MUST. Should is advisability or prudence, and must implies enforcement of some kind. While it may be advisable that we not play violent video games (there is evidence that it is bad, however flawed the studies) we must not be allowed not to. So long as we are not playing video games that actually kill, harm, maim or destroy the property of real, living people, there must be no law against its use. - cheez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@JettaMan (#6038114) said: "About the best newby introduction to these principles is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, or possibly Atlas Shrugged. Both excellent books that really helped me sort out my beliefs."
adding to that list is is The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. he writes about how liberal democracy is inevitable because fascism (and all authoritarian governments) fail. Even if you disagree with what he says, well... just read it. It's the most intelligent political philosophy written in the past fifty years. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Maybe you guys can help me. I was talking to my Republican, conservative friends about libertarianism, specifically the legalization of marijuana, abortion, and gay rights, and tried to tell them how libertarianism allows for everyone to exercise their rights, providing it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. They claim they have the right to not be offended by, for example, gay marriage, and want to know why gays' right to get married trumps their right to not be offended and emotionally harmed by their marriage. What would you say?"
Basically: everybody has the same rights. If they purport to have a "right not to be offended" by whatever, then they have to accept that _everybody_ has the right not to be offended. But some people will be offended that they take offense at gay marriage, or whatever, therefore the "right not to be offended" cannot be consistently granted to everybody, and isn't a real right. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ bitcloud
"It is at that point that the individuals band together into committees/governments and put limits on the freedoms of the corporate entity."
You are right that libertarianism is about the simple truth that we own ourselves, but the above is wrong. Corporate entities can only exist through government edict. Anarcho-capitalists do not support the idea of government created entities having the rights of individuals. Even if a free society should happen to develop something like a corporate entity, it could have no rights other than the rights of the individuals making up the corporation. Without the force of government, no corporation would have special privileges.
Considering non-human organisms equal to human individuals is also contrary to anarcho-capitalist principles. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@daonlyfreeze
Finally, someone who understands this *****. Libertarianism is a complete ***** paradox. Like many good ideas, it makes sense on paper, but fails in reality. Specious. Libertarians constantly use rhetoric to paint government as an entity separate from all humans--and constantly bring up the idea that it uses 'force' to maintain control. The government is designed to be at the whim of the people. Without the government, 90% of people would have no say whatsoever in how their lives are controlled. Your 'freedom' would turn into a corporate dominance pretty damn fast. Who's going to enforce your magic economy? It'll be a passive regime--security forces to protect the land that is 'legally' acquired out from under people. It wouldn't work and it would just lead to a nepotistic, elitist society. Coincidentally (or not), the people who would benefit the most from a nepotistic and elitist society are the ones who tend to be libertarians. I'd like to see some actual research that confirms libertarian societies could work. In the meantime, go check some behavioral economist experiments to see a lot of evidence that undermines libertarian assumptions. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Libertarians do one thing very well: argue the benefits of free markets.
They do one thing that's very bad: completely ignore and/or deny the empirically-demonstrated weaknesses of free markets. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1I knew I was going to be dugg down, because of my wording. Still, if you take a closer look at the arguments presented here, it comes down to:
- The best 'system' is freedom, freedom will make things better for everybody
- The 'government' is evil, no good, and only takes away freedom
Dig a bit deeper, and it comes really down to:
- I hate paying taxes! Why don't we just abolish taxes, so I can optimize everything with my freedom to spend it how I like
- I am already fortunate enough to have the luxury to call myself libertarian. I am strong enough (since I made my share of money), so everybody else could too (if you can't you are lazy or incompetent).
The problems with this utopian ideal called libertarianism are:
- Who is going to enforce correcting wrongdoings?
- Who's freedom is 'worth' more than others freedoms?
- Who is going to pay for all the general services around?
Sure, you might have the freedom to not pay taxes in a libertarian system, but the consequence of this freedom would be too that there would be huge holes in the road, water would only flow to those who can afford it, and healthcare would only be affordable to those who 'survived the fittest'...
And if you hear someone quote Fukuyama as a credible source of wisdom...
Run!
Please do take a closer look at the theories of libertarianism: _only_ those that fare well already would call themselves libertarians, because they think they could survive in such a system.
Don't get me wrong: I'm very pro small government, and very pro freedom of choice, but the 'free market' and 'capitalism galore' are _not_ the right systems to promote freedom for all, they only promote freedom for the few. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1And why are 'morals' and 'family values' spouted as soon as the harshness of a libertarian system is questioned?
'Morals' or 'family values' are _not_ incorporated into a libertarian system, only hardcore individualism is.
"If I'm doing well, everything is just dandy".
Nice system (not!). - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
Nice quote that says it all...
From here: http://zompist.com/libertos.html - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@appetite
It is government that makes corporations powerful. The difference is that political-entrepreneurs use government to compete with violence while real entrepreneurs use the market and provide better products to their customers. In the free market a company can only get big if people are willing to pay for the services because they provide a better service than the competition. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Read this: http://zompist.com/libertos.html "What's wrong with libertarianism"
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"The libertarian party believes in capitalism (deregulated economy) and extremely small government."
And progressive social laws. Most Libertarians don't know what the ***** their party represents and ignore large parts of the platform, which is why I don't trust the party at all. - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is apparent here is that the only people opposed to libertarianism seem to be those that know absolutely nothing about it. If you argue from the stance of "what happens to public programs (roads etc.)?" you are an idiot and have no idea what you are fighting against.
Libertarians stand on the belief that the wealth, while most likely concentrated, will be great enough that the standard of living will rise for everyone and not just those in power. You assume that making the rich richer is a bad thing even if the poor become richer as well. We speak of an overall increase in wealth and standards of living for everyone, but arguing that there is any proof that libertarianism is faulty is a simple lie because there has never been a society in the world that was capable of eliminating the ruling power to implement our society because of people like you who like to be ruled, governed, and cared for because of your individual frailty. - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1cheez,
"but there are also things that the private sector does more effectively (I believe "effeciently" is a combination of efficiently and effectively) and efficiently than the government, like health care. Look at Walter Reed."
You probably want to find a different example than Walter Reed for how the private sector does better than the government. Walter Reed was being privatized.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1195 - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Pfhreak
What you and so many others don't get is that "being privatized" has nothing to do with the free market. "Being privatized" is just adding another layer of corruption on to government corruption because the government "services" are not being opened to the free market. They are being contracted to favored companies in the "private sector." Those companies generally can't make a profit selling their good and services to voluntary buyers, so they get government contracts that allow them to supply inferior goods and services for inflated prices. Even if they get the contracts through competitive bidding, they can't provide decent services for lower than cost prices, so they either have cost overruns (meaning they get more taxpayer money than they originally contract for) or they cut even more corners on the service they provide so they can make some kind of profit.
I've occasionally sold to government offices so I know how it works. The manufacturer of my product secured the contract through whatever means and I got a slightly lower commission, but the only work I had to do was tell the government office which model would cost enough to use up their budget for that equipment. With private companies, I had to prove that a particular model could do what they needed for the lowest price, but the government office wanted to spend the most money for the least rather than the least money for the most. The government office needed to spend the entire budget so they would get a bigger budget the following year, even if it meant getting equipment that wasn't the best for the job. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Posters continue to prove my point.
"You assume that making the rich richer is a bad thing even if the poor become richer as well."
There is a certain quantity of wealth floating around, X. If the top 1% hold 90% of the wealth (and it's become much closer in past couple of decades), how exactly do you support your presumption that the poor are richer? If the top 1% held 50% of the wealth, that leaves an extra 40% more wealth for the other 99% of people, 40% MORE than when testing your statement - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"There is a certain quantity of wealth floating around, X. If the top 1% hold 90% of the wealth (and it's become much closer in past couple of decades), how exactly do you support your presumption that the poor are richer? If the top 1% held 50% of the wealth, that leaves an extra 40% more wealth for the other 99% of people, 40% MORE than when testing your statement"
To start with, your first presumption is false: there is not "a certain quantity of wealth floating around". Wealth is created all the time. Every voluntary exchange creates new wealth (and every involuntary exchange destroys wealth, which is why government regulation - preventing voluntary exchanges and/or forcing involuntary ones - is necessarily bad!). Secondly, the idea that 1% of people hold 90% of the wealth, aside from being an exaggeration, has come about in the _NON FREE MARKET_, statist/mercantilist world you (think you) prefer. That simply wouldn't be possible under true laissez-faire capitalism. (Nevertheless, you can still see the effect R34C7 was talking about, even under the fake-capitalism of today: the rich may be comparatively richer, but even the poorest people in so-called "capitalist" countries are FAR richer in terms of living standards than the rich of a few generations ago, or than anyone in communist states) - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No, it's not false.
"Wealth is created all the time. Every voluntary exchange creates new wealth (and every involuntary exchange destroys wealth, which is why government regulation - preventing voluntary exchanges and/or forcing involuntary ones - is necessarily bad!)"
You couldn't be any more vague could you? So there is a constant cycle of destruction and creation of wealth because of "voluntary and involuntary actions" and that proves that "wealth is created all the time"? First of all, that is A COMPLETE ***** AND NONSENSICAL STATEMENT, but I will play along. Government regulation is an involuntary exchange, according to you, that destroys wealth......Well let me analyze that...NOPE. Regulation is what succeeds in preventing things like slavery and injured/disabled workforce, crippled by workplace or environmental tragedy as a direct cause of company operations without regulation.
"but even the poorest people in so-called "capitalist" countries are FAR richer in terms of living standards than the rich of a few generations ago, or than anyone in communist states)"
That's because of strong regulation and attempts to eliminate corruption. But using the poor of a few generations ago to represent how "rich" the poorest people are today is fallacious for obvious reasons. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Osjpr
"You couldn't be any more vague could you? So there is a constant cycle of destruction and creation of wealth because of "voluntary and involuntary actions" and that proves that "wealth is created all the time"?"
There was nothing vague or hard to understand about what Misesean wrote. I'll try to make it even simpler. When one person makes and consumes his own goods, like a primitive person only eating the food he grows and wearing the clothes he makes and living in the shelter he builds himself, there is no wealth created. That is a zero sum economy and the only situation where you can say that there is only X amount of wealth. Wealth can be destroyed by raiders burning crops or stealing the primitive person's goods, but it can't be created without trade.
As soon as two people exchange the goods they make for the other person's goods, wealth is created. When two people make a voluntary exchange, it is because they both get more than they are giving up. If they didn't both benefit from the trade, they wouldn't voluntarily make the exchange. Therefore, there is value (wealth) created that didn't exist before the exchange because two parties are better off. It may be only a small value created, but millions of voluntary exchanges add up to major increases in wealth.
In contrast, every INVOLUNTARY exchange destroys wealth. Involuntary means that one party to the exchange is giving up something that is worth more to him than what he gets. A mugger saying "your money or your life" is one example of an involuntary exchange, but taxes are the same principle. Whether you give up money because you don't want to die or because you don't want to go to jail, you are losing value that you wouldn't voluntarily give up. Even if you are given something in exchange, like dangerous roads to travel on, you are worse off than if you had been allowed to trade that money for something you really wanted.
If voluntary trade didn't create wealth, we would all still be living at subsistance levels like primitives. Fortunately, the miracle of voluntary exchange and free markets can create enough wealth to make up for a lot of depredation by governments, but we would all be wealthier if we weren't robbed by involuntary exchanges.
- daonlyfreez, on 10/22/2007, -58/+20OMG, I'm in the bottom-left corner with Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama!
- Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17You can't have a deregulated economy without the non-intervention in foreign affairs as well. War is the health of the state.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16all you need is to defend yourself. you don't need to be offensive to protect a deregulated economy. homeland security is good so long as it doesn't impede civil liberties. offensive war is not.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Obviously, you believe a state an only support itself through war. That's not true.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16all you need is to defend yourself. you don't need to be offensive to protect a deregulated economy. homeland security is good so long as it doesn't impede civil liberties. offensive war is not.
- bartscott57, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22If only pro-war "Libertarians" would read this and admit that they are Conservatives.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21exactly. libertarians aren't pro-war. rep. ron paul is for nonintervention.
- jtp8736, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I am most certainly a libertarian, but I've been torn over the war in the past. I currently feel like it's time for our troops to some home. Just because you disagree on one point doesn't mean you no longer identify with a party.
And by they way, libertarians are conservative. Smaller, less centralized government, returning Constitutional rights- theses are Conservative ideas, just not Republican (The 2 are not interchangeable) - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ jtp8736
Words have meanings and one of the meanings of libertarian is "opposed to wars of aggression." Libertarians have some beliefs in common with conservatives, but we also have some beliefs in common with liberals. The whole point of the article is that, if you believe that wars of aggression, in particular the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, are in any way justified, you are a conservative and not a libertarian, no matter what you like to call yourself. - srf21c, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Anybody that supports (criminal) foreign wars of aggression is not a libertarian.
Confused? Yes.
Dishonest? Likely.
Libertarian? No way in hell. - olik, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1The article's discussion of war, and the above comment, prove to me that no one here has read Robert Nozick. I therefore cannot take any of this seriously as a libertarian position, but a bunch of naive liberals or moderate anarchists. If you don't know who Robert Nozick is you don't know libertarianism. If you do, then you know that his _entire_ concept of the state was to provide security from those out the state.
Get serious you wackos - read Nozick and learn for yourself why the libertarian position has more holes in it than swiss cheese. If you can finish "Anarchy, Utopia, and the State" without abandoning this absurd world view, then congratulations, you are a nut, but a true libertarian. - srf21c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Robert Nozick's "_entire_ concept of the state was to provide security from those out the state"
....uuuhh, whatt? Read that sentence back to yourself out loud, and tell me if it makes any sense.
Furthermore, the assertion that "If you don't know who Robert Nozick is you don't know libertarianism" is preposterous. As if Robert Nozick singlehandedly embodies all libertarian theory.
Comedy, pure comedy. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There's a lot of conservatives and free-marketeers who claim (falsely) to be libertarian.
Fortunately libertarianism is a basic fundamental truth. It will resurface under a thousand different names whether we accept it now or in the future. Those who drag it through the mud and suggest that the freedom of the corporate entity is covered under libertarianism are completely wrong. A corporate or political entity which infringes upon my personal rights to (for example) breath clean air is literally at complete odds with the premise of libertarianism...
It's being used as a trojan horse at the moment, but we'll see that change as people educate themselves about it. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"If only pro-war "Libertarians" would read this and admit that they are Conservatives."
If only the socially conservative "libertarians" on Digg would admit they are, in fact, conservatives. True libertarians don't object to acts or behaviours which purely offend their moral sensibilities, such as gay marriage or gay adoption. Curiously, the same group of "libertarians" seem to pop up in three kinds of articles:
1) Those on libertarianism, to promote Ron Paul, who is socially conservative and hostile to gay adoption, gay marriage and so forth.
2) Those on Islam, to ridicule Islam and claim Muslims are taking over Europe.
3) Those on the EU, to level accusations of totalitarianism and claim Muslims are taking over Europe.
Where are the real libertarians? - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ kronix2
"If only the socially conservative "libertarians" on Digg would admit they are, in fact, conservatives. True libertarians don't object to acts or behaviours which purely offend their moral sensibilities, such as gay marriage or gay adoption. Curiously, the same group of "libertarians" seem to pop up in three kinds of articles:
1) Those on libertarianism, to promote Ron Paul, who is socially conservative and hostile to gay adoption, gay marriage and so forth.
2) Those on Islam, to ridicule Islam and claim Muslims are taking over Europe.
3) Those on the EU, to level accusations of totalitarianism and claim Muslims are taking over Europe.
Where are the real libertarians?"
You are right that "true libertarians don't object to acts or behaviours which purely offend their moral sensibilities." The reason I support Ron Paul is that, although he is personally socially conservative, his voting record has been consistent in refusing to approve government interference in moral issues. You may dislike him for not supporting legislation that forces your agenda on the nation, but you can be sure that your enemies dislike him equally for not supporting their agenda, even though he may personally agree with them.
You are also right that there are a lot of self-labeled libertarians on Digg who argue for positions contrary to libertarian principles, but there are also a lot of true libertarians on Digg who don't "claim Muslims are taking over Europe." True libertarians don't buy into the fear mongering tactics that politicians use to stir up hatreds that will allow them to indulge in war for power and profit. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I'm a pro-war, anti-ron paul libertarian leaning conservative.
War is one of the handful things we need a federal government to do... and I still believe the war in Iraq can turn Iraq into a pro-Western Democracy, being the first domino to fall in the Middle East.
Ron Paul's protectionist and anti-federal reserve economic positions are frightening and wholly against any real Libertarian's principles.
The simplistic generalizations and overemphasis on drug policy (like its the be all end all libertarian principle or something) in that article were beyond pathetic. Anyone who diggs this story is a moron, or someone who hasn't read it yet and is only using the digg as a bookmark. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Military intervention is the one way we can be sure tihngs will go for the worse. The best thing we could have is more freedom at home and eventually they will notice the good of it and want that for themselves. Forcing a freedom they don't understand down their throats with military might is ***** stupid, pointless and unproductive, it hurts them and it hurts us: only politicians could've thought of that.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5`You are right that "true libertarians don't object to acts or behaviours which purely offend their moral sensibilities."'
Well...except that he isn't. True libertarians should, and do, object to behaviors which purely offend their moral sensibilities. There's a big difference between "objecting to" and "using violence (including legislation) to suppress" such behaviors. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Forcing a freedom they don't understand down their throats with military might is ***** stupid, pointless and unproductive, it hurts them and it hurts us: only politicians could've thought of that."
Basically you're saying that these people are barbarians and completely uncivilized. They completely understand freedom, they also understand how brutal the terrorists are and are afraid of them.
You are a racist. Only a revisionist liberal could've regurgitated that pathetic argument. Go ask some of the old timers in Japan or Germany what they think of freedom. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Me a racist? You just lost this argument...
Anyways, the "freedom" we try to impose on them isn't real "freedom" at all anyways. It's American fascist corporatism. True freedom isn't in America so how could America export it anyways?
If we offered true freedom, they would welcome it with open arms.
- Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16" Do you think the freedom to do whatever you want is the priority rule?
- Do you think the strongest should survive?
- Do you think there is no need to protect those that cannot protect themselves?"
Most libertarisn don't think this and do support helping out those in need and are often strong supporters of family values. They just don't believe in forcing others to contribute. Private charity has always worked better and is always far less likely to reduce human beings down to atomistic selfishness like the welfare state has done, replacing real flesh-and-blood human contacts like family with that of a welfare check in the mail instead.
"The problem with most libertarians is that they don't want to recognize that there are certain services that the government can provide more effeciently than the private sector."
Like what? Education? Health Care?, etc.
"No libertarian, no 'survival of the fittest', no 'the economy is the one and only important thing in this world', no 'we don't need government, my boss knows what's best for me'..."
Last I checked, libertarianism meant individualism, meaning that only you know what is best for you, not your boss, or the government. It's not your boss however who prevents you from becoming self-employedy because you "don't have a license". And libertarians don't believe that the economy is the only important thing in the world, since most libertarians are actually supporters of family values. Or did you think that the recent libertarian movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness" was a decadent and materialistic movie, even in spite of the father's obvious love for his son? Do you think that government is any different from many corporations? If your boss knew what was best for you, then he would be no different than government and libertarians would be no different than any other statists for forcing the workers to submit to the boss. The trouble with anti-libertarians is that they actually believe that person has to be employed by somebody, hence the origin of the word, "wage-slavery" as if the workers wasn't in a free-market allowed to start up their own business and become self-employed, which many regulations and licensing laws forbid.- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To Mrhuh,
Excellent rebut. No brag; just clear facts. On point, Mrhuh.
Individualism, self-determination? Not for the masses!
I've always enjoyed Mencken's idea:
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."
H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, Feb. 12, 1923
Capt. A.
************
- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To Mrhuh,
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune"
That's why I don't agree with this article. Being guided by principle is more than simply voting based on principle. My roommate was a huge Libertarian, and he would endlessly bitch about the way people in his fraternity behaved. Sure, he professed principles of libertarianism, but in reality, he muddled in people's lives plenty. He just didn't think the government should mess with people. That's why I don't like the Libertarian party in general. It sells out the movement for cheap political points. The Cato institute never puts out articles about how people should behave towards each other, they only talk about the connection between government and people.
I am not criticizing the issues of the Libertarian party here, I am just saying the claim that Libertarians are guided by principle rings hollow.- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Are you suggesting that a libertarian isn't allowed to bitch about how people behave? Why would you think that?
When you say "the claim that Libertarians are guided by principle rings hollow", do you mean that members of the Libertarian Party are widely known for using force to make people behave the way they'd like? Your college roommate used to beat or threaten other members of his fraternity? ('cause I had sort of assumed when you said "bitch" you meant "complain", not "beat and kill") If so, you have to realize that a lot of people who call themselves "libertarian" really aren't (cf. Bill Mayer), and your psychotic roommate may have been one of those. (Also note that most libertarians are not Libertarians (members of a political party), and many, perhaps most, Libertarians aren't really libertarians) - lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I think Bill Maher perfectly represents what I think true libertarianism should be. Whenever personal behavior is talked about, his response is almost always, who gives a ***** it's not your life. His politics might not line up with the Libertarian party, but that's exactly my point. Politics is a tiny portion of our lives and shouldn't define the other 95 percent.
"Are you suggesting that a libertarian isn't allowed to bitch about how people behave? Why would you think that?"
That's exactly what I am suggesting. Mind you though, I am saying libertarianism, not Libertarianism. I think that's what the Fountainhead was about. Saying ***** off to the world is not a one-way street. If you want to be left alone, you have to leave others alone. Howard Roark never soapboxes or lectures. Only when directly asked does he answer what he thinks about others.
And to this whole libertarianism / Libertarianism thing. I am following the communist / Communist naming convention. The movement versus the organization. I really don't have that deep of problems with Libertarian party, but I do have problems with libertarians, because I often believe they are no such thing. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The biggest problem that the Libertarian Party has always had is that it is a contradiction in terms. A major principle of libertarianism is that coercion is both immoral and impractical (in that it almost always results in unintended consequences). Yet the whole purpose of a political party is to gang up and force its agenda on everyone by gaining control of government and its monopoly on violence.
That contradiction keeps most people who hold libertarian principles from joining the Party. The libertarians who do join (and I was one of them for a while) tend to use it as a learning experience and a way to meet other people who believe in freedom. Unfortunately, most of us have a lot of trouble identifying the contradictory ideas that cause us problems, so there are plenty of Libertarians who act like they don't have a clue what practicing freedom and respecting the freedom of others means.
One of Anthony Gregory's major points in this article is that what defines a libertarian is not the lifestyle he chooses but how much respect he has for the lives and rights of other human beings, including human beings who live in countries like Iraq. The Libertarian Party will never win national elections, but libertarianism can change the world by teaching people that letting other people be free is the best way for everyone to get what they want out of life. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I think Bill Maher perfectly represents what I think true libertarianism should be. Whenever personal behavior is talked about, his response is almost always, who gives a ***** it's not your life."
Well, that's a misunderstanding of libertarianism (quite possibly the same misunderstanding Maher (oops; not Mayer) himself makes when he calls himself a libertarian). What you're describing is much closer to the libertine than the libertarian. The libertarian principle is basically "don't initiate the use (or threat) of violence against others". That doesn't mean you have to accept any behavior - just that your only response is ostracism - to go elsewhere, refuse to deal with them and have them on your property, etc. - not to beat them up or imprison or kill them, or be complicit in other people doing so (e.g., government). - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you see someone doing violence to anyone, nobody's saying you can't step in. Ostracism is a libertarian response to _non-violent_ disagreeable behavior/nature; e.g., homosexuality, drug (ab)use, sexual promiscuity, skin color - whatever it is you dislike; not to actual aggression - libertarians are not, in general, pacifists. I was just pointing out that lieutenantmudd has the wrong idea in thinking that libertarians should be positively accepting of any non-violent behavior.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Are you suggesting that a libertarian isn't allowed to bitch about how people behave? Why would you think that?
- anaesthetica, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The author seems like an okay guy, but come on. Look at what he wrote:
"In fact, the young conservatives, often with bigger bank accounts and less interest in actually reading anything, often seemed to have more time and money to party than the leftists. Their fiestas were quite a riot, in fact. I went to one, and when I found that no one wanted to talk about political philosophy or economics, but instead just get really stupid drunk so as to forget by morning what he had done that night, I went home disappointed."
He "went to one" party in college. And was bummed when no one at *the party* wanted to talk about _political philosophy or economics_!??! Oh man, I don't even know where to begin.- Skavenblight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Indeed, drunken parties might not be the best place to get a serious discussion going.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1delete
- chthys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The points made by the author do not rest upon the author's experience at conservative parties. This was an excellent article.
- ErrorS, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8On some of their websites (probably not any more, was this way in 2004) they actually suggested instead of government funded military defense, people should build their own missile defense systems in their back yard, with government assistance, of course.
The party is a joke, thank God 90% of the population knows this..
Only the most independent individual gets anything out of the Libertarian party. You pay for your schooling, even elementary, toll roads (or 'fix them yourself'), fair tax (rediculous for anyone in the middle class), the end of the EPA, the end of most intelligent and defense agencies, federally and state funded schools? gone..
GOD, these people are like cultists. I think I hate them more than scientology freaks.. this is the worse fad I've ever had to experience in my life, ever.. Not only that, these people wont ever have a chance of winning, it's probably a Democrat scheme to eat up Republican votes like the Republicans did to us with Nadar in 00'.- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8They are not like cultists at all, their entire message is personal freedom and choice, what cult advocates going your own way? You are the cultist, defending the government stealing our hard earned money (income tax).
If you want to tax people, ONLY tax them on what they use. For instance, I think all income tax should be abolished, and pretty much the only tax there should be is sales tax. This makes perfect sense for the following reasons. If you eliminate income tax, persons will have much more money, thus they will buy much more. And so it will balance itself out, and GREATLY benefit our economy. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah well, the feelings mutual.
- ErrorS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What about all that money sitting in banks collecting interest?
Fine, tax the money we spend.. but we'll just carry the weight for the people who don't spend. It will encourage hoarding (which is bad), it will encourage buying items off of a black market, it will encourage people buying items from overseas and the big spenders of the country (the middle class) will be the ones to carry the brunt of the load. We do it already but I promise you it will be much worse with fair tax.
Should I also bring up the importing we do? Especially the big manufacturers? Again, they wont be paying ANY taxes at all and I say once again, it will encourage more importing (under the table dealings mostly) from China and Mexico to keep taxes low. We can control their taxation now, it's based on what they make on the American people, base it on what they spend? We wont be able to tax them for buying car parts and electronics from China or wages in India.
It's a fair tax to large corporations, it hurts the small businessman, it hurts the middle class, it wont work.
And you're not looking at a 7% tax here, closer to the 30% most Europeans have, FEDERAL, that's not counting the 5-10% from local.. and are the big oil companies paying taxes? No, the CEO is when he buys his 200k car, not when he sells his billions in gasoline.
Fair tax will NOT work, I can give a dozen names of respected economists that agree with me. - Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Libertarianism is a naive niche for certain conservative and liberal elements.
Economic conservatives value the pro-business and laissez-faire (I hate french) economic aspects of libertarianism.
Extreme liberals like libertarianism because it advocates irresponsibility like smoking legal pot all day and doing whatever the hell you want. (although they never realize that libertarianism also calls for doing things like working to survive, something which those same lazy people aren't exactly good at)
It catches certain elements from both parties due to the idea of isolationism. (another thing that doesn't work, especially in today's global economy).
All in all, these libertarians remind me of the communists in the way that they talk about how great their theory is and never how to practically apply it to the current status of the country. - DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Jagdhund, what you have just said makes so little sense, that I am not sure if you really comprehend what Libertarianism is. You just compared libertarianism with communism, when in fact, libertarianism is exactly the opposite of communism, absolutely and 100% the complete opposite. Communism wants HUGE government, and government run business, libertarianism wants privatization of nearly everything, and a government that has little power.
You also implied that thing such as smoking should be outlawed due to smoking being irresponsible. Smoking pot is safer than drinking alcohol, is it time to re-enact prohibition? You made another interesting comment about pot smokers, and said they are lazy, which is not true. Smoking pot, contrary to propaganda peddled to us by the anti-drug folks, does NOT make you lazy and stupid. Lazy and stupid people can be found in any group of social activity, including the consumption of bottled water.
I find it interesting that you seem to say that lazy people are worthless, yet you then imply that the poor lazy people won't be able to keep up in a libertarian system. Which is it, and why exactly is it a bad thing that you have to *gasp* WORK to succeed? If you cannot keep up, that is your own fault. And we should not have to pay for your failings. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There are plenty of libertarians who work to get their ideas implemented. Milton Friedman might ring a few bells. Just because you don't know any off the top of your head and haven't done any actual research doesn't mean it's true.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ ErrorS
Why would you mind paying for all those government "services" yourself if the total cost was a small fraction of what you are paying now in taxes? Unless you don't pay any taxes because you live off a government income funded by money stolen from people who actually produce goods and services that people buy voluntarily, you should want to be able to choose to pay only for the services you personally use or believe in.
You are right about the "Fair Tax." It is unfair and won't work. The so-called libertarians who came up with the scheme are anything but libertarian and they have gulled a lot of real libertarians into supporting it without understanding how contrary to real libertarian principles such a tax would be.
@ Jagdhund
Just because you haven't read any of the books or articles that describe exactly how a true libertarian society could work and why it would provide the incentives to promote the good and discourage the bad in human nature does not mean that libertarians haven't developed those answers. If you aren't just being an a--hole, try Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty." It is an easy read that explains exactly why liberty is the best policy for human beings. You can even read it or listen to it online for free.
If you want more detailed descriptions of how to get from here to there, there are plenty of great articles at www.mises.org. - ErrorS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0darkreign, you're the one that has comprehension problems. He wasn't saying Libertariasm's views were like Communists, he was saying that like communists, they can't give you good reasons for why their theories work.. it really wasn't that hard to understand.
and they are conservative both socially and fiscally, like Republicans, just more so. Legalizing Marijuana might make a few potheads happy but I promise you this appeals more to unhappy Republicans than to Democrats.. quite a bit more.. In fact, I don't know why people call democrats potheads, drug use is the type of thing my party likes to regulate. I'd see Republicans (well, pre-Reagan republicans) legalizing Marijuana before Democrats would.
To be fair, both Democrats and Republicans are relatively moderate compared to some of the more extreme parties.. Clinton had more in common with Reagan than he does with his wife. - Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Don't give me that crap. I know plenty of what libertarianism here (I've been called it on a few posts).
There's nothing wrong with libertarianism, it's just a tool that people use to further their own goals (like most ideas). Please read the rest of my sentence, I compare people using the idea of libertarianism like communism. They think about the THEORY and not the APPLICATION. These are two entirely separate things.
Oh, and I am against my workforce poisoning themselves on drugs and alcohol. No, it doesn't make you stupid, but it certainly helps. But that's my morals. *shrugs* - Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks for the suggestion, joybran. I might just look into that.
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So wait just a second here, you think that they should not be able to choose to "poison" themselves simply because it differs with your morals?
Also, you stated that libertarianism is only about furthering our goals. What movement isn't? And the only goals of libertarianism are to give total freedom of choice, and individualism. Sound like the best movement yet.
Libertarian is very practical, in more than just theory. It is all about choice, freedom, and an economy for the people, not for the government. - ErrorS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1joybran, no, I disagree.
If only 60% of the population wants to pay for a new school and I'm part of the 40%, I'm happy to put my money towards the cause..
Not to mention, I'll be the first to admit I don't always know what's best for me.. I don't want to pay for that school now but I'll be glad it's there if I ever have kids..
and I can see people paying to keep roads up, to build highways, dams, I can see people putting money into national defense, into the DMV, USPS if they had a choice.. wait, no I can't? They may be bad examples but hopefully people will understand what I mean. If everyone had a choice, things would be worse off on the whole. I'm not going to want to put my money towards repairing 29th St when I live on 20th and vice versa, yet neither neighborhood can afford to maintain their roads.. so what do you get? A run down looking city. - slezzzter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@ErrorS:
You've obviously never read the FairTax legislation. Imports are taxed too. Everything sold at a retail level is taxed. What the FairTax does is make America the greatest tax haven in the world. Businesses will move here and export. They'll be able to employ more Americans without paying taxes. Also a fallacy, since businesses don't pay taxes, the taxes are simply embedded in the cost of products. There is a great deal of overhead in black market sales. To assume that products purchased tax free and illegally are going to be cheaper than those in retail stores with the consumption tax added is not well founded.
I could continue to point out ErrorS in your post, but it would be best if you would actually understand the FairTax before making these assumptions. - DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No, only those who do not use services such as roads, schools, etc should be able to choose. Those who DO use them, should pay for them, because that is only fair, and their money is going to what they use, and only to what they use, and thus they choose to pay taxes in that way. It makes perfect sense, and I see no reason why it would not work BETTER than the current system.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Yes, darkreign, that's correct. I do not subscribe to moral relativity. Total freedom of choice is impractical, and you cannot honestly think that it will be easy to regulate it to the point of :does not infringe upon the rights of others". That's a gray area the size of Alaska, and whom do we trust to make decisions if all responsibility lies in the individual?
Please elaborate on the practicality of your beliefs. - DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow Jagdhund, what makes you think that your morality should be dictated upon the people? That sir, is just sick.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sick? It has been the human condition even since the first vestiges of civilization. It is unfortunate but true that humankind is not ready for universal self-responsibility. You honestly don't think that would work, do you? I do not mean to set up a straw man here, so please, if this is not your idea, then tell me what is. I would refute your actual position if you made one.
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My position sir, is freedom, and you don't have to be "ready" to have freedom. Freedom is inherent, it is sickos like you who actually spend their time defending slavery that hold freedom back.
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8They are not like cultists at all, their entire message is personal freedom and choice, what cult advocates going your own way? You are the cultist, defending the government stealing our hard earned money (income tax).
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I Am Anti-Stalin!
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I myself am a libertarian (anti-war too). The libertarian message is this, "One should be able to freely choose to do whatever one wants to him/herself, or with other consenting adults. So long as your actions do NOT hinder or interfere with the rights or freedoms of another individual."
So basically, total individual freedom. Taking the above guidelines, here are some libertarian positions on social issues:
ABORTION - for
GAY MARRIAGE/POLYGAMY - for
PROSTITUTION LEGALIZATION - for
LEGALIZATION OF GAMBLING - for
LEGALIZATION OF ALL DRUGS - for
DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE - for
The above are only a small handful of issues that libertarians would agree on. The gist is that no one, including the government, has the right to tell a person how to live their life, if it harms no one else.- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I agree they all should be legal. Personally, I disagree with some of them. But there's the problem right there: the government cannot legislate morality. Sure, people in government can have their own morals, but they can not force those morals on their citizens because of their power. A good example would be another Digg story I read, where a high schooler wanted to have a Halo 2 tournament. He rented his school's gymnasium and sent out flyers and did everything necessary to put on the tournament. He decided to call the police department to inquire about security and just let them know what was going on. The police captain didn't think he should be allowed to hold the tournament because he thought the kid was too young to play Halo 2. That's fine; he is entitled to his opinions. However, what the police captain did ext was wrong. He called the school and pressured them to cancel the tournament. As a result, the school canceled the tournament four days before it was scheduled to go on. The police captain abused his position of power to force his views on others. That's wrong.
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I pretty much agree with you tech42er, you are allowed to have your own opinions, hell, you can even disagree with some of the above on a personal level, but rationally you need to separate personal opinion from trying to make your views law. No laws about morality are necessary, freedom is inherent as a human being, it's a right, not a privilege, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can take that right away.
So kudos on being smart and rational enough to be able to place personal issues on one side, and law on another. If only more politicians could come to that conclusion. - stanleyford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"ABORTION - for"
I consider myself moderately libertarian, but I am against abortion. The government intervening in order to increase the rights and freedoms of one party (the mother) at the expense of the rights and freedoms of another party (the infant) is not only contrary to the principles of libertarianism, it is downright statism. - DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sorry stanleyford, but a fetus has no rights. if a fetus has rights, then so do cells. After all, they all have the potential to become a human.
A good analogy for being pro abortion:
If a little troll was inside of you, and you decided that you wanted it out, immediately, is that not your right? Or would you say, "you must let it live inside of you, that troll has rights!". It's a foreign entity. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@ darkreign16
It isn't exactly correct to say that the libertarian position is FOR abortion and doctor assisted suicide. It would be more correct to say that the libertarian position is AGAINST the government either promoting or prohibiting either.
For example, Ron Paul is personally pro-life, but as a principled libertarian, he is as opposed to the coercive legislation that the pro-life lobby wants as he is to the coercive legislation that the pro-choice lobby wants. - mmortal03, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Check out Libertarians for Life: http://www.l4l.org/
- DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That is true joybran, but that is what I meant. I said that if you take the libertarian position on things, you will come to these conclusions based on your LIBERTARIANISM, not necessarily your personal views.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@stanleyford:
"The government intervening in order to increase the rights and freedoms of one party (the mother) at the expense of the rights and freedoms of another party (the infant) is not only contrary to the principles of libertarianism, it is downright statism."
That's why libertarians are against government getting involved on abortions, period. The fetus is a couple of cells and when the mother decides to abort, the fetus is a litterally a parasite. If that hurts your feelings, sorry. But you could get your wish and with the demand scientists will invent a machine that can suck the fetus out and inject it into another woman.
In the meantime, if you criminalize it, you know it's going to go black-market and dangerous.
- leo78, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0All this arguing is useless.
Since no matter how hard people try to change it, right now America is a two party country.
And it's gonna stay that way for a long time unless certain laws are changed.
But the two parties in power will not let that happen.- a7knight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Tell that to the whig party, the federalist party, the democratic-republican party, etc. All these parties used to be the ***** back in the day ... now where are they? No where.
While there are usually only two major political parties at a time in America, parties do occasionally fade out. I think it's about these older parties (republican and democrat) start making way for newer ones, such as the libertarian party. - leo78, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I believe the last non Dem. or Rep. in power was in 1912 (Roosevelt and he was a Republican before that)
The Whig party was a republican party when it dissolved in 1834.
The Democratic - Republican party became the democratic party in 1828.
Federalist party was in the 1700's.
All third party votes are now just a way to skew the real candidates.
- a7knight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Tell that to the whig party, the federalist party, the democratic-republican party, etc. All these parties used to be the ***** back in the day ... now where are they? No where.
- vanadium77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ugh.
- YourMothersMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm late to the show here, but damn. Great article. Bigg Digg.
"But those who think libertarianism is just a libertine brand of Republicanism, please just admit you’re conservatives so we can all move on."
Here here! - olik, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Guess what word doesn't appear in any of the "libertarian" dribble that shows up on digg, and never will:
Equality
Ask yourself why.- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Equality in opportunity. Not equality in outcome dumbass. You lefties worship egalitarianism.
- crispee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Libertarians believe in the equality of opportunity. Your definition of equality and theirs don't agree. However reasonable people should agree that there are many definitions of equality and most systems of government aim to achieve one or more of those definitions.
- kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Equality in opportunity. Not equality in outcome dumbass. You lefties worship egalitarianism."
Right, because massive corporate deregulation and dismantling all welfare provisions and social services will create equality in opportunity. Oh wait, it doesn't and never has in human history.
For some, libertarianism is a trojan horse with which to introduce a flavour of socialism which favours the rich instead of the poor. - mrgone333, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The point of Libertarianism is for you and your property to be free from interference. How could this as a philosophy be even possible if everyone wasn't equally entitled to the same freedom?
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Argh; digg down - replied in the wrong place.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Everyone is arguing about what Libertarianism is or isn't, but no one is talking about the fundamental beliefs that underly it. Libertarians simply value dollars before anything else. The reason the Libertarian believes that unrestricted free markets provide the optimal solution to nearly all situations involving limited supply is because they only value the most economically efficient outcome. Markets are the best economic mechanism yet devised for allocating resources efficiently, however (and it's a big however), markets operate completely independently of morals, ethics, or convictions. As an extreme example, it would be more efficient to kill people when they reach retirement than to place a burden on economically productive citizens to provide services for them. Without laws and societal forces acting against that sort of thing, markets would tend towards exactly that.
Believing that removing the rules from the market would result in a better market with benefits for everyone is like believing that removing all the rules from the game of American football would result in a more civilized game. It's really making the same mistake that Communism made, and that's assuming that the basic nature of people is good rather than corrupt.- shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I believe that some of the very core beliefs of libertarianism are not bad. But unfortunately, that's about as far as it goes. You said it quite concisely with libertarians valuing money over anything else. I've seen, quite honestly, the most ridiculous stuff come from their mouths on digg and lewrockwell.com, from proposing voluntary tax (ha!), to being apologists for Augusto Pinochet because he happened to employ a lot of laissez-faire policy during his dictatorship.
The problem I keep running into when debating with them is the outcome of their ideas. They want to get rid of a plethora of different taxes, but then don't offer anything as far as what's going to happen to our roads, our police, our fire departments, etc. They want to abolish business regulations that foster fair competition, as well as ones that curb greenhouse gas emissions, but won't explain what's going to stop multinational corporations from taking over everything and polluting willy-nilly. The only thing I ever get out of them are two things:
a) The market will take care of it
b) Personal responsibility will prevent problems
You think I'm gonna trust Exxon-Mobile and Halliburton to BE RESPONSIBLE?
The market doesn't need to be bound-and-gagged by government regulations, but it DOES need to be kept in check to foster equality, fair competition, and welfare. - DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6False, a game of football must have rules because it is a game. Business should not be treated like a game, it's a way to make money. It should be free of most, if not all, government restrictions.
- xs650, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Believing that removing the rules from the market would result in a better market with benefits for everyone is like believing that removing all the rules from the game of American football would result in a more civilized game. It's really making the same mistake that Communism made, and that's assuming that the basic nature of people is good rather than corrupt."
Listening to many libertarians, it sounds like their ideal country would be Somalia. Essentially no government interference in their lives and their lives are governed by the consequences of their actions. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't know where you get these ideas from, but you're wrongly portraying the market as being this cold, unstable predatory system devoid of any morality. To clarify for myself, I'm not an anarchist. I don't understand why people keep on associating the term free market with the anarchist label when you can have a free market in a minarchist government. I happen to be a minarchist libertarian though I'm becoming more and more open by the day to the possibility of anarchy in the future for mankind.
Your example about it being more efficient to kill old people in their retirement age than to provide services for them sounds absurd. I don't see why that would be. Libertarians don't think of human nature as being inherently good. Rather we see human nature as being neutral, neither inherently good or bad. The invisible hand of the free market as coined by Adam Smith is the most effective, compassionate, and conducive system for human nature. It makes people more responsible, moral, and caring. As you can see with more and more government, people are becoming more irresponsible, lazier, and less caring about their fellow man. It is government that devolves human nature. If what you said there was true about it leading to old people being killed, it would seem to me that we would already be seeing such things then if that was the case, but we're not. People are always generous and willing to help out the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped. Who knows what kind of helpful voluntary societies and charitable organizations that you would see spring up that would provide their own free market version of a safety net. You seem to be saying there that we thus need social security. No true libertarian would support social security. The government can't make it work anyway. It's going to go bankrupt. Without it, people would have all sorts of alternatives for investing in their retirement and besides that, there would be people who would provide services as a sort of insurance safety net to help out those in need. Without all this government, people would also be wealthier and thus be able to afford to be more charitable. Your idea just seems to be paranoid and is stretching things. The invisible hand of the free market is what enables moral behavior in the marketplace. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I apologize. I forgot to mention who I was addressing my comment towards. My comment was meant for "jerbaker"
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ jerbaker
The reason we are arguing about what libertarianism is or isn't is because people like you have no clue what it is. Your rant proves it. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@ shirosamurai
"You think I'm gonna trust Exxon-Mobile and Halliburton to BE RESPONSIBLE?
The market doesn't need to be bound-and-gagged by government regulations, but it DOES need to be kept in check to foster equality, fair competition, and welfare."
What you don't get is that the only thing that allows Exxon-Mobile and Halliburton to be IRRESPONSIBLE is the favors they get from government. Because there is a government powerful enough to protect them from competition and criminal prosecution, they can plunder the American taxpayer and use the plunder to keep buying more politicians, who keep giving them more favors.
The free market is based on very simple principles of voluntary exchange (i.e., you can't force people to buy your goods and services like government does), property rights (i.e., you can't take someone's justly acquired property just because a majority votes to do it) and contract law (i.e., you have to keep your promises instead of changing the rules whenever a new party comes into power). Equality of opportunity, fair competition, and the general welfare of all are the natural results of those principles. Only brute force can stop them from operating automatically, and government is nothing but brute force. No amount of brute force can make markets operate better than they operate naturally. Every instance of "market failure" is actually an example of government interference in the free market. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Exactly joy. He was confusing mercantilism with the free market.
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"The problem I keep running into when debating with them is the outcome of their ideas. They want to get rid of a plethora of different taxes, but then don't offer anything as far as what's going to happen to our roads, our police, our fire departments, etc."
Well, libertarians (at least, economically-literate libertarians) realize that central planning doesn't work. What you're asking for here is a central plan to replace the central plan :) It's not possible to answer it. Some may give possible ideas, but they're only ideas, not the fully-worked-out solutions you're asking for.
Imagine, if you can, living in a world in which communism rules. There are always miles-long lines outside shops patiently waiting to acquire the few stale loaves of bread, etc., that are available each day. Now, someone comes along and says "you know what, if the state got out of the food business and left people alone, I think more people would get fed!" You come along saying "how is that going to happen? Don't be silly! Who would bake the bread?", etc., exactly as you're doing here wrt roads, police, etc. Nobody could answer that, either. But you and I are fortunate enough to live in a world in which private production of food actually takes place, and you can see the results for yourself. And you can compare it to state production of food in the Soviet Union (which wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, thanks to non-communist states existing in the rest of the world). Food is far cheaper and more plentiful, with more variety and greater quality, etc., when privately produced. What makes you think roads are so very different? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6In fact, saying that made me think to check whether anyone had posted Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" to Digg before. They hadn't, so I did: see http://digg.com/politics/I_Pencil
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't misunderstand Libertarianism at all. Libertarians believe that a free, unregulated market will yield the most optimum results. My argument is not with that, it's with the definition of "optimum." If I believed that the optimum society was one with the most efficient economy, then I would be a Libertarian. For me, there are many things more valuable than money or capital, and so I do not judge the success or value of a society on how efficiently its market functions.
For Libertarians optimum means yielding the most economically efficient outcome. That is, by definition, amoral. I'm sorry you do not like it, but money does not have morality. The whole reason the corporate model of business has been so successful at generating massive amounts of wealth while exploiting people and resources is because it diffuses the responsibility. No one single person in a corporation is "responsible" for the actions of the corporation. It's just like the firing squad where only one has real bullets and the rest fire blanks. It allows everyone to feel better about their participation in the raping of the planet ... because they aren't directly responsible. Nobody is.
Aside from all of that, no professed Libertarian believes in REAL free markets any way. If we had a real free market, the next time there was a strike every union in the country would strike and the economy would shut down. Let me hear you say you believe the U.S. laws against sympathetic strikes should be repealed.
- shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I believe that some of the very core beliefs of libertarianism are not bad. But unfortunately, that's about as far as it goes. You said it quite concisely with libertarians valuing money over anything else. I've seen, quite honestly, the most ridiculous stuff come from their mouths on digg and lewrockwell.com, from proposing voluntary tax (ha!), to being apologists for Augusto Pinochet because he happened to employ a lot of laissez-faire policy during his dictatorship.
- EverySam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Hypothetical for libertarians on digg:
It's 2030, America is completely libertarian, with minimal government interference. I'm a 15-year-old boy working at Wal-Mart. I have been working there for three years at $3.50 an hour (that's the equivalent of $0.60 today). The manager at my Wal-Mart is a hardcore Baptist. He discovers that I am, in fact, a homosexual. He considers this highly immoral and fires me immediately. As the government no longer interferes in the labor process, I cannot contest my termination. With a "severe workplace infraction" and dismissal on my record, and the nation's population exceeding 500 million, how can I get a job anywhere?- TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1That doesn't have to do with labor laws, but rather anti-discrimination. Any Libertarian would be all over that case and the manager would be imprisoned or fined and let go.
We aren't for complete excision of governmental powers, but rather the reduction of amount of control the government has over a certain subject and how many departments are created for specific purposes.
But oh well, with neighsayers and pessimists like you, America can't go wrong! Right? - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@thenik
Actually, I'm a libertarian who would be against government enforced anti-discrimination laws. I can see the knee-jerk reactions now. I'm sure there are some who would call me a bigot for that. I believe businesses should have the right to discriminate in any way they choose and it's not governments business to tell them otherwise. Those people who would fear a world of bigoted businesses and no place to go for employment are paranoid and don't understand economics. Chances are if word got out that a business was practicing discrimination against certain people based upon things like skin color or religion, that the business would suffer a loss of business as a result and maybe even go out of business. Would you frequent a business that you knew was being bigoted? The business would get bad publicity. It would be ostracized. It would be boycotted. It is also in businesses interests to accept as many customers as possible so it is also likely that the money would talk more. Even if you were to be fired by some bigoted business, it's not as if there wouldn't be anywhere else you could go. There would be many more jobs in a free market and many people also lose sight of the fact that businesses also compete for employees. Even if you couldn't find a job in the interim, you would always be free to create your own job by being an entrepeneur.
thenik, you aren't speaking for all libertarians there. Your presumption is wrong. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@ everysam
If it were a completely libertarian society, there is no way you would be working for the equivalent of 60 cents an hour. Without the government draining so much wealth from our economy, you would more likely be making the equivalent of $60 an hour. There would be so much more economic opportunity, you would never choose to work for a bigot. If you took the job without finding out what a jerk your boss was, you might get fired, but if you couldn't find another job, you could start your own business because you wouldn't have all those government barriers to prevent you, including age discrimination. Without government interference, the only reason not to start your own business is that you prefer to work for one customer rather than having to find many customers. Being an employee is nothing more than selling your labor services to one customer. You get to charge more money if you can find more customers. - TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That's one of the downsides to our ideology, my friend.
We (speaking, of course, for people that share a libertarian idea) feel it is outside the government to regulate certain things, which is - in this case - anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time we believe that people should be the governors of their own personal liberties as long as they don't infringe on another's own freedom. THAT is where this becomes paradoxical. Who will protect the people that are discriminated against if we can't infringe on the liberties of the offender?
While we may not share the same views in this situation, I'm sure there is a delta where my situation could coincide with another ideal of your own. Sorry for umbrellaing 'bertarian ideology. :P - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ thenik
"Who will protect the people that are discriminated against if we can't infringe on the liberties of the offender?"
Freedom doesn't mean that people who infringe on the rights of others can't be held accountable. Society has many ways to hold people accountable for the wrongs they commit. A libertarian society would emphasize restitution and reparation rather than punishment, but people who refused to abide by the rules of the society would undoubtedly be punished by means such as ostracism or shunning. For example, who would trust someone who refused to make reparations for his wrongs enough to buy from or sell to him? - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's also think about this when it comes to this fear of racism and bigotry. As we know obviously, human nature is flawed and there are ignorant racist, bigoted people out there. Its been with us through time immemorial. However, human nature is malleable and perhaps moreso. Human nature I believe can improve and evolve and in fact I think it obviously has ever since we've been walking on this planet. The proof is in the pudding with regards to that. If you think about far out into the distant future or even think of simply an intelligent civilization elsewhere in the universe that is far advanced from where we are, do you think those futuristic or advanced civilizations would seriously still have these ancient problems that we still contend with today, such as racism and bigotry? Evolution seems to play a part in everything and we are an evolving species. Racism and bigotry clearly doesn't seem to be as bad as it was in recent history for us. At least its not as overt anyway. Those flawed emotional states in our nature have been slowly disappearing over time and given enough time as we evolve into the future, the concepts of bigotry and racism will become an ancient relic of the past and will be wiped out as we evolve as a species. Eventually these things will go away over time. They are not going to be constants in life as many would think. So that is something to think about when it comes to the fear people have of people being free to discriminate in the marketplace on those grounds. This can also apply just as well to many other faults in human nature. If you just give it a chance, liberty will allow human nature to evolve and improve the world. Liberty and evolution do go hand in hand with each other. If you're concerned about the flaws in human nature, then the answer is liberty. Without it, human nature will just become stagant and devolve. You can just call me a libertopian ;-) Think like a sci-fi, futuristic type of person.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hmmm, see maybe I'm a minarchist libertarian who is kind of riding the fence in leaning a little more and more lately towards the idea of evolving towards anarchy.
- JMnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@everysam
Just a few thoughts on your hypothetical. Sorry it is so long winded and wordy (We Libertarians love to talk... the party is pretty much debate club for adults).
"15-year-old boy working at Wal-Mart. I have been working there for three years at $3.50 an hour, $0.60 today"
Well for starters, how many 12 year olds do you know today who want to start working at Walmart? I remember at about 14-16 wanting to work to earn money for stuff I wanted that my parents couldn't afford like a car, video games and other stuff like that. If Walmart only payed me $0.60/hr then it would have taken me a lot longer to get what I wanted and I would have not have had the same motivation as I would making more money?
In the ideal libertarian world there is no government setting "minimum wage". It
- TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1That doesn't have to do with labor laws, but rather anti-discrimination. Any Libertarian would be all over that case and the manager would be imprisoned or fined and let go.