Questions about libertarianism
 

I'm not a libertarian. I believe I understand a lot of the broad strokes of libertarianism, but I find myself constantly questioning libertarians about their beliefs and very rarely get answers (as many of them are libertarian in name only).

Tilted libertarians, I hope you'll step forward and explain exactly what it is you believe and possibly take a shot at answering my questions and the questions of others.

What do libertarians do about the environment? It seems that libertarianism largely ignores non-human issues that could eventually have some effect on humans but do not have any short term effects. Things like climate change or pollution often are left to the market, which is more concerned with itself.

Why do you believe rights are inalienable? Obviously it says so in the Constitution, but I've had several discussions on TFP before where it's been plainly established that there is a proportional relationship between how sacred a right is and how powerful proponents of said right are. If only 80,000 people in the US were pro-gun proponents, I suspect that the right to bear arms would be largely ignored despite it's presence in the BOR.

Where does the idea of privately owned property get it's genesis and why is it an assumed mode in libertarian theory? Mises went on and on about private ownership, but I have yet to encounter a libertarian that can explain why there is a connection between using something and somehow having an exclusive right to said thing. I've argued before that in pre-agrarian societies of humans, most property was collectively owned by the group of humans, and this can be demonstrated in other primates and intelligent animals.

Why do you believe freedom to be more important than equality? Can you demonstrate that a more "free" society is more successful? More happy? What about people who repeatedly make bad decisions that effect others?

I have more questions, but I think (hope) these are a good jumping off point for discussion.

Thanks for reading and I hope this will be a friendly and fruitful discussion.

That has always been one of my biggest complaints about libertarians. They are reactive in their environmental policy rather than proactive. It is easier (and cheaper) to not cause air pollution than it is to deal with the consequences of dirty air.

Take a look a China and all the air pollution complaints. Is that what you want to happen?

You could always go to lp.org for their official stance on these issues.


Since Kutulu has officially turned this thread into a libertarian-bashing experience, rather than a knowledge-seeking, open-minded endeavor, I'd rather not respond.

lp.org does have a lot of information, but it doesn't seem to address any of my questions. When it discusses the environment, it just gets into how bad the EPA is and how the government pollutes.

I'm still knowledge-seeking.

I will try to answer you question on the environment. I am not well-educated in libertarian theory, but I certainly understand the relationship between property rights, choice and the environment.

Property rights aid in the protection of the environment. I removes the problem that is the tragedy of the commons. Where a person or organization owns a piece of property, they have a vested interest in the health and protection of that asset. Some will be more interested than others but overall, persons will not want their property damaged by pollution.

In forestry (my field) the current debate in British Columbia is over selling Crown land to the forest product companies. Currently, taxpayers simply charge stumpage and pay for road building, while companies are responsible for complying with regulations and reforesting. The system prevents the forest companies from gaining economic return for managing for other resources suchs as mining, hunting, fishing or ecotourism. If these companies owned the land they harvest they would also control the access of the other resources, which are not insignificant. Hunting, fishing and ecotourism all require healthy and robust ecosystems, which are certainly possible when forestry is conducted properly.

Climate change is a more difficult solution. Certainly within one area (region or country), air pollution litigation is certainly a solution (especially with in the USA). Where a country has a truly free market, the people will speak with their wallets. They will buy products that produce less GHGs, or invest in less GHG intensive industries and companies. Or they will simply believe the evidence is incomplete, and should not be forced by their fellow citizens to change their lifestyle.

Well, I dropped my LP membership after realizing that the party has no direction and is an incoherent mix of single-issue voters dedicated to every cause out there, religious nuts who want to dismantle government authority so that religion can take its place, and right-wingers who don't like the religious connotations of the Republican Party. Only one of their top candidates had an immigration policy that was anything other than xenophobic or outright racist, and Bob Barr ... that was a joke, right? But I'll answer anyway. I do not agree with everything I'm saying, but I'm giving the libertarian response to each question.

The basic libertarian principle is to regulate only to prevent harm to others and to force those who do harm to take responsibility. Air/water/food quality and sustainable use of natural resources are necessary to prevent harming ourselves and others, so ideologically pure libertarians would believe that legislation to prevent individuals and businesses from polluting to a dangerous degree is ethically allowable. LP members are more likely to favor a free market of carbon credit trading regardless of the fact that it wouldn't work.

The basis of libertarian philosophy is that the right to extend one's fist ends at the tip of your neighbor's nose. If something does not directly harm others, it should not be regulated. Therefore, guns shouldn't be regulated, using them to harm others should.

A person who owns property (by allodial deed) is free to act on his property in any way that does not directly harm others. Food, water, and shelter are basic human needs and may not be taken away by a government. Deeds in the US and most other countries grant permission to use the land to a certain depth below ground level and a certain height above ground level, but can be seized through a number of legal means. To put conditions on property ownership means that the individual is not the fundamental unit of society, whereas libertarianism holds the individual as that fundamental unit.

Libertarianism holds that an individual is entitled to what he earns in a free market, not what a government decides he is entitled to or says he is allowed to earn. This is the basis of opposition to affirmative action, income tax, etc.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that a libertarian system will function only if each individual is a libertarian who holds the same beliefs. Think Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. If that condition isn't met, the system is as flawed as any other.

CandleInTheDark,

Maybe I should leave climate change at the door because it's such a hot-button issue.

Anyway about pollution... it's effects are rarely quick and are often cumulative. Let's say you have a leather company. You use chemicals to treat the leather, which you dump locally to save costs because you've been assured there are no negative short term effects on the environment. 50 years later, people are getting sick because it's seeped into the ground water. When you consider the 50 years of more expensive dumping in an area where it theoretically cannot hurt anyone compared to possible liability for the health effects on some people, it turns out that it's more cost effective to dump locally and have a few sick people settle in court 50 years down the line. By my understanding, according to libertarian theory, the correct libertarian decision would be to dump locally, right? There could be some fallout with some buyers, as people speak with their wallets, but if you're able to pass on the savings (or remain competitive in some way due to the cheaper costs of local dumping) a lot of customers may decided to stay on board because they're not directly effected. Or affected, I get those confused.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 02 : 16 : 32-----
I appreciate your responding.
So you're saying that LP members and pure libertarian theory are at odds on this issue? That's very interesting.
So the idea of prevention measures would not likely be popular with libertarians. Moving away from guns, though, it still seems that rights are held to be sacred in libertarian theory. They are beyond reproach so long as they don't directly injure others?
No, I'm talking about the idea of personal property being a necessary mode for libertarianism. It seems that mode is never really established. Collective ownership can work and has been demonstrated to work in human history. Considering that, wouldn't libertarianism be based on an incorrect assumption: that private ownership is moral/natural/etc.

I've had several lengthy debates with a good friend of mine who is a Mises worshipper and he insists that private ownership is moral, natural, and correct and that anything else is wrong or somehow doesn't even exist. This belief is not uncommon.
This assumes that the market is fair. I don't ever recall seeing evidence that the market is consistently fair. Maybe it's a difference in what I think "fair" is compared to a libertarian?

A little sensitive? It is quite obvious that their position is to be reactive. I have asked many people why they think this would work and I rarely get a straight answer.

Ok, I will do my best.

First, I am a libertarian, but the libertarian party itself is poorly organized, fractured, and full o fproblems.

For me, rights are inalienable because though a government may not recognize them, they are the essential freedoms a person must have in order to be sovereign, or truly responsible for theirselves. I also believe that suppression of those rights is an essential element of any oppressive government.

As far as private property is concerned, I personally feel it stems from being able to keep the fruits of your own labor. If there were no private property, and willravel worked very hard to have a nice garden, the lazy masses who wanted fresh vegetables without the bother of growing them could take as they please, leaving nothing for the producer. The extension to property (not necessarily land) is easy...if you work to generate the resources necessary to produce, purchase, or otherwise acquire something, nobody else should be able to take it from you because 'they need it more.'

I know some very early societies, and some modern primitives dont' believe in private property. However, you don't see this in modern society as it simply isn't a successful strategy. When everyone shares everything, the people who work the hardest and are most productive are unable to realize additional gains over their neighbors. There is no incentive to go the extra mile as the person who doesn't will get to enjoy the results without the effort.

I work extremely hard, to include being shot at, in order to put a roof over my head, etc. and I believe very strongly that nobody is more entitled to the fruits of my labor than I am.

Libertarians (excepting the extremists that are present in any party) don't believe in no government, just small government, with money spent only on those things that are of vital importance to the nation. For instance, the postal service, military, core services, congress, etc. It is largely up to the individual to interpret what is meant by *essential*.

A great example of this is socialized medicine. The libertarian philosophy is that individuals are far better able to choose what is right for them than the government is. If you want healthcare, then you are better off paying for it directly and getting exactly what you want than paying through taxes for a cumbersome, expensive, unresponsive federal version. Can't afford healthcare but want it? Then get a better job because using tax dollars stolen from someone else is income redistribution at best and is, in my opinion, far closer to outright theft and extortion (since the goverment doesn't leave you any choice.) The libertarian utopia is a society where everyone is responsible for everything they do, and the government is the bare minimum to maintain order and the sovereignty of the nation. However, much like every other 'ideal' I can think of, it isn't something that could ever actually work. But it doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from taking a few huge steps in that direction.

Oh, to touch on the environment real quick: Just as it would be reasonable to stop a company from spewing cyanide gas into the air and killing off a local town, it is reasonable for the government to pass laws which protect it's citizens. Reasonable environmental safeguards are perfectly fine, so long as they will protect PEOPLE. Saving a wood toad (or insert some insignificant but endangered animal) is not normally justifiable unless the lost of that creature would have a clearly definable negative impact on peoples lives (like cutting down the last tree on ester island). Otherwise it's just natural selection at work.

China isn't even close to libertarian. Actually, your post is an argument for libertarinism because the alternative definetly has not helped china's enviornment.

Assuming there are rights that are objectively essential for people to be sovereign, what does personal sovereignty mean? Does that mean you do everything for yourself, or just most things?
This assumes one mode of social organization and ignores all others, though. I brought up pre-agrarian social organization in humans because it's existence defies libertarian explanation. Imagine a group of 12 humans that live as a unit of some kind, like a pack. What they each contribute isn't for themselves as individuals, but rather for the whole, to ensure the continuation of the social unit. This can still be seen in the way that parents care for children, but that children also work to support the household. When I was a boy of 12, my dad made something in the neighborhood of $50k a year and I had a paper route which made a few hundred dollars a month, but we both contributed to the household in the best way we could. I, as a child, did not have the education, discipline, nor opportunity to make $50k a year. This fact was taken into consideration and I was allowed to live on the collective fruits of the family's labor just like my dad. Was I lazy or was I simply not in a position to provide for myself? Was my father hurt by providing for me? Is responsibility for one's kin/unit/etc. something hat cannot be transferred to larger societies?
I beg to differ. Back in 2002, I decided to join some friends in a joint real estate venture and we each collectively owned what we purchased. One could even argue that stocks represent collective ownership.
This makes sense, but it also represents a splintering issue for libertarians. The meaning of essential strikes me as being very much subjective and subjectivity is a problem when dealing with political or economic theory because it directly effects the real world application of said theory.
This assumes federal healthcare is worse than private healthcare. I know most libertarians are concerned with government interference in the US medical system, but I doubt anyone could argue that the US system is more socialized than actual universal healthcare systems used elsewhere that happen to be better.
I wish it was as easy to get a better job as you make it seem in your second sentence. In theory it's great but in practice most people have the best job they can get. If someone wasn't born into a situation that made good education and job opportunities possible, who are you to say they are doomed to live the life they happened to be born into? Is that fair? Does the market reward all hard workers with a living wage or better?
So you're okay with the existence of the EPA? Most libertarians I know want it dismantled.

The point is what can happen when there is a lack of environmental controls. If we want our environmental policy to be based on boycotts and lawsuits, China is an example of where we will be headed.

Could you be a little more specific in what that venture was?
Stock; while spread over a larger array of ownership, still pursues interest in how the company does in the free market. It’s not like everyone has ownership- we’d be buying from ourselves. The freedom to buy a larger percentage is still present as well.

I know this has been talked about before, but I need a refresher. Where are the better systems at?

Will, how have you become sold on this mindset? Go to an Anthony Robbins seminar or something. Your statement can be just as generalized and assuming in the other direction. Sometimes people do get lucky, but the other 98% of time things aren’t easy. Most of the time financial success (if that is what you are basing this on) requires determination, true unwavering intention, and most of all hard work. I wasn’t born into any kind of wealth; in fact my family was in the ghetto a step away from welfare. By the time I finished college I was $70,000 in debt. I turned it around, because I didn’t let anything stop me. Did I have a few kicks to groin on the way, sure? Will I have any more, maybe? The hard work it takes makes the rewards that much better. Are the ones born into wealth lucky? Perhaps, they have a head start.

I remember seeing Donald Trump on Jay Leno one night and Jay asked him if he lost all his money what would he do. Donald said ”I would find the closest multilevel marketing program and get to work." The audience started laughing. Donald turned to the audience and shut them up by saying in a stern manner “that’s why I’m up here and you’re down there”. Personally, I hate MLM I do not have the desire to do it, meaning it’s not the kind of sacrifice I’m willing to make. That is the key, what people are willing to sacrifice- time, effort, whatever. Something for nothing is present in our society, and I think its part of the problem.

As far as the general theme of this thread, while I agree with most of the libertarian philosophy- I consider myself an independent. I listen to each candidate on the issues. Unfortunately, the one I agreed with the most is out of the race. I can’t take any of them seriously until the areas many see as conspiracy issues are addressed. The federal reserve, is an example.

Sun Tzu:

It's awesome that you've been able to achieve great things. However, I think the point is that the number of opportunities is less than the amount of people competing for them. Poverty is inevitable for a certain percentage of the population. People may move freely from one class to another but the percentages stay about the same. "Get a better job" ignores this reality.

I dont believe poverty is inevitable. This is why i wish everyone had to go through SEAL training. Nothing is inevitable. Some will have greater obstacles than others, yes. I hate to sound like a fortune cookie- but truly the greatest obstacle a person will have is themselves.

We entered into a contract where our collective investments purchased real estate. We each shared a portion of ownership which was directly related to our investment.
Yes, but it's still collectively owned. The direction of the company is often set by democratic ruling of those who own portions of the business.
The WHO list, which is well supported, claims that many countries have better health care than the US. France has the best by leaps and bounds. The same was concluded by the Commonwealth Fund back in January of this year. France isn't perfect, of course, but the french system is cheaper per capita and is substantially more effective. Still, even Canada has better health care than the US.
I know people who disprove the "hard work = better pay" idea. I know a lot of people, actually. They worked hard, got good grades but couldn't afford college and couldn't get decent jobs. $30,000 a year in the SF bay area isn't really enough for a family to live on, and should my friend leave the bay area, he'd make even less. Poverty happens, and sometimes it happens despite an individual's best efforts. I know this to be fact, not opinion.
Yes, but those three things do not always lead to financial success.
Donald Trump is the king of bad investments. I'd sooner take financial advice from a hobo. The only reason he's rich now are his TV shows. He might as well be Flava Flav minus the rap career.

Well that's the point. If a majority decision can't be reached in the market place, the government has no business forcing individuals to comply with their regulations.

The environment is one of those areas that is not traditionally covered in Western politics and philosophy. It Canada it has become the catch all in which the Federal government invades Provincial juridiction.

Reconcilling environmental protection with libertarianism requires a clear understanding of environment, property rights, and the capability of private organizations to engage in protective action. Limits need to be establish on government jurisdiction in order to prevent the environment from becoming a means to usurp the rights of the citizen.

This questions has been burning a whole in my mind and I think I have an adequate response now.

Freedom is equality. Equality is the ability for a person to be able to make the same choices, in the exact same situation, as the another person. Choices should not be limited based on sex, race, or class. That does not mean an equality of outcome, income, or existence. It is not fair to limit choices based on a persons good luck, current income, or who they know. Building a fair and equal society is about choices, not status.

*sigh*

Again, you are getting the GROUP and the INDIVIDUAL confused. Take an honest look at an office building and think about what makes it run. Somebody has to do the landscaping. Somebody has to clean the toilets. Somebody has to work at the cafeteria. Those jobs aren't going to earn high wages. Maybe the person is lazy. Maybe they are doing this for the short term. Maybe this is the person's fullest potential. People who do those jobs may move on to bigger and better things but that crappy job remains.

My interpretation is that a libertarian sees these people and thinks "that sucks" and moves on. I think that this is an unethical way to build a nation.

I was born into a low income family. Jenna Bush was born into the wealthy elite. With freedom, we work with the cards we are given. With equality, we're given a few extra cards so that the game isn't fixed. Therein is the difference.

Here is a big difference between you and I. I don't believe the 'number of opportunities' is static. In fact, I believe people can make their own opportunities. If you produce something of value, you have just manufactured a product and an opportunity.

For instance, I make more money than most enlisted soldiers in the Army. If they wanted to work hard, and go to advanced schools for better pay and accelerated promotion they could do so, but most don't even though they are perfectly capable.

Likewise with college. I paid my own way through school, so the argument that someone 'didn't have enough money to go to school' really doesn't sit well with me. I had a goal, and I accepted the burden necessary to achieve it.

And along that same line of thinking, since I have a degree and am military, I could go to OCS and become an officer if I ever felt I was unable to properly support myself or my family on my current income. I don't want to because I love my job, but I am not about to complain about how 'unfortunate' I am until I really exhaust all options.

I know a whole lot of people who could earn an honest living by joining the military. Instead they bounce between bottom-of-the-barrel part-time jobs and complain about how 'unfortunate' they are.

I believe I have mentioned this in a prior post years ago, but when I worked at Target during highschool, I had two coworkers from whom I learned a very important lesson. As it's appropriate here, I will summarize:

I worked in the stockroom at target as a teenager, and while I started off earning very little, I was quickly given a series of pretty decent promotions and within a couple months was earning near 8.00 per hour, which, for a 16 year old on his first job wasn't bad. One of my coworkers realized I had been promoted and threw a fit as he had been working at target for a long time and was still making less than me.

His name was Justin, and he was frequently late for work, often hung over, sometimes still borderline drunk, always complaining about how unfortunate he was, and was less than industrious. He was pissed at me, but the person he disliked most was a black guy named Charlie who had immigrated from Africa not too long ago.

Charlie was slow talking and slow moving, but he worked very hard, never left a job unfinished, never complained, was always on time and often stayed late to finish the days' work. To make a long story short, I found out one day following a confrontation between Justin and Charlie that Charlie had worked for several years to save enough money to come to the United States, that he spoke 4 languages (english was his 4'th), that he was working another full time job in a warehouse, and that he was attending community college classes.

It was the perfect contrast. On one hand is a person who is manufacturing his own disadvantages and who feels wronged by society for his lack of success. On the other is a person who really did have every 'excuse' to be a drain on society, but who had the dignity to better himself even though it was difficult.

It was obvious that Charlie was using a low paying job as a stepping stone on his way towards something better while Justin was using it because he could get away with being almost useless.


Oh, and Will: If I work hard and am successful, why should I not be able to give my children some advantages? Equality is not stealing from those who have earned their money. To do so is to be a parasite. It is not equal to pay for peoples college educations just because they are poor, or a minority, or for any reason other than excellence. I had to get student loans, which I am still struggling to pay back because I wanted an education. It infuriates me that people are getting a free ride through college in the name of 'equality' and I am forced to help support them through the money I pay in taxes.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 08 : 56 : 03-----
No, a libertarian works one of those jobs and after realizing how much it sucks works hard enough to get a better one.

thanks for your views and clarification.

greg.... this is why I wrote this in a different thread

Business partnerships differ greatly than universal communes you seem to be referring to often. It sounds like you want it both ways here.
For profit right?

This is really a thread in and of itself. Ill respond when I have more time.


OK I’ll add working smarter and harder, and risk. I could not afford college either, that’s what loans are for.

It is fact.

I’m sure you could continue to lengthen the list of things of why people don’t achieve financial liberty. It reminds me of the Arizona desert wasp. It’s an insect that digs a hole in the ground and builds a subterranean dwelling. Its process for gathering food is to venture outside its dwelling to find nourishment. Once it has found its meal it brings it to the mouth of its cave. It leaves the food at the entrance to go look for predators inside its home first. Once it has deemed its home environment safe, it returns to the entrance and grabs its food.

A scientist followed these wasps around for two years observing and taking notes. The scientist did an experiment of moving the food while the wasp was inside. The results were interesting. The wasp would come out see the food was moved, grab the food, and complete its safety ritual again. The scientist kept doing this over and over. The wasp literally dies of starvation with food in its mouth.
There is opportunity everywhere for everyone in every avenue of work or profession. You have go getters that will seize it and people complaining about being victims. I think you mentioned you played D & D before; everyone is their own dungeon master. Tell me your profession and I could formulate at least 10 ways to be financially successful at it.

Does it require thinking out of the box? Yes. Does it require risk? Yes-

Is failure possible? Yes-

Would you eventually succeed if your intention of doing so was 100%?

Will do you have the ability to be a millionaire at some point in your life?

Perhaps, but with that kind of thinking . . . they never will.


I don’t know who Flava Flav is. Trump was rich before the TV shows, and you know that. Many of todays wealthy have lost their fortunes and regained them over and over again because they were willing to take risks. The beginning of any company is built on risk. Anywhere you go for services or products is a company that at one time didn’t exist. Someone took the initiative and risk to become an entrepreneur and provide them to you.

The fact that you would take financial advice from a hobo over Trump really speaks volumes and sums it up well.


GROUP and INDIVIDUAL . . . hmmm . . . refer to the video clip below. Yes, there are assholes out there. There are also good people.


I’m not getting confused about the issue. I started working when I was 13. I lied about my age for employment. I have worked some of the most disgusting, grueling, kick in the ass kind of jobs out there. Really think about the elements you have stated here.

Maybe the person is lazy. Maybe they are doing this for short term. Maybe this is what the person (thinks) their fullest potential is. People who do those jobs may move on to bigger and better things but that crappy job remains.

OK- So what’s your point? What is stopping the toilet cleaner from starting their own toilet cleaning company and have other toilet cleaners working for them? What’s stopping the toilet cleaner from becoming a brain surgeon? Who is going to be more successful: the person that finds all the reasons they can’t do something or the person that doesn’t take no for answer.


OMG. (I know you don’t believe in God- just an expression) I hate the Bushes, but what your saying here . . . .

With libertarianism you can do whatever you want with your money. If you want to provide opportunities for your children you can do so. What if, however, you don't want to provide for your children? If you were a dead-beat parent, unwilling to pay for your offspring, should the state have the right to force you or should you have the freedom to choose what to do with your hard earned money?

You seem to have the wrong idea about who gets into college. If you're lazy and/or have poor grades, the only way you're going to college is going to a crappy school or having your parents make a donation. No lazy people are going to college on your dime. You're infuriated because you're not as familiar with the system as you think. If any of your loans were government loans, then you went to school on my dime. I'm cool with that because I see the economic benefit of having a better educated work force to compete with the international markets... especially considering that the US has such low education stats.

But life is a fixed game. There is no such thing as equalizing it - only applying reverse fixes, which almost always does more to cause new problems than to fix the old ones. This statement about unfixing the game seems to be based on the premise that all people should have equal privileges instead of the more reasonable expectation that people should have the same rights.

It's the same principle. The property belonged to a group of individuals for the benefit of the group.
Yes and no. I hoped to make a profit, but I entered into the agreement with the shared understanding that we would rent at a lower rate than the market average, which was somewhat more altruistic. Yes, I wanted to make a profit, but I also wanted to help people. I like to have my cake and share it too.
My statement stands. There are people with all the ability and drive in the world, who work very hard, harder than those around them, and they still can fail. It is fantasy to assume that someone who works smart and harder will absolutely succeed. This is a fantasy that's common among libertarians.
You weren't watching Trump in the 90s, I take it. Did you know that in 1994, the Donald had about $900m in personal debt and about $3.5b in business debt? It took massive bailouts (something libertarians don't like) and selling off of most of his empire to dig himself out of his horrible decisions. His luck really started turning around when he started to appear in media. A combination of his TV career and some lucky investments (hotels in Hawaii and Chicago) managed to prop him back up for the moment. Still, if you've watched his TV show you can see that he is not the keen business mind he once was. I'd love to meet with the Trump of the 70s and 80s. He's not in that position anymore because of his poor business decisions.
Massive hyperbole.
-----Added 4/8/2008 at 09 : 30 : 26-----
It's luck of the draw, not fixed. I could get a straight flush or I could get nothing. That's completely out of our hands, but the idea that everyone is competing is horrible. If everyone is looking to win, than there will be big winners and equally there will be big losers. What's the harm in seeking to reduce the extremes in each direction? I'd gladly prevent multi-billionaires if it meant no more homeless people.
Does it do more harm? Can you demonstrate that?

When you have profit gains it provides you with the ability you may have not had before- helping people. Profit. Think about that word and what it means.

Mine stands as well. I lived it and continue live it. Perhaps if I hadnt already tasted freedom I would be content living in the Netherlands. As far as it being as fantasy-

Alex Rogan: I cant be a Starfighter, Im just a stupid kid from a trailer park.

Lot man: If thats what you think, then thats all your ever going to be.


Remind me to never go to your lemonade stand.

Yeah I watched him- and watch him. Im not seeing what your seeing, but then again youd rather go to a hobo for advice.


OK OK you have me there. We are not that advanced in space travel.

Profit is individual in libertarianism. It's shared in other economic theories and in real life.
So because you managed to do well all driven and capable people should? Is that reasonable? A lot of my success depended on good luck. I worked hard to earn my scholarships and grants, of course, but others did as well. Many of them were not so fortunate and had to either borrow or go to a less expensive school.
I work within the capitalist system just fine.
You may not understand what homeless means. It doesn't necessarily mean crazy or stupid or incapable. Charles Sanders Peirce was homeless (if you don't recognize names like Flavor Flav or Charles Sanders Peirce, google them). Actually, William Shatner was homeless once, too.

Will, for starters, you can read up on it here for a basic reading. Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I suggest getting "Libertarianism: A Primer" by John Boaz from the libarary.

However, Libertarianism is as broad and diverse as Democrats and Republicans are. which is why typing and labels are not constructive. For example: I am a conservative environmentalist libertarian globalist.
Go figure. Didn't you used to claim being a Libertarian?

That was before I understood the term (which is my own fault). It turns out I was never really a libertarian.

Was there ever a question as to how you got into the college you went to, as if perhaps you were only there because of Affirmative Action? I sure know what's that's like and I bet a lot of other non-white people have experienced something similar in their lifetime.

For a more general example, there's the whole social security disaster: to be plain, it's not a sustainable system. Do you think it is? Would you feel better leaving your elderly mother in the hands of a public healthcare system funded by your tax dollars (double or triple the taxes you pay now)? Do you see how you would be achieving the same goal and probably doing a better job of it by having that money to save and invest yourself?

For the elderly who do not have family members to help care for them, do you think there aren't people out there who are just like you who would like to see them cared for? That is why nonprofits and charities exist - because people care.

Do you think that the existence of kind and caring slaveowners made slavery a good system? It sure made those lucky slaves happier and helped them to live in better conditions unlike those poor free blacks up North who had that all pesky discrimination to deal with in trying to find work and places to live. I am not saying that not adopting Libertarian ideas will lead to slavery again; I guess I'm just confused why you're arguing that people should be less free and most especially because you're doing it in a way that makes it sound like "bad" and "happy" are not completely relative terms.

From reading your arguments, it seems like you are convinced that Libertarians are all out to fuck everybody else in their own self interest. First of all, the amount of wealth and opportunity on this planet are not fixed the way our natural resources are. To act like they are is silly. Think of how many new jobs were created when computers were invented, and then the internet... I mean, a friend of mine is going off to grad school to study video game design--a master's degree in VIDEO GAMES. Just think that one over for a minute.

If someone can do that, I have a hard time seeing how one can believe that there is a limited supply of jobs for people, especially at the rate technology is being developed.

Second, a lot of Libertarian ideas (for me anyway) are about using smarter tools (systems) for achieving the values I hold. You and I may not agree on everything, but I think we can both agree that fewer people going hungry or suffering without medical care is a good thing. I just happen to see a different and, I think, better way of getting there; I believe that liberty is a prerequisite for equality. By giving true liberty to every individual, we can stop robbing people of their victories (both a rich man's profits and a non-white student's accolades) and a more true equality would result than in a system where the majority of people are either being punished for their success or having their sense of agency and self-confidence taken from them, leaving them to be less and less equipped to survive in a competitive world.

As it is now, the systems we have in place in our democratic republic encourage the bad behavior of the elite (not that I excuse them) and discourage poor, minority people from taking ownership of their good ideas and talents, setting them up for failure in the long term. Could you be where you are in your life if you believed that nothing you did was solely the fruit of your talents or that somehow deep inside, your ideas and anything you produced were somehow inferior because you had help in getting to where you are?

I think it's this last part that makes liberty ring so true for me. I don't have any statistics or studies to back it up, but I have a hard time imagining anyone ever convincing me that there is such a thing as a successful (by any measure) AND fulfilled person who made it through life without a sense of agency and self-confidence. The very nature of collectivist and authoritarian governance takes those most precious things away from the people who can withstand it the least - those who were dealt less comfort and security in this life than the Jenna Bushes.

I also don't understand why you seem to think that 'competition' is such a dirty word. The root, competare, means 'to strive together'. Despite the popular connotation involving breaking down others in order to build yourself up, a more literal interpretation means that everybody strives together (as in at the same time) to be their personal best. Competition is how humans and all of life as we know it on this planet evolved and it is how we will continue to evolve, even as a society. Libertarians (the smart ones anyway) don't wish to live as islands. They just understand the conditions in which human life is best able to thrive.

I'm kinda white, so affirmative action never applied to me. Also I went to college during the Bush administration, long after most places had dismissed AA as a bad idea. And it was a bad idea. People being accepted because of skin color is silly. People being accepted because they're gifted and capable but don't have the monetary means for higher education is friggin awesome (and it's why I was able to attend a private college).
Actually, SS can be repaired and can continue on. So long as conservatives keep their hands off it. Look at SS (and the budget for that matter) under Clinton. He made it a priority and it was greatly improved. Had Bush continued on with Clinton's plans SS wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now.

As for health care, we have one of the worst systems of all the industrialized nations. It's great if you're upper middle class, but for everyone else it's either a gamble or a dream. Compare that to all of our socialized friends. As I've said, France pays less and gets better health care. It's real world proof, not economic theory.

As for donations... there's simply no way to replace SS with donations.
Slavery is the extreme opposite of freedom, but it's also not equality so I don't see how it applies here.
Not at all, however I doubt there's anyone who could argue that libertarianism is altruistic or selfless.
There are plenty of jobs... but more and more of them are low income. I could get any one of a million jobs if I only had a high school diploma and maybe some college, but could I get one that pays enough for me to not live paycheck to paycheck?
Yes, but my way is supported by real world examples. Yours is supported by economic theory. Which is more viable evidence? Even the US medical system in the 70s and 80s, in the glory days before horrible government intervention, was a much poorer system than you can find in France today.
I'm not advocating a free ride for lazy people. I'm talking about providing opportunities for those who are trying to help themselves.
I had nothing but scholarships and grants paying my way through school. I still earned the grades, though. Do you think that diminishes my sense of accomplishment? Not one bit.
In competition, someone has to lose. I prefer to think of us as one vast group, and that our group is all the better for working together for common goals and to help one another. I don't want anyone to lose and I see no reason why they should.

that's a bunch of crap. paycheck to paycheck? A good portion of America lives paycheck to paycheck and they don't make minimum wage. Living paycheck to paycheck is a lifestyle that is not sustainable. They live above their means. All the disposable income is eaten up by living larger than they should, but that is a choice. Every time they got a raise or a promotion they increased their lifestyle. I drive a Neon not for any other reason than practicality of lifestyle. It doesn't make sense to own a depreciating asset that sits most of the week/month. In the same time I have owned the car some of my very good friends have bought and sold at least 3 vehicles.

Again, I'll point to the masses of immigrants who remit BILLIONS of dollars back to their homeland as an example to those that seemt to eek out some savings.

I have no college degree, I work in corporate job with good salary because I worked harder than the next guy. I've also lost jobs and promotions because someone worked harder than me, that may mean they completed college and have a degree, or even just technical certifications. It's a competitive job market, if I want to continue to survive in it. I have to be better than the next guy. If I don't or am not, I will lose my next opportunity to someone better than me.

Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper Into Debt

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - My husband and I made $110,000 last year, but we still live paycheck to paycheck. How can we stop doing that?

Ask the Expert: Living paycheck to paycheck - Mar. 12, 2004

gee, how come they aren't ahead yet they are making 6 figure salaries????

:expressionless:
What portion is that?
Do you think that most people who don't live with their parents that make minimum wage life paycheck to paycheck? These were the people to which I was referring.
They live in squalor here in the US because it's better than the third world. I lived in squalor for a while. It's not a lot of fun having to skip dinner because there's not enough money for food. BTW, how much is actually remitted by guest workers? Is it really billions? Is that billions a year? How many guest workers are there in the US?
Do you think anyone who makes less than you works harder than you? Yes or no would be preferred.

I can't find a proper statistic for the paycheck to paycheck it varies from 25%-75%. Why is the economy in the toilet now? Because everyone got used to everyone else spending more than they could afford on a REGULAR basis. People took out loans, and borrowed against equity... this isn't rocket science.

I guess you couldn't read the earlier posts I've made, in 2007 Filipinos and Mexicans remitted $40 BILLION.

No will, I'm not saying someone else who earns less than me isn't working as hard. I'll tell you if they aren't increasing their skillsets by degree or specialization, then yes, they aren't working as hard. In comparison to just other IT workers, if I am not learning another technology then I am not working as hard as I possibly can to continue to better myself.

I guess there's no comment about the "My husband and I made $110,000 last year, but we still live paycheck to paycheck. How can we stop doing that?" because it is not endemic to poor people. It is something that happens to people who have no idea how to budget and spend money. It's no simpler than that.

Again, $40B remitted by Filipinos and Mexicans. People who aren't making large salaries seem to know and understand how to budget their money.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 01 : 47 : 27-----
:expressionless: further, I don't know why you are surprised if someone calls bullshit on something. Bullshit is bullshit plain and simple. Stop with the feign expressionless crap and either state what you have to state as opinion or fact, that's it. Pretty simple. I'm happy to admit something as fact or opinion. I could easily pawn it off on you to say, "Look it up, just google it" but that's not your responsibility.

Living paycheck to paycheckomg - CNN.com
Careerbuilder is a pretty skewed resource since, they are only going to be surveying people with computers and internet access.

Paycheck to paycheck: Make your dollars stretch further - Dec. 14, 2006
Do you live paycheck to paycheck? | ItsYourTimes.com

Without a proper statistic, it's probably not a good idea to throw out guesses, even if they are as broad as 25-75%. I would assume it's somewhere between 0-100%.
So you're saying that the only reason the American dollar is tanking, that people are in more financial trouble, is because people spend more than they make? That seems a somewhat incomplete analysis.
I did, but the information isn't complete. How many of the Filipinos and Mexicans in the statistic are here legally and as such would have every right to do whatever they please with their hard earned money? How many people are there? If there are 80 million, then that's only $500 per person per year, which isn't that much considering that minimum wage here in California (where most of the Mexican and Filipino workers settle) is about $12,000 a year after taxes. Like I said, we'd need more information to get a clear picture of what this all means.
Let us say there is someone who is working as hard as you and also is seeking out every opportunity to improve skills and marketability. The point is that even when someone does everything right they can still end up losing.
That seems off subject so I chose to leave it alone, especially considering I explained it:
This is surprise: :eek:, this is me simply ignoring a poor debate tactic (like using a completely vague and mildly inflammatory descriptive term like "bullshit"): :expressionless:

"I disagree" or "This isn't correct" (followed by evidence/a good argument) would communicate more clearly what you were thinking, and it wouldn't be even remotely hostile.

Again, if you read my quotes, the remittance is WORLDWIDE. It is not just what is paid from just the US. It is total sent back to the countries. Filipinos are not just working the USA, again, those living in UAE sent $.5B back to the Philippines in 2007.

If you'd like to parse it further, you are more than welcome to. It doesn't matter because again, they pay to house, feed, and transport themselves to and from their job. Somehow they send back all this money. I'm not interested in that kind of analysis paralysis. See you'd rather pull my source and statistic apart rather than back your opinion up with facts or sources. Instead, you'll say that you can't tell how many people are remitting the money. That's a load of crap since you are just saying plainly, "most people who don't live with their parents that make minimum wage life paycheck to paycheck? These were the people to which I was referring" Well, how many are there who are living with their parents? Can you tell? How many people are you talking about? 10? 100,000? Millions? Or you just speaking in phantoms of "Well, I think that there are some... because that's what I believe?"

The amount remitted is fact enough that people making wages are able to save money. It means that money is being saved from low wages to high wages, since a good number Filipino workers are in the support medical profession (nurses, phlebotomists, lab workers) to also housekeeping and childrearing.

It is simple two line budgeting. Since you are well versed in economics, you should understand this: your expenses should never be more than your income. Write down your income on line 1. Write down your income on line 2. Subtracte line 2 from line 1. If line 2 exceeds line 1 you are spending more than you earn and will become saddle with debt.

I'm not a hostile person, I am frank and to the point. I speak my mind and speak it fairly. You may find it hostile, and that's your baggage that you bring to the table, not me.

I know to not spend more than I earn, but what if I lost my job? I have about a year's worth to sit on while I work my ass off to find a job, but what if my next job is only $36k a year? $24k? What if my income dips below the point where I can realistically cut spending? I don't think I could live on $12k a year even with extreme budgeting. If I lived with many room mates in the worst place imaginable, ate nothing but the cheapest food, walked to and from work and the store.... and what if I had a wife and several children to support on that amount? It'd be easier if they lived in an impoverished nation where the USD still had value, but if they were here in the US making sure they were fed and clothed could become very difficult.

Is this probable? Not yet, but unemployment and low paying jobs are on the rise even here in the SF bay area. If the USD continues to fall, gas continues to rise, and unemployment and low paying jobs continue to grow I could find myself having to relocate to a different country in order to keep from being impoverished. Oddly enough I'd be more likely to find decent work in more socialist (relatively) countries like Canada, Japan, and many European countries.

I don't know what you could do Will. I can say that you probably cannot get work in Canada, Japan, or many European countries unless you already have a work visa. I've been trying to get expatriated for over 10 years now and still haven't been able to. It isn't that simple as deciding to move. Do you really believe that any country will just allow someone to waltz in and take a well paying job from a countryman?

As far as the unemployment, low paying jobs, etc. I can only tell you what I did for me.

I originally filled this with lots of detailed personal history, but suffice to say since 2001 I've been laid off several times, hospitalized, and had other "rainy days."

Yet with all this strife and layoffs, I've done what was required of me, which is spend less than I earn and try to maximize my earnings in some fashion.

In comparison to other friends who were struck by the same layoffs, they have not recovered their salaries, they took paycuts and remained with the cuts they took. Some didn't even take jobs that would have tied them over claiming something like,"I'll lose more if I take this job than what the state will give met..." Meanwhile they lost their house, their cars, their credit rating. One friend filed for bankruptcy because he could no longer afford to pay the credit cards that fueled his continued lifestyle after getting laid off.

I'm sorry Will, I can't be worried about how the guys in NYCHA projects are making ends meet. I have to worry about how I'm going to pay my monthly bills and take care of my own family first before I worry about someone else. Once that's covered, I'll extend myself to help another person. But like they say on the airplane, "Put the mask on yourself first, before assisting someone else." There is some simple logic there that makes sense.

So you think that the person who makes $100,000 a year loses because there is someone who makes $300,000 a year? You think that the silver medalist in the Olympics loses because she doesn't win the gold? Really? I find that hard to believe. My whole point was that people are different. You always felt the pride of your accomplishments perhaps because you've never had anyone look at you like you don't deserve to be somewhere because of your skin color or gender. Yes, I am suggesting that that happens. Yes, I already said that it happened to me. In your world view, people are only able to be equal AND actually have the tools to help themselves only if that doesn't happen. In my world view, people are different and some mindless collective doesn't make decisions that are supposedly best for everyone. People who have the same interests can band together to meet their needs.

I didn’t mean to sound arrogant and assuming. The thought I was trying to convey was it’s my opinion that so many people out there will never realize their potential. The main culprit is the programs they carry with them (another thread)- referring to the desert wasp analogy. I think many people don’t seize the opportunity that is present in abundance. It was also not my intention to sound as though I am above anyone; like I said my college era racked up $70,000 of DEBT and that was after using the GI Bill.

When you say fortunate I think of fortune. It’s my belief we make our own fortunes regardless of the circumstances. Watch the movie “In Pursuit of Happiness”. I have a friend who was struggling with debt and then on a simple idea zip pots :: Story he is set for life. With the experience I have had traveling and living in other countries I truly don’t believe there is anywhere that provides the opportunity for innovation, creativity, and realization of potential as the US. If you have read any of the threads I did in paranoia you would know that I firmly believe that there are some very serious issues hanging over us. But I was always happy to come back. I’m not knocking the people you mention who you view as less fortunate. I see their misfortune in them not tapping into the very essence that would change the circumstances that make them unhappy.

Again my verbiage was poor wording. I didn’t mean to suggest you didn’t know what you were doing in a free market system. I know you are intelligent and able, so I apologize for coming across like that. What I meant was you seem to put up obstacles against yourself, just as I believe many do. The old expression of taking lemons and making lemonade- meaning your lemonade would be sour from self defeating thinking. Not from lack of ability, but vision. It’s also an occasional problem of mine to fall short in respecting different people have different visions. So who am I to knock the methods in which you gathered and processed the information your foundation is built upon. The problem for me is, depending on who becomes president; the vision can greatly affect me in what I view as negative. But the name of the game is overcoming obstacles.

If you have the time- read this book: it’s easy reading and free. Written in 1937: Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. There is also a challenge to implement the philosophies and prove him wrong. For someone result orientated and proof based it would be right up your alley. If I knew you personally, I would issue you the very same challenge because I’m confident what the result would be.
Download Think and Grow Rich - Audio & PDF Formats Available
A couple of things we agree on. As far as opportunities for those trying to help themselves: did they try starting here Small Business Administration ?

from this thread, what seems clear to me about libertarianism is that it is a simplistic ideology that exploits the sense of individual distinction---separateness from others---and channels it through a sequence of oppositions (the heroic individual vs. the mindless collective being a good one, market vs. state another) each of which is so simplistic as to be funny on its own, and each of which not only has no descriptive contact with the empirical world, but has no hope of having descriptive contact with the empirical world---not if you understand that description of a world or system and the anecdotal are not the same thing. because the tools are not in place to even start understanding how contemporary capitalism in the actual world operates----the fiction "market" as free-floating natural construct gets in the way---system-level effects (stratification of access to cultural capital, say---educational opportunities, economic opportunities) gets mapped onto some arbitirary moral grid (those who make out make out because of some pilgrim's progress style narrative, those who do not make out do not because they are morally deficient, therefore stratification is acceptable--so long as you, the petit bourgeois observer, are not too close the the bottom)----because the heroic individual/mindless collective opposition is operative--regardless of its stupidity both formally and tactically, libertarians tend to erase any notion of the modern state as a democratizing feature of contemporary capitalism (you can in principle organize and bring pressure to bear on the state for resource reallocation, for example--this is basic stuff)---and are suspicious of collective action, the state then becomes some distorting and distorted monster, separated from the heoric lives of these embodiments of petit bourgeois virtue working in this fabulous market arrangements that enable petit bourgeois values to be reflected in material gain---a theory of elective affinity dressed up as a description of capitalism confused with a politics. so libertarians enact a conception of self-disempowerment confused with its opposite.

you can see this all over the place here---organization=collective=bureaucracy=bad with no trace of consideration for types of organization and no space for it---the heroic individual, the yeoman farmer, operating in a fictional landscape, can band together in ad hoc local committees of no determinate structure in order to do what--sit around and affirm that the state of affairs is the state of affairs, stratification a reflection of some bizarre-o moralityscape....

at least anarchism has space for consideration of organization as a problem, and an understanding that there are multiple types of collective action and that the form adopted within an organization has ramifications for outcomes at a host of levels.
at least anarchists have the possibility of a system-level understanding of capitalism.
and at least anarchism does not rely in the end on some goofy moral economy fiction to guide it down the road to total self-disempowerment.

trick is that because at bottom libertarian ideology seems to appeal to one's sense of one's own distinction as it's motor, it is an endlessly flattering counter-factual little world. as an endless flattering counterfactual little world, it is able to get often quite interesting and smart people to reprocess reality in its terms. so the problems are at the level of the assumptions which shape the ideology, not the people who reprocess the world in terms shaped by them.

Libertarians believe that well enforced property rights should be a factor in the prevention of environmental degradation.
Many libertarians think inalienable rights are BS. And it says so in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is a rhetorical document, the latter is law.
The naturalistic fallacy? Some libertarians believe in individual sovereignty and that property rights naturally extend from that.
Happiness is relative. With regard to economics at least countries in the world today that are liberalising their economies have better macroeconomic performances. And what do you mean by equality? Is there any inherent good in economic equality? Freedom in terms of making choices, living unhindered and taking responsibility for one's life is part of the human condition. I doubt thinking that all should be in a similar socio-economic bracket is.

I have more questions, but I think (hope) these are a good jumping off point for discussion.

Thanks for reading and I hope this will be a friendly and fruitful discussion.[/QUOTE]

what exactly is individual sovereignty?

it appears to mean that each individual--whatever that category means (typically, it is not a category that signifies past a naive level, except as way of referring to the "i" which is the organizing center of perceptual experience)---is itself a state?

i assume then that popular sovereignty would be a problem because it involves a collective?

how do you have private property without a legal system that defines it?
how do you have a legal system if you only recognize individuals?

libertarians believe in john locke's theory of ownership?
but you understand that locke's state of nature is a fiction, yes?

I think it's been proven time and again that we don't really have private property. Nobody can live off the grid for their entire lives. In fact, the closest to that ideal in Virginia is a peace based religious group that has formed a commune. And even they sell their farm goods to the public.

So is the current state of private property close to the Libertarian ideal?

And a funny:

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?

A: None -- the market will take care of it.

Are you a fan of F. Nietzsche?

I see homeless people every day. Most of them will never enjoy a reasonable quality of life again because a lot of the social programs that existed even 10 years ago are no longer funded. These are the people who "lose".
Very rarely are there only two competitors in a given event.
You mean like unions? Those aren't looked kindly upon by libertarians as I understand.
I'm really happy that sometimes people down on their luck get a break they've earned on their own. That's great. Still, he could have just as easily not gotten the job and he and his son would have continued living on the street until he realized that it's okay to get a medial job in the interim, while trying to get the awesome job.

Many of those people don't want help. Yes there are many who do, but there are a number who don't. I'd also say there are NGOs that take care of them, feed, clothe, house.

No but again, the loser is the loser, no matter how you slice and dice it. Again, life is a competition in it's basic forms. The lion has to run faster than the antelope and the antelope has to run faster than the lion. Sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the antelope wins. Yet somehow there is harmony and balance.

Yep, that's true, but again a determined person will push forward at all costs and succeed where someone who doesn't have the same drive or initiative will not succeed as much or in the same/similar fashion.

i'd be happy to talk about nietzsche.
i bet i know which aspects of his work appeals, though.
but why guess?
what do you find interesting about his writings?

I realize that you live in NYC, and as such see many homeless people, but I speak with them every day and I can tell you that this attitude is no where near as common as one might think. Most of those who have given up have done so because they feel that the opportunities simply do not exist even if they do their best. I've been working to create job placement services in the downtown area and I can tell you it's damned hard to find a company who is willing to hire someone they know to have been homeless. The deck is stacked against them.
Life may be a competition, but we're a social species. We are demonstrated to work well together. People who have strong familial bonds and strong friendships are likely to be emotionally healthier. Sure we compete but do we do so to the point that the "loser" is starving on the street with no reasonable hope of ever having a normal life again? I'd say we all lose when that happens.
But drive alone does not guarantee success, even eventual success. Ability, drive, and intelligence does not guarantee success. There are no guarantees, because life isn't fair. That's just it, though: life may not be fair but we can sure do a lot to make it as fair as we can.

Not true that the deck is stacked against them. There are many programs in many cities to hire people who are excons and homeless.

POSTINGS: Coming to Harlem; A Ben & Jerry's For the Homeless - New York Times


Common Ground The Times Square

employs people to care for the building, also a joint storefront with Ben & Jerry's and Starbucks to employ people who live within the housing facility.

Common Ground is building a new residence near where I currently live. Again, I'd prefer an NGO as opposed to a government agency or program.

Unfortunately, you're not in a position to refute several months of work. I've managed to place only about a dozen individuals in the past 3 months and it practically took begging. The programs we're trying to set up are meeting with heavy resistance from companies throughout the area.
The Ben and Jerry's here (right across the street from SJSU) was one of the first businesses to turn me down.

and if you're saying it is just you, then I'm going to turn you down to. Just some guy....

If you are representing your NPO that employs you, well that may be slightly different, but again, without any sponsorship or backing from corporate offices why would any of the corp stores even entertain working with you if you are just interfacing with the manager.

It may be that way in your city, but it's not in mine, and SF as well from what I can tell.

Anyways, this is miles and leagues far away from the libertarian discussion.

Come on, that is a meaningless answer. How do you protect air quality, groundwater quality, and soils in a libertarian society? Give an example.

He's picking it apart because $40 billion is just a number. It has no meaning unless you know how many people contribute to it. If 10 million people are contributing to that then the average is $4,000 per person and that is probably a significant portion of their income. If 100 million people are contributing then it is only $400 per person and it doesn't mean that much.

If you aren't confused then you are being intentionally obtuse. Society only needs x amount of brain surgeons. We only need y amount of toilet cleaners. You are still talking about INDIVIDUALS and leaving out the fact that there is a specific need to toilet cleaners.

/speaking in general here:

I don't get why it is so hard for Libertarians to look at reality. Our society can be viewed as a pyramid. The base of the pyramid makes very little and represents more than half of the area. The tip of the pyramid makes most of the money and represents about 5% of the area and the rest is the middle class.

The area is not static but the angles are relatively fixed. Individuals freely move from top to bottom but to maintain the shape, more move down than up. That is reality. In a fantasy world, everyone could be working to their fullest potential. However, the shape of the pyramid still isn't going to change. Essentially we would end up with overqualified toilet cleaners.

Overseas Filipino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is even the listing of countries wherein the monies originate

http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/spei/tab11.htm

So a little less than $1300 per person per year. Now what are the statistics on income? We can't assume all 11m Filipinos are making minimum wage, of course.

Sorry, you'll have to do the rest of investigating, I've given more than I've needed for my side of the argument. I'm not a research bitch by any stretch of the means. I've provided the fact that 11M send home $15B in various employs and countries.

Again, it is as simple as spending less than you earn and sending something back home to the tithe to the family.

What were you originally trying to establish? That some people can save more than they earn? I agree. I do know, however, that as a person's income decreases it becomes more and more difficult to live below one's means and eventually it simply becomes realistically impossible.

Ill admit my shortcoming in that I can barely understand what he is talking about.

there's a side of nietzsche that i can see appealing to the libertarian set---the stuff about a natural aristocracy that reveals itself and it's hierarchies through agon (struggle, conflict) and that's artifically held in false positions through the workings of externally generated, presumably bureaucratic hierarchies. even from this less-than-cliffnotes version, the mapping of this dimension in nietzsche onto the idea of Markets is pretty straightforward. this side of nietzsche plus ayn rand=>much of contemporary libertarianism. add to it various marketeers on the order of von mieses and aspects of hayek or the lesser lights on the american free marketeer right and in principle that'd about sum it up.

So are you saying a square is better? Im not being obtuse, or at least not intentionally. In this country someone can come from nothing and create what they choose to. What if a brain surgeon is content with being a toilet cleaner? For every what if, there is one to argue it.

Can you sum up a what you feel is a realistic, optimal direction for the United States to go?

I'm not saying that it is inherently wrong for our class structure to be set up as a pyramid. That is what drives people to be better. I'm also not saying we need to pay people unreasonable salaries for jobs that a trained monkey could do.

What I think is we need to make sure that basic needs are met as long as a someone is making an honest effort. To me, these needs are food, shelter, education, utilities and health care for them and their family. They also have to be able to get to and from their jobs.

When people can't do that, they turn to crime to make those ends meet. Then they become even more of a burden on society.

It sounds like your speaking in a somewhat different direction, or I misunderstood you. What about consequences? How do you feel about the homeless man standing on the corner with a sign stating "Why lie I need money for beer" or "My blood alcohol level is dangerously low can you help?" actually . . . anyone with a sign. I just saw one the other day that said "Will code HTML for food".

it's what libertarians call self-ownership.
yes.
It depends on the mode of libertarianism. some believe in a small and limited government while others believe that all of government's functions can be provided by the marketplace.
wasn't that hobbes? and lots of libertarians see locke as an influence on their beliefs.

I have always seen Libertarianism as one big Me, Me, Me movement.

I suppose if I were to label myself I would fall increasingly into the Keynesian developmental economics model rather than Friedman.

The HTML one is kind of witty! I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for bums. I make a distinction between bums and homeless people. Bums are POS drunks.

I was first attracted to Libertarian views because of their "live and let live" philosophy especially on social issues. I guess on economic issues government interference is necessary and oversight from a good government is beneficial but with corrupt polititians like ours less is probably better.

The other two parties seem to be in agreement to control most economic activity to benefit their contributors and those in their ruling class circle.

Yet you probably had a higher standard of living than a poor person in India or Africa. Was that fair? Is it fair that some people are born good looking and others aren't? Some are born tall, athletic, intelligent, etc. and others aren't?

Equality has a number of meanings in political thinking. I don't know of any political school of thought which says that humans should be equal in everything. I'm not sure that would be practical or desirable. Equality in political thinking can mean economic equality, equality in the eyes of the law, equal opportunities, equal outcomes, equality of rights. perhaps it should be clarified what form of equality we mean here, since as far as i am aware libertarians do believe in some forms of equality.

It's completely unfair, but the US should deal with in-house problems before trying to clean up other people's problems. While we're cleaning up in house, though, we should be mindful that our decisions have a direct impact on many other nations, and can be detrimental.

Why?
But if inequity is natural then why is a difference in wealth any different?

You're asking why people being punished by circumstances just because of where they are born isn't fair? I'd think it would be quite obvious.
Being eaten by predators is natural, but that didn't stop us from defending ourselves with better technology and eventually resting atop the food chain. Natural isn't always equatable with being good or correct.

Why?
But humans are born differently. Is that really in dispute? is it right to say that all inequity in everything is bad? Isn't it also important to accept oneself for who they are not compare themselves to others?

"Fair" means an equal playing field. It literally means no bias, dishonesty or injustice. When the playing field is unequal, it's unfair to whomever has the disadvantage. In the question you asked, the poverty stricken African or Indian would be at a certain economic disadvantage, which is unfair.
When inequality means circumstances of squalor for some and excess for others whether or not they work hard and do everything they can to succeed, the yes it's bad. It's symptomatic of a failure or more work to be done.

Accepting one's self has nothing to do with your family starving.

Things seem to have died down so it's time for more questions. I'll start with an easy one:

Let us say that the US successfully made a shift to libertarian political and economic theory in the late 40s during reconstruction and it spread throughout Europe and many other industrialized countries. Things seem to be going well, though the space between classes seems to be increasing. Meanwhile, the greatest threat to our species suddenly rears its ugly head for the first time in several hundred years; the smallpox pandemic begins.

In the real world, the Pan American Health Organization and other government and international non-profit organizations were responsible for the eradication of smallpox. Tax dollars ended up footing a great deal of the bill. I have always considered this one of the greatest achievements in human history and a testament to what mankind is capable of when we are forced to set aside our petty arguments and face a true threat.

What would have happened in a world where most of the economic and political power was libertarian? Would a vaccine be possible when different companies were hiding any progress from one another lest they lose the opportunity to make an incredible profit off a cure? Even if a vaccine were created, would poor people be able to afford it?

Its hard to say what could have been. Red Cross goes out of its way to aid people in need. Being a Red Cross CPR/ First Aid Instructor I have seen enough to know they are definately for profit as well.

If there is a new epidemic now same question. What happens if someone has an emergency and they dont have insurance? They are still seen by the ER and taken by the ambulance. Yes they still rack up a bill, but its probably one that wont be paid anyway. Even if someone has a history, if they have a valid emergency they should be seen.

Ive refrained from going into conspiracy, but from past history to now its my opinion that there are elements tainting the field.

Dunedan, I think it's a mistake to assume that every libertarian strictly adheres to the principle of non-aggression. In this entire thread, which is about nothing but Libertarian governmental and economic theory, non-aggression isn't mentioned once. There's plenty on Libertarianism, and much of it matches up with what Tim McVeigh happened to believe.

I'm not blaming you for the bombing of the Murrah building, or even your particular philosophy. I was simply responding to your defying me to name a libertarian terrorist.

to my mind much of the confusion here is the use of "beliefs" and "ideology" to describe libertarians. I'm libertarianish, but I don't view it as a set of beliefs, doctrines or ideologies at all. There's nothing to be a heretic or apostate from, and no single set of rules. I view it mainly as a series of preferences and inclinations, any of which in a particular case might give way in the face of other considerations. Or, as I have said in other contexts in this community, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. It might be more accurate to call me a classical liberal than a libertarian, but the label isn't all that important. It's also important to be realistic about things, which is why I say I have preferences and inclinations rather than beliefs and doctrines: theoretical purity is pretty useless as applied to everyday life. We don't live in a world of limited government, so I'm not going to pretend that we do. And I'm not going to pretend that there aren't people in society who need help (though we can argue about how to define that).

Also, I question how much libertarian philosophy has rationally to say about foreign policy, because libertarianism presupposes rule of law and various other forms of cultural infrastructure, institutions and civil society that simply doesn't exist in the international sphere.

Interesting discussion.

Here's what I've gleaned from debating with a few Libertarians:

- Every one of them have a personal anecdote about "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by their boot straps", and have projected their personal story onto the world as a whole. I've never met a Libertarian who tried hard and failed.

- They are extremely pro-business and anti-government. I've had a few "by-the-book" Libertarians argue that we should eliminate not only the EPA, but OSHA, the FDA, etc., because the "market" would eliminate the companies that were making unsafe products or created an unsafe work environment.

- Despite some protests to the contrary here, Libertarians are very much in it for themselves. Altruism and Libertarianism do NOT mix. The irony is that the argument is often that we should (or could) eliminate all government social programs and replace them with private donations, despite the fact that the general Libertarian mindset is to keep every penny that they "earn", and fuck those who don't work as hard. Where are all these private donations coming from?


Admittedly, these are broad generalizations and don't apply to everyone, but I've gone head to head with quite a few self-proclaimed Libertarians and the pattern is pretty consistent.

i'm a registered libertarian. what the LP stands for, to me, is a small, non-intrusive government who doesn't pass laws that dictate what i do in private, who doesn't meddle in private business, who allows personal freedoms. the fairy tale part is, with the freedom comes personal responsibility, and there are many people who do not want the responsibility, and so it isn't exactly a 100% viable solution. we need a government, we need to pay taxes, we need things like OSHA and CDC and government organizations that make sure things run well for everyone. government should not meddle in private business, but there should be federal regulations to ensure workplace safety. government should make sure roads are maintained and safe, but not tell me i HAVE to wear a seatbelt and i CANNOT smoke pot.

it's not black/white, either/or to me, i want a bit of both, so i guess i'm not a good libertarian.

in your question, you assume a libertarian government would not use tax dollars to help eradicate small pox and say "its up to the individual to not get smallpox," correct? Making the country safe and healthy for everyone is part of government's role, and so i would think a libertarian government would use tax dollars to help stop something that would kill off the majority of people, if not all, but they would not force me to get inoculated. i would think if the governments were libertarian, they still would have gotten together, figured out how to stop smallpox, and done so, in the same way they did in real life.

i'm a libertarian like Derwood talks about. i started with nothing and now i'm pretty well off. i figure if i did it, why can't others? i wasn't lucky, i didn't get a break, i worked and saved and went without and now i'm where i'm at. when i see a homeless guy i think "that guy doesn't have to live like that, he could get a job and work and live better." at the same time, i still see a human who needs help and i would still help him. my political beliefs do not trump my humanity. i have to believe a person acts how he will act, regardless of their political affiliation. being a libertarian doesn't automatically make someone an "anti government, pro business, heartless self centered money hoarding loner."

I was exaggerating a bit simply to get a handle on where Libertarianism really rests with people. It seems like the hardliners really don't represent your average libertarian. Most libertarians I've spoken to aren't anarchocapitalists, they seem to be fine with a more moderate libertarianism, just as I'm fine with a more moderate collectivism. I don't want every market federalized, just a few things like medicine. Most libertarians don't want everything privatized, just a few things like Social Security.

If I may, though, not everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. While I'm totally certain that you worked hard to get where you are, had a few small circumstances been different for you it's entirely possible that you might not be as successful. Had it not been for a shining recommendation from a professor, I wouldn't have landed my first job out of college. Did I earn the respect of the teacher with hard work? Sure. Did she have to write the letter? No, that was luck. I'm sure if you look back over your life, you might find a similar circumstance. It doesn't make you any less deserving of that which you've earned, but it should point out that not everyone has that one moment go right for them. Some people work just as hard as you or I, just as smart, but they can't reach their potential due to circumstances outside of their control. Because of that very real fluke, and because humans are a species that developed a sense of community and empathy, it's not wrong to help these people as a society.

That hypothetical homeless man may have, at one time, been giving 100% on the road for a bright future, only to get tripped up by circumstance and have the floor give out beneath him. Maybe he was sued and lost everything. Maybe he lost his job and couldn't find another one. Shoot, maybe he was born with a learning disorder and never had a chance to begin with.

When I see a homeless person, I like to think of him or her as a friend. I like to think of everyone as a friend. If a friend of mine was on the street starving, I'd want more than anything to help out. If a friend of mine was addicted to alcohol, I'd want more than anything to help out (without becoming codependent, of course).

Actually, Derwood, I have had both failure and success. Both are features of a free society. You are trying to analyze a libertarian "mindset" by reference to your own views and priorities rather than on its own terms. So the features you find relevant are "pro-business and anti-government", for instance. But that's not accurate. I'm pro-freedom, including the freedom of people to make a living as they choose, to follow their muse and seek their fortunes and self-fulfillment within the bounds of the law. Sometimes that requires being anti-business and pro-government, depending on the circumstance. People should be respected as sovereign individuals, free to make their own choices and decisions, free to acquire, use and enjoy their property, free to aspire, free to achieve, free to fail.

It's important to demystify this notion of govt as the agency of the public good. People don't become angels just because they work for the govt. They are normal human beings with normal human needs, wants and desires, and they respond to incentives just like any other person does. Govt by its nature is a mechanism for restricting liberty - sometimes for good, sometimes for not-so-good - so it needs to be used carefully and sparingly. That isn't an anti-govt stance; it's a recognition of the limitations of govt as a tool.

Law enforcement, courts, military, certain public infrastructure, certain kinds of environmental regulation and a very basic social safety net are all things govt can do reasonably well, and are not usually well-accomplished by private actors who don't have the ability to force compliance. Past that, govt tends to be wasteful, corrupt (using a broad definition; we can get to this some other time), inflexible, and a vehicle for rent-seeking by the politically connected (which is another way of describing corruption). Also, govt can't tailor itself to individual circumstances very well; its rules are usually one-size-fits-all, or scaled in ways that don't account well for individual circumstances. This has nothing to do with whether the intentions of the actors are good or bad (or, in the case of most political actors, the stated intentions - you never really know what someone's real intentions are, but usually it's self-interest of some kind). Even the best of intentions have unforeseen consequences, but in the case of govt those get embedded in law, so good luck getting rid of it if it doesn't work out well, especially if the program has a constituency. On the other hand, if another person, or a business, is violating my rights, it makes perfect sense to go to the govt (courts or police) for protection. So I'm not anti-govt as much as realistic about what govt is good at and good for.

I'm rambling so I'll stop now. My point simply was that you're using your own lens to evaluate this stuff, and it distorts things a bit. The liberal (as in classical liberal) premise is that people should be left alone - not that business is good and govt is bad.

So, basically, a libertarian is a classical liberal? A liberal who leans towards the free market and individual rights and freedoms, as opposed to social liberalism and the welfare state?

Well, I suppose that's one flavour of it anyway....

fair enough. the basis for my list was simply those libertarians I have had occasion to debate with. I'm not saying they represent libertarianism as a whole

I think we can accept by now that there is no "libertarians as a whole," just as there are no "liberals as a whole" or "conservatives as a whole."

interesting. i know alot more about anarchism than about libertarianism, truth be told. i've always found anarchism (which has many variants that array along the question of self-organization and how it is to operate, really) more compelling an oppositional viewpoint than libertarian positions, mostly because i see very little in the latter that goes beyond a desire to take absolutely literally the notion of the economic subject in "classical" political economy. the assumption of infrastructure and rule-sets particular to capitalism as background conditions cedes all questions of power or control or hierarchy a priori. anarchism doesn't: these are central concerns (again, speaking in general about a space that is differentiated...so not the haircut anarchists, not the black block or other direct action types, really). libertarianism has nothing to say about social hierarchy, so tends to default into some idea that such hierarchies are natural (one way or another)...so there's no possibility for thinking critically about the idea(s) of social hierarchy from that viewpoint: as far as you can go is to oppose an "artificial" to "natural" form and link the former to the state or whatever other bureaucratic apparatus that in principle as libertarian you oppose which in fact you presuppose it's functionality--you just don't like having to look at it alot and wish that it would be like a good dog and stay invisible so you can pretend you're in some state of nature.

but the biggest problem is not so much the spaces for thinking that libertarian modes of politics lead you to (and my background pushes me to see political positions as types of conceptual devices that enable you to see or not see phenomena in the world as political, think through them, maybe consider alternatives and what they'd look like) is the relation to capitalism. libertarian modes of thinking are products of capitalism--they are reflections of it, a kind of loyal opposition within it that (again) turn the notions abstracted from classical political economy against whatever contemporary aspects of the form (capitalism) they don't like. to my mind, this is little more than holding up a mirror. it repeats the logic it opposes wholesale.

but that's just my opinion, man.

I just don't get the notion that if we all try hard enough, we'll all be CEO's. This idea that there are an infinite amount of jobs/opportunities out there, and everyone has the chance to be successful is simply untrue, and ignores the fact that society can't operate with all chiefs and no indians

This point hits close to the point I want to make about one common failing I see in other libertarian thinkers, which is a failure to realize that providing individuals with certain freedoms allows them to control the freedoms of others indirectly.

Hopefully this (long) example will illustrate my point.

Suppose we go out to some poor, starving, partially westernized society and offer to hold an annual footrace, where the winners gets 1,000 head of cattle and rights to enough lands to graze them, etc divided up amongst themselves (say 500 to the winner, 300 to second 200 to third).

I think most libertarians would look at this as an idealized system, each person is in control of there own destiny, as long as we make sure people don't cheat in the race, ie no starting early and equal starting/finishing positions then it's a fair race, and will always be a fair race.

It looks reasonable on paper but look at what would realistically happen over say 500 iterations of the race. Gaining 500 head of cattle would be a huge asset, one that would enable the winner to gain access to things like better health through nutrition and care, better shoes to race in more time to train for the race due to the increased assets, in short, better chances at winning next years race.

Over the course of time a class structure will emerge where the groups that historically have always won the race will continue to win the race and those that lost continue to lose. Sure, there will be success stories where someone from the 'losing class' has a great day and wins, as well as those who have one the last three races will stumble and not even finish, but as a statistical average the class system will be definite.

Even though the race is 'fair' and the winner is determined by some intrinsic virtue (speed) it is set up in such a way that other factors not related to that virtue weigh heavily on the outcome, in such a way that being born into the winning or losing class greatly affects the likelihood of your winning or losing. The system errodes personal sovereignty because it allows those that control the assets now to influence who get to control the assets in the future in such a way that the more assets you control the more influence you get.

The only way to make the race fair again is to adjust the rules to accommodate differences in these other factors. For example, each race won makes your next race a mile longer or something (the numbers are not important the idea is) similar.

The idea is that using a central body (government) to limit the liberty of some who have undue influence over the liberty of others can function to increase liberty of the whole.

To land the plane with education. Right now the affluence of your parents influences the quality of state provided education you receive. Students are receiving better education (which in turn affects their socioeconomic status for the rest of their lives) on the state through no 'intrinsic worth' of their own (it has far more to do with their parents) and with the sponsorship of the government to boot. When I think of libertarians I would think this to be a hot button issue for them, but for some reason it isn't (that I've noticed).

As a libertarian (I've been told this is what I am, sometimes I'm not sure) I would like to see more money directed to poorer schools and less to richer ones, which raise more money at the local level, to equalize access to resources(quality teachers, equipment, books, etc) on a per pupil basis. Where you live and how much money your parents make should not influence the quality of the state sponsored education you receive. By equalizing quality of education receive across the classes, we equalize the playing field for students and allow a greater degree of self determination, because the level of education they receive (which is linked so closely with socioeconomic status) will be a great deal more under their control. Ideally, variations between schools in student performance (graduation rates, post secondary education acceptance rates, standardized test averages) would be nil, and where they do exist they will emerge entirely from a failure of the administration of the school, not the students themselves.

To me that reads as a more centrist position as far as the individualism/collectivism scale goes. You believe in individual responsibility to a point, but you're not willing to sacrifice a great deal for that belief; the belief is seasoned with pragmatism. I think this kind of thinking represents a great deal more libertarians than the all or nothing kind of dogmatic libertarianism provided by Senator Ron Paul.

i don't want to hijack your thread, you got me wondering...

do you think it takes an "all or nothing" attitude to make things work? is compromise the reason any one political ideal doesn't work, because it compromises itself and weakens it's strengths? cater to too many people, try to please everyone, you please no one?

i still stand by the libertarian party, if only because the dems and repubs seem to have lost their way, and they haven't quite worked out for the last 20 years or so (to my liking).

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

that's the fallacy. we can't all be CEOs. like it or not, two people sitting under a tree, one of them MUST be in charge, over the other. there will ALWAYS be one group over another, total equality is impossible. we can (and SHOULD) have equal opportunity, equal rights, but we can't be equal. i'm waaay better than many folks. even more folks are waaaay better than me. that is how it is.

someone is gonna be poor, someone is gonna be rich, someone is gonna be in the middle. of course the guy on the bottom doesn't want to be there, and the guy at the top doesn't see the problem.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

i thought libertarians were more conservative than republicans.

Liberal/conservative is one spectrum. Libertarian/authoritarian is entirely another. Not related.

I think he meant that libertarians are generally more conservative than Republicans. It's a valid consideration, though I don't think it's necessarily true.

The labels are hard to keep track of, but both liberals and conservatives came out of classical liberalism: a value of free markets and individual rights and freedoms. But then many liberals went after social liberalism, and many conservatives went after social conservatism. They vary on economic philosophies as well, of course.

I don't know. If you consider classical liberalism, social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism, then libertarians are all for classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism but don't particularly care for social conservatism.

EDIT: note that although liberal/conservative and libertarian/authoritarian are two different spectra, together they make up a matrix within which we all find ourselves plotted. So this means that a libertarian isn't necessarily conservative, though they may generally be. I don't think "socialist libertarianism" is entirely that popular.

I don't think there's one answer to that question. I think in some things compromise is unfortunately the best option but on other things I'll fight tooth and nail until the bitter end because I'm as sure as I can be that the other side is wrong and their position will fail. Take health care reform as an example. I feel I've seen enough raw data to conclude that the general libertarian position, that the health care industry should remain private, simply won't work. I plan on fighting for a different system either until I win, I die, or some new and convincing data becomes available. I don't see that as something to compromise on because I don't feel a compromise would yield the best outcome. On the other hand, I might be willing to compromise when libertarians talk about decriminalization. I'd be fine decriminalizing certain illegal drugs such as marijuana and such, but I'd not want all illegal drugs legalized entirely because I'm not convinced that total legalization would be as successful as partial legalization or decriminalization.

I think the strongest position is the most practical for the given situation. You can't be all radical all the time because you'd end up alienating the other side completely and nothing will ever get solved. You can't compromise on everything because then you'll not be fully supporting any of the options you feel are correct. It has to be blended depending on the given situation.
Those aren't the only 3 options. I'm registered green right now, I was independent before that. I might register Peace and Freedom if the Green Party continues to lose its way and I feel I can't contribute to fixing it.

in the military, i've been subject to socialized medicine, i'm not a fan. from what i understand, many many many Canadians come down south to the states for healthcare, because they can be seen when they need to be seen, and don't have to wait for treatment like they do in a socialized situation.

if they are living it, and aren't happy (granted, no such thing as making everyone happy), doesn't it make a point against socialized health care?

i had a wisdom tooth problem. i went to the governemnt dentist, i was the only patient in the whole place, i needed it removed, he wouldn't do it, i had to wait because it was his "day off, " or something. i forget.

so i left his office and drove downtown to a local private dentist. i paid 50 bucks and my tooth was removed, i was better and ready to deal with what i had to deal with. for me, private health care is totally the way to go. i don't see any merit to socialized government run health care. then again, i can afford it, sort of, as opposed to those who cannot. if people could afford the health care they need, would you prefer privatized health care, or socialized? i would say private. competition breeds better performance.

socialized vs. private health care is an entirely different subject. let's not let this thread drift

sorry bout that.

How's this for timing: Tyler Cowen had a post yesterday on five flavors of libertarianism. The comments propose more. Me, I'm mainly a Hayek/Friedman type, maybe slightly Cato-ish. I have little use for the Paulite, nationalist or immigration-bashing types.

Ah! Great link, loquitur. I'll check it out while I'm at work (I'm such a good employee).

I think the party of the future (or more accurately the party with the brightest future is the one that embraces these ideals) is made up of social liberals and economic conservatives - aka "when Libertarians meet the ACLU halfway" or the purple people. Whether they are "selfish liberals" or philosophically honest conservatives... live and let live- what's mine is mine and the government had better not take it but whatever the hell you want to do is great so long as it doesn't interfere with me... that to me is libertarianism.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

but then again there are pragmatic libertarians who realize that the market place would not have defeated Hitler in the 40's, built the interstate highway system in the 50's, or gotten us to the moon in the 60's. That government is there to do do the things we cannot on our own. (like take over a large middle eastern country with tremendous oil reserves to ensure our well being for the next few decades ... woops, I bet I lost several people that were agreeing with me up until that point.)

I'm not sure your statement about Iraq is correct. If we didn't have a public military, we'd have a private one and it's be a lot easier to use. Look at Blackwater, and then pretend that they and other private military contractors have a total of over 1.4 million troops that can be deployed to the highest bidder.

I've noticed that certain political persuasions seem to attract more people who are ideologically pure...one might also say zealots. People who believe in whatever the core principles of their chosen political philosophy must absolute, and take them to their conclusion, no matter where it leads them. Strangely enough, libertarians and communists tend to fall into this category. Perhaps that's simply because all of the realistic libertarians and communists identify as republicans or democrats.

The world is a messy place. I just don't think there's room for ideological purity...you have to give a little.

I don't believe any right can be truly universal. I don't think civil liberties and a strong government providing a safety net are incompatible. I think some regulation is necessary for capitalism to function.

I am going to chime in very quickly.

I will post a longer response tomorrow now that I have found this thread.

But quickly: The Libertarian Philosophy is a very general one. I personally believe that the core of any true libertarian philosophy is a believe in minimal government and an emphasis on personal responsiblity. How that should manifest itself is largely up to the individual.

Personally, I believe you can consider yourself a libertarian if you believe (as an ideal, not necessarily as a practical implementation of that ideal) this statement applies to you: "I believe the maximum role of civil government should be the protection of life, liberty and property as well as the maintenance of a free state."

There is a lot of wiggle room in that statement, though it probably would be difficult to stretch it far enough to fully include Willravel's personal ideals.

The problem with any ideal is that they are, well, idealistic and fail to include the natural failings of societies and the individuals within them. The libertarian philosophy is no different in this regard than many others. What I believe it has going for it is a good principle which should be applied more often.... But then you run into the collision of ideals with reality (but to be honest, you will have similar issues with any philosophy which I am aware of). The environment, for instance is one issue where the core philosophy is silent (because it deals with people rather than things), it is up to individuals and society to find a practical balance between absolute freedom and consumption. Under Libertarian philosophy an individual would be forbidden to harm others, destroying our environment is not far removed from that.

I, as a libertarian feel we are beginning to vote for things which we as a society cannot afford and cannot sustain. I feel this will long-term do more harm than good. I understand that as the world becomes more complex, the government is likely going to have to grow in response, but I don't see how we can justify it's current bulk and inefficiency. IMHO most of my tax dollars are now spent on things which I simply do not feel are important.


Don't assume the Libertarian Party is the voice of the average Libertarian. One things Libertarians do very poorly is organize under a common banner and the Libertarian party has become a catch-all party of all kinds of radicals and other silliness.

More after I am less tired.