The U.S. is already a Socialist society!

[Gadarene]

Well, not really. But it's amazing to me the number of people on the board who seem to believe this. So I thought I'd give them a forum in which they can articulate their position. (Too bad Boomer's not here; he would rail against creeping socialism in this country every chance he'd get.)

So anyone who's claimed that we're steeped in socialism here in the U.S. of A (public libraries notwithstanding), tell me why. Be sure to defend your argument with specific cites and examples, while contrasting the perceived socialism with capitalism and/or representative democracy. Thanks!

[Gilligan]

Better define the term first. From [/url]www.dictionary.com[/url]

so·cial·ism
n.
1. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
2. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition)

From Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Given these definitions: no, the U.S. is not a socialist society or nation. Opponents of "social programs" use the term incorrectly, but then supporters of the programs themselves usually don't use the more accurate term, which is social democracy. The dictionary definition of social democracy is lacking; I would put it briefly as a system in which capital is still privately owned, but government has a proper role in distributing it more equitably. This definition falls short, too; maybe someone else can expand on it.

I would say the U.S. society is gradually becoming more of a social democracy than it has been in the past. I'll have to take another day to give you examples.

[Smartass]

Okay, here is an example:

Last year, over a quarter of the money that I earned was taken from me before I had a chance to even count it. I couldn't even touch the bills if I wanted to (I didn't--I wanted to deposit them).

This money was spent to make society better:
-Some portion was required to feed the federal bureaucracy and the hordes of federal employees.
-Some portion was set aside to pay for the retirement of people I don't know.
-Some portion was used to feed poor people.
-Some portion was used to feed people who just don't want to work.
-Some portion was funneled into an education system that I think absolutely sucks.
-etc.

In a Libertarian society, I would have all of my money to spend as I please, including contributing whatever amount my conscience told me to for feeding the poor. Instead, the US government redistributed my income.

No one said that the government owned my property, but I sure never got to exert any influence over a great deal of it.

Am I saying that the US is a socialist society? No, but it sure has some upsetting socialist tendencies.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

Smartass:

The rise of democracy was driven by the citizens' desire to escape from the paternalistic and arbitrary charity of those with money. They accomplished this by replacing charity with a fair, balanced, arm's-length system of public obligation. The principle tool of that obligation was taxation.
- John Ralston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

The rise of democracy was driven by the citizens' desire to escape from the paternalistic and arbitrary charity of those with money. They accomplished this by replacing charity with a fair, balanced, arm's-length system of public obligation. The principle tool of that obligation was taxation.

I prefer "beggars can't be choosers", if it helps. I submit that the fact that you approve of it (and I don't) does not invalidate any of my statements.

However, I doubt Gadarene would appreciate us hijacking his thread for you to try to convince me that this is fair while I try to convince you that it is stealing.

-VM

[Gadarene]

However, I doubt Gadarene would appreciate us hijacking his thread for you to try to convince me that this is fair while I try to convince you that it is stealing.


Oh, please, go right ahead. If you did, I'd be able to tear into some of your examples in your first post (yeah, people who don't want to work...that's what welfare's about!) without feeling guilty about being off-topic myself.

And I'd be able to ask you how--pray tell--an educational system not funded by public dollars would suck any worse than our current one. We may not be spending the money in the right way, but the solution there sure as hell ain't to stop spending the money altogether. (On second thought, maybe that would work. Those poor kids don't need to read anyway, they're just gonna be doing manual labor for the rest of their life. Besides, reading just encourages thinking, and thinking leads to revolution! Jeez...)

Gilligan, thanks. Good answer.

[Smartass]

Gadarene and matt_mcl:

Oh, please, go right ahead. If you did, I'd be able to tear into some of your examples in your first post (yeah, people who don't want to work...that's what welfare's about!) without feeling guilty about being off-topic myself.

Hey, it's your topic. Please feel free to tear into my examples at will. However, please read the rest of this post first, as it may speed the debate.

The rise of democracy was driven by the citizens' desire to escape from the paternalistic and arbitrary charity of those with money.

1. You seem to assume that I think democracy is the ideal government. I don't, and it really does not matter to me how it "rose", although I believe this is a bit of an oversimplification.
2. It is amazing to me that someone who is receiving charity would have the nerve to bitch about how it is received or who is giving it.
3. Here is the comparison: Paternalistic and arbitrary charity vs. charity that is forcibly taken from citizens and redistributed. In the one case, people give of their own volition; in the other, people are forced to give by the government. Do you really think the second is morally superior?

Do not assume that I think no one should contribute to help feed and clothe people who cannot provide for themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that I don't think people should be forced to contribute an amount arbitrarily set by the government. I also think that having the government be the agent of this generosity introduces a ridiculous amount of inefficiency into the system. Also, treating this giving as an entitlement has the unintended consequence of teaching some people that they are entitled not to work if they choose not to--all they have to do is come up with a good excuse.

Let's expand the example. Right now, the government is using my money (and yours, and everyone else's) to do the following (plus a bunch of other stuff):
-Feed those who cannot feed themselves.
-Support the Arts
-Pay farmers to allow farmland to lie idle in order to lower the supply and inflate the price of produce.
-Purchase produce from farmers and remove it from the market in order to inflate prices.
-Send spacecraft to other planets
-Provide an education system, controlled largely by teachers' unions, which parents are forced to put their children into, unless they are wealthy enough to be able to afford private schools--in addition to their contributions to the public system.
-Fight a "Drug War" in order to prevent people from harming themselves by ingesting substances that are bad for them. This war is based on "reducing the supply" of banned substances in order to curtail demand. The result: prices are unnaturally high; illegal drug dealers rake in insane profits and can use them to arm themselves against the government and corrupt all efforts to stop their activities.
-Protect me from being killed by an armed attacker by making it more difficult for me to arm myself.

Obviously, the list goes on and on. To be honest, some of these goals I agree with, some I don't. Let's say, for example, that I feel strongly about supporting the Arts and feeding the poor, but don't care about any of the other stuff. If the government were not taking over a fourth of my money for all of these purposes, then I could choose to contribute the entire sum to the Arts and feeding the poor, or less, as it pleased me and as dictated by my conscience.

The point is: If, as a society, we all feel strongly about, say, feeding the poor, then we will contribute sums necessary to accomplish this end, with each person contributing according to his means and his perception of the need. Thus, those problems that people most want solved will be the ones that are acted upon the most. Those that people are least interested in will get the least support.

Having the government decide how much I will contribute and how it will be spent is interfering with my right to approach these issues in accordance with my own beliefs. Also, it introduces confounding effects: There are probably very few people who would purposely buy up produce and throw it away out of concern for produce prices. However, placing the government in the loop as a middle-man makes it less obvious that I am the one doing this (with my money), so I am more likely to not complain. I so often hear people say, "The government should pay for..." as if the government's money was separate from their own. A more honest way of saying it would be, "I feel so strongly about this, that I think I should pay money to accomplish x. In fact, I feel so strongly about it, I think you should be required to help pay for it as well."

This is completely contrary to the notions of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded.

-VM

[Mr.Zambezi]

Socialism = the people are too stupid to know what is goood for themselves, therefor the Gov' tmust decide what is goood for them.

Yes, we are a socialist society.

[Gilligan]

I've been trying to dig up statistics from neutral sources regarding the growth of "social democracy" in the United States. Not an easy task, but I thought cites that are free of bias would be more acceptable. Some economic resources:

U.S. federal budget for FY2000:
U.S. Federal Budget 2000 (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/index.html)

Tables of historical statistics on Social Security income and expenditure:
Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/statistics/Supplement/2000/html/index.html)

A good, fair summary of government involvement and spending in social affairs throught U.S. history, with some informative charts:
The Visible Hand (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/newecn/Classes/Art/INT1/Mac/1990s/1990sA.html)

Article on increasing government health care spending: (note - not a neutral source)
Tax Subsidies: The Hidden Part of Government Health Care Spending (http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/w/w3.html)

Hope I did the links correctly, I haven't been doing that too well lately. Now on to finding examples from a legal perspective.

[matt_mcl]

Having the government decide how much I will contribute and how it will be spent is interfering with my right to approach these issues in accordance with my own beliefs.

When you pay for things you believe in via taxes, you are participating and collaborating with other citizens through a democracy. You are behaving as a citizen.

When private charity flourishes and upper-class taxes drop, it is a sign that rich citizens consider their only responsibility to the society to be that of noblesse oblige. They do not think of themselves as citizens but as philanthropists and aristocrats. That is not a democratic system.

(When you pay for things that you do not believe in via taxes, it is a sign that your democracy is not working, and/or that you are in the minority.)

[waterj2]

Actually, I think everyone in this country pays for at least something they don't believe in through taxes. For anyone to agree with the way each of the 1,000,000,000,000 (incredibly rough estimate) dollars of the annual federal budget is spent is statistically unlikely. It's not quite like each person gets a copy of a proposed budget, and then gets to strike out things they don't believe in. Hell, it's not even like each person has any idea what the fuck's in the federal budget.

[2sense]

Socialism = the people are too stupid to know what is good for themselves

the people are too stupid to know what is good for themselves = Electoral College


Yes, we are a socialist society.
-

Or something like that.


:rolleyes:

[Dak]

The failure of consensus as to what tax dollars (or indeed any currency) should be spent on is a reflection upon the inadequacies of the present system of democracy, that being representative liberal democracy, not strictly a question of how socialist our society is. I would agree whole heartedly with Gilligans synopsis and add that a socialist democracy seems to be rather dependent on the results of the election process rather than an actual system within its own right.

[Initial Entry]

I find it amusing that in your list of government expenditures you have not yet mentioned the taking of a sizeable portion of your income to fund an immense standing army of no particular utility.

Just curious why that one escaped you...

[Gilligan]

Military spending doesn’t escape me, but it’s irrelevant to this thread, which is about socialism and redistribution of wealth. If you want to start a “we spend too much on the military” thread, I would be on your side.

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

When you pay for things you believe in via taxes, you are participating and collaborating with other citizens through a democracy. You are behaving as a citizen.

I know you're going to have trouble with this, but the fact that you define behaving as a citizen in this way and I do not does not mean that your are right. I have never proposed a system that prevented you from meeting your perceived obligations as a citizen in this way. I think you should decide for yourself, as long as you don't feel obligated to trample someone else's rights. Yet, you propose a system that requires me to meet my obligations by your definition of them. Try all you want, you will not convince me that this is fair.

When private charity flourishes and upper-class taxes drop, it is a sign that rich citizens consider their only responsibility to the society to be that of noblesse oblige.

I do not believe it is my place to say what citizens, rich or poor, should consider their responsibilities to be. After all, different people have different religious beliefs and moral systems. You want to impose yours on everyone else (or that of the majority).

Citizens do not exist for the benefit of society. Society exists for the benefit of the citizens. Not just the rich ones, not just the poor ones, not just the ones who happen to be in the majority. All of them.

They do not think of themselves as citizens but as philanthropists and aristocrats. That is not a democratic system.

You say this as if democracy were the ideal system. I have been arguing this point with 2sense on the Founding Fathers thread. For your convenience I will post a copy of a particularly relevant, but long, post here that I think directly applies to what your are saying.

(When you pay for things that you do not believe in via taxes, it is a sign that your democracy is not working, and/or that you are in the minority.)
And you think it is acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I do not. That kind of thinking justifies such wonderful things as slavery and socialism.

You refuse to accept that, not only do government-imposed solutions trample on rights, they are also not good solutions. Centrally imposed policy is never as effective as allowing individuals to choose their own solutions. This is why socialism fails. This not just true in economics. It is true for any situation where people wish to solve problems. (Please see following post)

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

The post I promised from Founding Fathers:

I submit that someone must govern.

Agreed. However, where we disagree is with the proper activities of government. I say that it should only be there to protect the rights of individuals. Sounds extreme, I know, but there is logic to it.

Whether a majority or a minority of opinions are heard, someone must make decisions.

Decisions have to be made. We disagree on which decisions need to be made on behalf of The People in general. Because I value freedom and respect the resourcefulness of individuals, I prefer a system where each individual has as much control over his life as possible.

You keep talking about solving problems and making decisions, as if one problem might not have multiple valid solutions or as if taking more than one course simultaneously were inherently bad. Let's say that the problem is that people can't get food in a hurry to have on their lunch break. The strong government solution would be to establish a McDonald's within a certain distance of every workplace so that everyone could have lunch. The Libertarian approach would be to do nothing. Entrepreneurs, seeing an unfilled need would build all different sorts of restaurants serving all different sorts of food in different places. Thus, the problem gets solved with multiple solutions.

How about another example. Let's say that there are two groups of 100 people who decide they need a government. The groups are exactly the same, except one group selects Smartass to be their government, the other group selects 2sense. Smartass believes his only purpose is to protect the people's rights so they can solve their own problems. 2sense believes he is empowered to act in their name for the betterment of society.

Now, on this occasion, each of the citizens has one dollar of income outside of that which he needs to meet his basic needs. Three people approach the government. One offers to dig and install a well in the center of town, so that people will not have to walk to the river for water. He can do this for $40. One offers to establish a park in the middle of town for the people to share and enjoy. He also can do this for $40. Lastly, a guy offers to establish a fund to feed fisherman in the case that they have a really bad month of work. The price? You guessed it: $40.

As it turns out, 40 of the citizens--the "Brown Eyes" live by the river and rely on the river for their livelihoods. 60 of the citizens--the "Blue Eyes"--live farther from the river and rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Given these facts, once presented with these three options, this is how the people feel:

Brown Eyes
-They don't see any benefit to a well--the river is closer than the center of town. Therefore, they would rather not spend any of their money on it.
-On the other hand, they really like the idea of "insurance" for fisherman. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn't want to spend "too much money" on it.

Blue Eyes
-They love the idea of a well, particularly during the dry months of summer. Currently they are having to travel all the way to the river whenever they need water, and the center of town is much closer. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-On the other hand, since none of them fish, they don't see any benefit to insurance for fisherman and would rather not spend any of their own money on such a "socialist" scheme.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn't want to spend "too much money" on it.

2sense government:
2sense realizes that this is a situation where people can use the profits from their production to improve their society. Any one of these ideas could feasibly benefit society. However, being a believer in government serving the people, he decides that it is best to let The People make the determination. So he calls together The People for a vote: "We have the ability to improve our society. Using the collective spending power of The People, we can improve life for everyone. However, because improvements are expensive, we must select which ones to invest in."

First he asks for a vote on the well idea. The majority is in favor of it. "Now that that is decided, we must choose whether to spend our remaining money on the park or the fishermen's 'insurance' idea."

40 people vote for the insurance, 60 vote for the park. The $20 remaining goes into the "public trust fund", to be applied to later spending decisions.

Smartass government:
When the people come to Smartass to present their ideas, he says, "I think these are all great ideas, guys. However, it is not my place to distribute the money of The People. If you want their money, I'm afraid you're going to have to ask them for it."

So the three guys make their presentation to the people.

Immediately, the Blue Eyes all get up and head for the guy offering to dig a well. Quickly, they realize that there are 60 of them and only $40 is needed. They work out a deal where each person pays $.66 and retains $.34 to spend on cheap women (Blue Eyes are like that sometimes).

At the same time, the Brown Eyes head for the guy with the insurance idea. As there are 40 them, they are just able to afford the insurance.

Sadly, the guy who offered to build a park had no takers.

The Results

So, whose system works better? Well, that depends on what you value:

2sense
60% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
40% of the people did not get the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people got something that wanted "a little".

Smartass
100% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people did not get something they wanted "a little".

I know this is a ridiculously simple example, but I believe the conclusion is valid: If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Libertarian--you just may not realize it. If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom.

In your example I would submit that the power lies with a minority, as it does in this nation.

Minority/Majority--who cares? I want power to lie with the individual.

[sdimbert]

smartass:

matt_mcl said:


When you pay for things you believe in via taxes, you are participating and collaborating with other citizens through a democracy.
<snip, snip>
When you pay for things that you do not believe in via taxes, it is a sign that your democracy is not working, and/or that you are in the minority.


Then you replied:

And you think it is acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I do not. That kind of thinking justifies such wonderful things as slavery and socialism.


It seems to me that the point has been missed. matt_mcl, you are correct in your first assertion - when my tax dollars are allocated to pay for things in which I believe, democracy is working. But, when those same tax dollars are allocated to pay for things in which I do not believe, democracy is still working as intended.

smartass, democracy is based on the idea that it is "acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority." That's how the system is designed to work. If you can imagine a scenario in which you find yourself in the majority, I am sure you can understand how they system is intended to work.

Of course I over-simplify; an in-depth investigation is too time consuming for me to accomplish over coffee. Let me just say this: there are lots and lots (and lots) of bad things you can say about a democracy (as practiced in the USA), but you have to admit that, in practice, it beats the tar out of any alternative the world has ever seen. If your goals are to provide maximum opportunity for those willing to expend effort, while at the same time, caring for those unable to expend effort, our current free-market, capitalist democracy is the best game in town.

Of course, some people willing to expend effort are not successful, and others who are unwilling to do so receive assistance they do not deserve - it happens.

As to your obvious dissatisfaction, smartass, you have (as I see it) three choices:

Grin and bear it,
Embrace the system, lobby, find other true-believers and change the rules using the structure inherent in the system, or
Leave.

[Smartass]

sdimbert:

Thank you for belaboring the obvious. You seem to think that I am dissatisfied with the system because it is a democracy. This is not true. The system is not a democracy. Actually I am very pleased with the "system" as described in the Constitution. What displeases me is when the protections afforded in that document are flouted.

democracy is based on the idea that it is "acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority." That's how the system is designed to work.

This is obviously true.

there are lots and lots (and lots) of bad things you can say about a democracy (as practiced in the USA), but you have to admit that, in practice, it beats the tar out of any alternative the world has ever seen.

Once again, the USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic. This is not a complaint--it is a strength, in that protections of individual liberty were designed into the system. They just don't always work. These protections, as opposed to any theorizing that we are living in a democracy, are what makes our game the best game in town.

As to my choices:
Grin and bear it,

Embrace the system, lobby, find other true-believers and change the rules using the structure inherent in the system, or

Leave.

I am already opting for choice two by being an active member and supporter of the Libertarian Party. As part of this choice, I often try to convince other people that the Libertarian approach is the best approach and they should therefore vote for Libertarian candidates to represent them as they take the Constitution extremely seriously. Which is what I am doing in this thread.

As for you, you could read the posts a little closer before posing a hypothetical ultimatum to someone whose position you obviously don't understand. But you don't have to. I support your right to be purposelessly obnoxious.

-VM

[sdimbert]

smartass:


Once again, the USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic.

You are correct. It is a semantic point I avoided in my post because I thought the generic term "democaracy" was close enough for our discussion.


Thank you for belaboring the obvious... As for you, you could read the posts a little closer... you obviously don't understand... I support your right to be purposelessly obnoxious...


Jeeeezus. :rolleyes: I'm almost sorry I ever got involved. You could be right - perhaps I didn't comprehend your posts fully... But really, why not leave the pompous sarcasm at home, eh?

Nowthen, you posted:


Actually I am very pleased with the "system" as described in the Constitution.


Then we had the following exchange:


Me:
democracy is based on the idea that it is "acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority." That's how the system is designed to work.

You:
This is obviously true.


Unless I misread you again, I see your two comments as admitting satisfatction with the system currently in place, despite the fact that it is based on majority rule. If so, how can you post to the contrary:

And you think it is acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I do not.


Is your point that, yes, a democracy is a governmental model you would support, but that ours is not a democracy and, thus, you don't support it?

[SingleDad]

It is irrefutable fact that human beings acting in concert in a society are more powerful and prosperous than a collection of individuals acting alone. We see this feature in even the most primitive of humans. Society allows specialization; a collection of specialists will operate more efficiently than the same number of absolutely self-sufficient generalists. Eventually, the individualistic humans will be crowded out by the more effective societal humans. It is a measure of the irrefutablity of this observation that there are virtually no absolutely self-sufficient individuals on the planet.

That we must live socially is a given. But to do so, we must create and enforce agreements; we must each agree to forego some actions to make our society effective. For instance, I forego the action of killing my neighbor and looting his possesions so that he is not obligated to defend himself against me. I forego counterfeiting our currency so that I may rely on it as a medium of trade. Likewise, to specialize we must also compel certain behaviors; a person is obliged at the very least to assume the duties of a particular specialization to deserve the support of his society. The set of of prohibitions and compulsions form the social policy of a particular society.

Since the set of social agreements involves a relaxation of one's defenses and a reliance on other people to do their share, niches become available for criminals and parasites to survive. A criminal is one who ignores the prohibitions for his personal gain; a parasite ignores his obligations. To counter these tendencies, we allow individuals to specialize in defense of our interests and compulsion of social obligations.

What's really being argued here is (as I've so often pointed out) a question of basis and means. On what basis do we evaluate cooperative policy of our society and by what means do we do so?

There are two competing bases: The fundamental basis, Utopianism; and the effective basis, Utilitarianism. Both of these bases may be effectively applied to different aspects of discussions of policy. Utopianism is the generalization of the concept that what is necessary to one is necessary for all; contrawise what is intolerable to one is intolerable for all. Utilitarianism is concerned with the subjective valuation of the good or harm of a course of action.

Both Utopianism and Utilitarianism ultimately depend on a subjective valuation of good, harm, necessity and intolerance. Since human beings show a wide variety of subjective evaluations, any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength. Even if only a minority of the population are slaves, the strength of their objection gives disproportional weight to their subjective evaluation of the harm of slavery.

There are three primary effective decision making means: Force, popularity and reason. Not even the most die-hard Libertarian can deny the importance of force. Ultimately the protection against compulsion depends on force, justified by its restriction to self-defense. Popularity is an extension of the use of force. It is a simple observation that numerical superiority will generally prevail in contests of force; to accept the results of a poll or election recognizes the likely outcome of such a contest without the necessity to engage in bloodshed. Reason and logic allow us to predict the consequences of possibilities and implement the one with the most eventual benefit with the least amount of relative risk.

Since this thread seems to be discussing the relative merits between "social democracy" and "libertarianism", I will offer my interpretation of the above arguments the two societal philosophies.

I'll operationally define "Social Democracy" as the common philosophical and practical elements of the United States, Canada and virtually all Latin America and Western European societies. All of these societies feature relatively tolerant rules of individual behavior, protection of minority viewpoints, and taxation for the general welfare and common endeavors. There is no denying the empirical success of this general form of society. Since WW II, only a handful of Asian nations have acheived any level of material prosperity without adopting it, and, as the level of prosperity rises in these Asian nations, the call for tolerance of personal opinion and behavior becomes increasingly widespread and insistent.

From both a Utopian and Utilitarian perspective, Social Democracy provides a relatively non-violent means of negotiating competing value systems. Few results are "perfect", but there is no universal definition of perfect anyway.

I've argued some fundamental criticisms of Libertarian philosophy in Government financing in a free society (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23800). I won't repeat the full argument here, but in essence I argue that the Libertarian philosophy (specifically the definition of "freedom") is arbitrary, in that it has no intrinsic value, undesirable in that it is contrary to the self-interest of most people, and impractical as it does not promote and protect the specialization necessary for a prosperous and efficient society. Additionally, the Utopian evaluation of intolerability of taxation is not widely held; such an evaluation can only be termed idiosyncratic.

[matt_mcl]

If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom.

"Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint... This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice... but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe."
- Edmund Burke

[Smartass]

sdimbert:

I'm almost sorry I ever got involved. You could be right - perhaps I didn't comprehend your posts fully... But really, why not leave the pompous sarcasm at home, eh?

I will happily agree to this. Would you also be willing to forego leaping into the conversation by addressing me in such a deliberately condescending manner? Not to say that my reaction was the most mature or helpful, but it was predicated by your post, which concluded with a somewhat sarcastic ultimatum.

To clarify:
democracy is based on the idea that it is "acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority." That's how the system is designed to work.

I am saying that is is obvious that this is how the "system" known as democracy is designed to work. However, I think pure democracy would be a horrible government and am therefore pleased with our system, at least partially, because it is not one.

Is your point that, yes, a democracy is a governmental model you would support, but that ours is not a democracy and, thus, you don't support it?

Just to make sure I'm being clear: I am saying that democracy is a governmental model I would not support. Ours is not a democracy, and I happen to support it.

I support it because the constitution was created with a focus on the protection of individual Liberty. I think that the government described in the Constitution, while not perfect, is the best I have encountered. My complaints are with actions by government that are in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I support the Libertarian Party because its candidates generally support this position as well.

Also, I tend to say that I am a Libertarian, because I support and am a member of the Libertarian party. I cannot say whether all my views are philosophically Libertarian because I am not interested enough in pure philosophies to study them closely. I am primarily interested in things that directly affect my life and happiness.

[Smartass]

SingleDad:

Since human beings show a wide variety of subjective evaluations, any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength.

I think you are making an assumption here that one measure of good and bad must ultimately prevail. I believe that it is possible for multiple definitions of good and bad to prevail. The way to allow for this is to make your basis the protection of individual liberty, with each person's liberty equally as valuable as every other's. From a Utilitarian standpoint, the result of this approach is to allow as many people as possible to make their own decisions based their personal valuations of what is good and what is bad. The only time there is a need for society to intrude is when my efforts to achieve what I think is good are trouncing on your efforts to achieve what you think is good.

It is a simple observation that numerical superiority will generally prevail in contests of force...

This is true. However, the exertion of force is also an acceptance of risk. If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail. To categorically submit every decision to the majority is to assume that the people will feel this strongly about every issue. In other words, those with numbers are allowed to impose their will without having to weigh their desires against personal risk. Thus, you may feel strongly enough about keeping me from harming myself with drugs to vote that they be banned. However, you may not feel strongly enough about it that you would be willing to enter into armed combat with me to prevent me from harming myself. You may also be in the majority with this view. However, me and my friends may feel strongly enough about being able to harm ourselves with drugs that we are willing to fight you for that right. Hence, the drug war.

I'll operationally define "Social Democracy" as the common philosophical and practical elements of the United States, Canada and virtually all Latin America and Western European societies. All of these societies feature relatively tolerant rules of individual behavior, protection of minority viewpoints, and taxation for the general welfare and common endeavors. There is no denying the empirical success of this general form of society. Since WW II, only a handful of Asian nations have acheived any level of material prosperity without adopting it, and, as the level of prosperity rises in these Asian nations, the call for tolerance of personal opinion and behavior becomes increasingly widespread and insistent.

I think it is self-serving to define the U.S. as a social democracy and then present it as evidence of the value of such a system. If the U.S. were a social democracy, it would not be achieving this level of success. Unfortunately, by flouting the Constitution, politicians have managed to introduce some elements of social democracy into our system. These elements are not bringing about the prosperity that you describe. Rather they are hampering it by weighing everyone down with the costs of such ridiculous programs as the Drug War, the welfare system, the public education system, et al.

From both a Utopian and Utilitarian perspective, Social Democracy provides a relatively non-violent means of negotiating competing value systems. Few results are "perfect", but there is no universal definition of perfect anyway.

I do not know of any actual Social Democracies, so I question your conclusion. However, I agree that there is no universal definition of perfect. The thing is, Social Democracy requires people to act as if there were a universal definition of perfect, based on "popular" opinions. Libertarianism seeks to, as much as possible, allow people to hold and act according to multiple definitions of perfect. In that way, it provides a relatively non-violent means of allowing competing value systems to coexist.

I think this is the better system. You, apparently, do not.

in essence I argue that the Libertarian philosophy (specifically the definition of "freedom") is arbitrary, in that it has no intrinsic value, undesirable in that it is contrary to the self-interest of most people, and impractical as it does not promote and protect the specialization necessary for a prosperous and efficient society.

I hope some time to have time to check out this thread. For now, it can be argued that any philosophy is arbitrary as its basis must be selected from available contenders. Different people can select different bases for their philosophies. If you do not believe that allowing as many people as possible to do this for themselves is the fairest system, there is probably nothing I could say to convince you otherwise. However, I doubt that, expressed in this way, it would be a "popular" position to take.

If you think that Libertarianism is contrary to the self-interest of most people, I can't help but think you have misunderstood Libertarianism. How can it be in conflict with self-interest to attempt to allow everyone to pursue their self interests? This is only true if you somehow understand people's self-interests better than they do themselves. If this is true, why do free markets work better than centrally controlled ones?

Also, Libertarianism specifically promotes specialization by allowing people to choose. By protecting property, Libertarianism promotes markets. Markets, by their nature, promote specialization. I don't mean to be rude but, what the hell are you talking about?

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

"Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint... This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice... but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe."
- Edmund Burke

I assume that, since you put this after my statement, you think it refutes my statement. I disagree. In fact, I agree with this quote.

If my approach to freedom were solitary, unconnected, individual, and selfish, then I would not be interested in Libertarianism or in any sort of law whatsoever. I would take what I wanted and kill whoever got in my way.

Instead, my approach to freedom is to recognize that it only exists if we all have it. Thus, I not only support and defend my own freedom, I support and defend my fellow citizens' freedom as well.

The fact that you define justice in a different way than I do does not mean that I have no interest in it.

-VM

[galen]

Some points:

1. Taxes, high or otherwise, are not unique to socialism.

2. Those who think so should consider that a big chunk of their earnings are already docked even before it is taxed. It's called profit, which the employer expropriates from wage earners as his cut.

[sdimbert]

smartass:


Would you also be willing to forego leaping into the conversation by addressing me in such a deliberately condescending manner?


While I don't think I was condescending, consider the hatchet buried.


Just to make sure I'm being clear: I am saying that democracy is a governmental model I would not support. Ours is not a democracy, and I happen to support it.


Thank you. That's what I thought.

I admit that you've obviously thought more about this issue than I have. I've stopped debating the question... I'm simply trying to keep up with you, SingleDad (as usual) and the others. But I am bothered again by what I see as a contradiction in your posts. If you have time please clarify:

You say (please pardon my snipping - I'm trying to save time):

...The way to allow for this [multiple definitions of good and bad] is to make your basis the protection of individual liberty, with each person's liberty equally as valuable as every other's. From a Utilitarian standpoint, the result of this approach is to allow as many people as possible to make their own decisions based their personal valuations of what is good and what is bad. The only time there is a need for society to intrude is when my efforts to achieve what I think is good are trouncing on your efforts to achieve what you think is good.


Then you say:

If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail. To categorically submit every decision to the majority is to assume that the people will feel this strongly about every issue. In other words, those with numbers are allowed to impose their will without having to weigh their desires against personal risk. Thus, you may feel strongly enough about keeping me from harming myself with drugs to vote that they be banned. However, you may not feel strongly enough about it that you would be willing to enter into armed combat with me to prevent me from harming myself.


If I understand your point, you mean that the underlined section is a flaw - it's not fair that Group A can tell Group B how to behave without putting themselves on the line to determine the outcome in armed combat?

I know I haven't read as much as you obviously have about this, but it seems to me that government by proxy ("voting" as opposed to "combat") is simply a more mature extension of the same philosophy.

If I feel that you and your pals shouldn't use drugs, I can put the issue to vote and try to create a law. You argue that I'm assuming no personal risk by doing so? Hogwash. I expend time, resources and energy. Additionally, I risk my wellfare - If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

The idea of voting on things rather than fighting about them simply elevates society above the sandlot.

(Unless, of course, I've misunderstood you again :) ?)

[matt_mcl]

. If the U.S. were a social democracy, it would not be achieving this level of success.

Success? Hah!

The United States is a success at two things: enriching the wealthy and convincing others that it is the best.

However, on the social democracy front, the US comes fourth in the 1998 Human Development index, largely because its GNP per capita (a meaningless statistic because it represents how rich everyone would be if the wealth were evenly divided, which it isn't) was so high. What that means is there are a few filthy rich people (Bill Gates is now worth more than several small countries) to balance out the mass of the poor. Be that as it may, the countries which beat it (Canada, France, and Norway) are social democracies.

If you look at life expectancy, the US was 16th, beaten by Japan, Iceland, Canada, France, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Greece (!), Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Austria, and New Zealand. Of those nations, I know that 12 of them are social democracies (I don't know about Switzerland, Greece, or Austria.)

Interestingly, moving right along we look at the last statistic on the column: Real GDP per capita (PPP$) rank
minus HDI rank. That represents the amount by which the country is the nicest but not the richest. For example, Canada had the 11th highest GDP per capita but it placed 1st in the human development index.

In other words, seven countries which are not in the top ten richest are in the top ten best-developed. All of them are social democracies.

However, of the Top Ten countries, the only country whose ranking of GDP per capita exceeds its HDI index is the United States. Doesn't sound like you're reaping the benefits of your wealth, does it?

Frankly, I'm surprised that the US scored so high. Let's see how you're doing in five years after "welfare reform" removes all government benefits from the already-poor chunk of the population. (And let's not forget that the Fed specifically uses interest rates to keep a stable constant of 6 million Americans out of work.)

Oh, and remind me to tell you some time about the difference in public cost between a single-payer medicare system and a privatized one. (Sneak preview: Surprise! Canadians pay less in taxes per capita for our commie system than you do for your red-blooded Amurrican capitalist one.)

The UNHDR is available at http://www.undp.org/hdro/98hdi.htm .

[SingleDad]

Smartass:

I think you are making an assumption here that one measure of good and bad must ultimately prevail. I believe that it is possible for multiple definitions of good and bad to prevail.

Multiple contradictory valuations cannot coexist. When applied to our social policy, at some point we must choose from competing, contradictory valuations.

If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail.

I note that "... any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength." We are in agreement on this point.

I think it is self-serving to define the U.S. as a social democracy and then present it as evidence of the value of such a system.

You are completely missing my point. Whatever you wish to call our government (and the common features of "western civilization"), it is clearly effective. We have the greatest amount of personal and public wealth in the world, and the one of the highest levels of personal freedom.

For now, it can be argued that any philosophy is arbitrary as its basis must be selected from available contenders.

Precisely so. Thus any argument that a particular value has intrinsic merit is fundamentally fallacious. All value arguments ultimately must rest on the rational bases of Utopianism and Utiliarianism to have objective meaning.

If you think that Libertarianism is contrary to the self-interest of most people, I can't help but think you have misunderstood Libertarianism. How can it be in conflict with self-interest to attempt to allow everyone to pursue their self interests?

Unless I am economically self-sufficient (e.g. I control sufficient capital to ensure my long-term survival) I must subsume my own self-interest to those who are economically self-sufficient to ensure my survival. I have traded politcal oppression for economic oppression.

Also note that is is not my responsibility to understand Libertarianism; it is your responsibility to explain it correctly.

This is only true if you somehow understand people's self-interests better than they do themselves. If this is true, why do free markets work better than centrally controlled ones?

"Free market" is a misnomer. The market that Libertarianism describes is not free: people are not free to use coercion or fraud. Those prohibitions are presumably controlled by a central government. The contention between Libertarianism, Democracy and Communism concerns the degree of control over the market, not presence of control.

[SingleDad]

Also note that I have nothing "personal" against Libertarianism. In fact I subscribe completely to "social" Libertarianism; I hold that private consensual behavior should be entirely unregulated. I merely find the arguments in favor of "economic" Libertarianism naive and unpersuasive.

[Smartass]

sdimbert:

If I understand your point, you mean that the underlined section is a flaw - it's not fair that Group A can tell Group B how to behave without putting themselves on the line to determine the outcome in armed combat?...

You argue that I'm assuming no personal risk by doing so? Hogwash. I expend time, resources and energy. Additionally, I risk my wellfare - If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

Hmmm, you have not completely misunderstood my point, but there are some crucial subtleties.

What I pointed out was indeed what I perceive to be a flaw (not the only one) with democracy, or majority rule. Since you have not completely missed the point, I'm having a hard time clearly expressing the difference.

For one, yes it is not "fair" by my definition. My definition of fair goes back to individual liberty. In this case, I would also say that it is not equitable. Let me see if I can frame this in terms of the drug example.

If you and your band decide to take me and my band on in armed combat, each of you is assuming an amount of risk that you have deemed appropriate relevant to your desire to accomplish your end. In fact, how hard each of you fights will reflect this desire.

Now, if me and my band are willing to fight for this right, you will have to stop us by using force. If we hold a vote to do this, you and your band are distributing the risk among the population. If you are in the majority, the result will be that others will share this risk and effort in order to enforce a law that they do not support. Therefore, you are allowed to cause to be expended more effort than you would be willing or able to expend yourself to accomplish this goal. In fact, this effort may be in excess of what your entire band would be willing to expend if you were not able to use the vote to coerce others into contributing. Also, you will probably use surrogates to carry out the actual enforcement. If they are not members of your band, they probably will not approach the problem in the same way or with the same vigor as you would.

We use the free market to optimize the utilization of resources and to gain productivity. It works because individuals are able to express their desires with dollars. For any sellable item, there are as many opinions about its "value" as there are people. Over the course of transactions, price and purchasing decisions are the mechanism that carries information about these values throughout the system. It is fair and equitable because your ability to obtain an item is proportional to your desire for the item. The more you desire it, the more you are willing to sacrifice to obtain it. The system is efficient because people are resourceful when they are looking out for their self-interests.

Now, going back to the example, to discuss what is, to me, the key issue. If you and your band are a large enough sample of the population, you can vote that we all pitch in to solve the "problem" of me and my band taking drugs. The result will be a concerted governmental effort to solve this problem. Being a national solution, it will tend to be arbitrary, inflexible, and to violate a great many rights, including those of the people in your band, who do not take drugs. Also, the people in your band who have voted to solve the problem may have different notions of how the problem should be solved. Some may prefer counseling, some may prefer obstructing supply, etc. Chances are that the bulk of the national effort will be expended on one approach at a solution (a "focused" effort).

In contrast, imagine if the rules of the government do not allow you to vote to prevent me from using drugs, because it is an unjustifiable violation of my rights. Imagine also that you and your band feel strongly about this, but not strongly enough to take up arms and attack me and my band. Here is the thing about people: If enough people want something badly enough, they will figure out a way to achieve it. Certain members of your band may favor counselling as a solution. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will spend their money setting up couselling services for addicts. Others may favor cutting supply. In order to achieve this, they may spread information that criticizes suppliers of drugs. They may march up and down in front of drug suppliers' places of business waving signs. They may boycott businesses that supply drugs. As a result, some number of these business will choose to quit engaging in this pursuit, lowering supply, increasing price. Of course, you can't eliminate the drug supply this way. You can't do it with a drug war either. The people who want the drugs want them too badly and are willing to risk and sacrifice too much for them. A major point: The effectiveness of your efforts will be directly proportional to the time, money, and labor you put into them. And this will be the result of how badly you want to achieve your goal, and what proportion of the population feels similarly.

The advantages: Everyone pursues their wants to the degree dictated by their own values. Their ability to achieve them is proportional to their desire. Also, by not relying on government to solve problems, they are able to attempt multiple solutions at the same time. As they notice one working better than others, they will tend to devote more energy to it.

The simple fact is that people solve their own problems better than government ever will.

Now, this is a side issue, but I figure you're thinking of it. Some of the members of my band may harm members of your band under the influence of drugs (car accidents, whatever), and therefore you may think that the drug problem then becomes "society's" problem. However, a Libertarian government will already have protections in place for people's rights, and will act on these harms--with or without the presence of drugs. If I run over someone in my car, I have violated their rights by harming them, not by ingesting drugs beforehand.

Still, even if you can make a legitimate case that this problem is society's problem, that does not make up for the fact that government imposed solutions just don't work. Solutions arrived at by individuals are always better, more flexible, and more efficient.

Giving the majority control over my resources merely perverts the system, violates my rights, and fails to solve problems. Protecting individual rights ensures that the problems that are most strongly addressed are the ones that are cared most strongly about by the most people.

Okay, let me see if I can sum it up. If you think about it, voting gives everyone's feelings voice, but does not consider the relative importance of their desires (that is, I want people to stop taking drugs, but feeding the poor is more important to me). A Libertarian government not only gives voice to my opinion, but weights the results according to how badly I want something (so if more of us feel more strongly about feeding the poor, more action is taken in this regard).

I don't know if this is perfectly fair, but I can't think of a system that would be more fair to every participant.

A few additional notes:

If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

This is not true. Your power is the same regardless. It just wasn't sufficient to achieve the result you wanted on this occasion.

The idea of voting on things rather than fighting about them simply elevates society above the sandlot.

I agree. A Libertarian approach elevates the society a further step, by protecting all members equally, whether they are in the majority or not.

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

Interesting statistics. However, to rank the U.S. according to them is to assume that these measures are the correct basis to evaluate the successfulness of a nation.

They obviously are correct, according to your belief system--and no, I am not implying that you are alone in this. What I am implying is that reasonable people can disagree. You prefer systems that forcibly resolve these disagreements. I prefer systems that allow people as much leeway as possible to live by their own standards.

You are interested in life expectancy. Some Americans are willing to give up pleasures in order to increase their lives; others are not. Some would prefer a shorter, more enjoyable life. A higher number here does not mean that everyone is better off. It just means that, on average, people are living longer.

Also, you are interested in "the amount by which the country is the nicest but not the richest". Obviously, you think this is an important number. However, I bet if we start discussing it, we won't even agree on what is "nice" and what is not.

However, of the Top Ten countries, the only country whose ranking of GDP per capita exceeds its HDI index is the United States. Doesn't sound like you're reaping the benefits of your wealth, does it?

I would say that some are, some are not. Some are not even interested in wealth. I am reaping the benefits of what little wealth I have (which isn't much), but I don't generally think of it as communal wealth. I think of it as mine.

Canadians pay less in taxes per capita for our commie system than you do for your red-blooded Amurrican capitalist one.

Gee, then it must be better.

Obviously, we, as a nation, are not impressing you with our success on numbers that you deem important. As it turns out, Canada is not impressing me with its success on the things that I deem important. We can argue this, but I doubt it would get us anywhere.

Overall, I am forced to conclude that your rant certainly clarifies your opinions, but does little to forward this general discussion.

-VM

[Gadarene]

Smartass,

As a matter of curiosity--and given your expressed concern for the poor and indigent among us--just how would you devise a system of privatized education better than what we have now? You do understand the value of a literate, productive population, don't you? Even in a libertarian society?

[Smartass]

SingleDad:

Multiple contradictory valuations cannot coexist. When applied to our social policy, at some point we must choose from competing, contradictory valuations.

They can coexist, but usually not in the same person. And no, they cannot be simultaneously implemented as policy. This is why solutions that are achieved with policy are usually bad ones. Better solutions are achieved by people working to achieve the things that they want. Given that, I generally favor government that is as weak as possible, but still able to protect the rights of its citizens.

I note that "... any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength." We are in agreement on this point.

Excellent. The difference, then, is that you favor a system that measures this popularity and strength only on the basis of numbers of people. I prefer a system that considers not only the numbers of people, but how relatively strongly each individual feels about his/her position.

We have the greatest amount of personal and public wealth in the world, and the one of the highest levels of personal freedom.

Absolutely. I credit it to an excellent Constitution and a general attitude of wanting to protect people's rights. I submit that, were we to follow the Constitution more, and cut out the rights violations, it would be even better.

Precisely so. Thus any argument that a particular value has intrinsic merit is fundamentally fallacious. All value arguments ultimately must rest on the rational bases of Utopianism and Utiliarianism to have objective meaning.

And which one you select is arbitrary as well, to a point.

Unless I am economically self-sufficient (e.g. I control sufficient capital to ensure my long-term survival) I must subsume my own self-interest to those who are economically self-sufficient to ensure my survival. I have traded politcal oppression for economic oppression.

Nobody controls sufficient anything to ensure their long-term survival. By making decisions that help ensure your survival, you are not "subsuming" your self-interest, you are defining it.

If you do not have "sufficient" economic capital, this does not lead to the conclusion that you are being economically oppressed. You are oppressed if the government is deliberately preventing you from acquiring that capital. The fact that others are competing for that capital with you does not qualify as oppression either.

Also note that is is not my responsibility to understand Libertarianism; it is your responsibility to explain it correctly.

I'm trying, man. But I can't make you understand it--you have to meet me half way.

The market that Libertarianism describes is not free: people are not free to use coercion or fraud. Those prohibitions are presumably controlled by a central government.

Quibbling over terms does not help any, unless you are somehow confused by what I mean when I say "Free Market" or think that I don't know what it means.

The contention between Libertarianism, Democracy and Communism concerns the degree of control over the market, not presence of control.

This is certainly an aspect of the contention, but not the whole of it. How much control you exert and how you go about exerting it will result from what you are trying to accomplish. In other words, what you think the purpose of government is. I believe that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals--no more, no less. I am assuming that you see additional purposes. While they may be laudable, I submit that they would be better achieved using tools other than government.

In fact I subscribe completely to "social" Libertarianism; I hold that private consensual behavior should be entirely unregulated. I merely find the arguments in favor of "economic" Libertarianism naive and unpersuasive.

I would be interested in how you would define a government based on "social Libertarianism", because it sounds like an oxymoron to me (it doesn't require military intelligence, does it?).

I don't know if I should add anything more here or not. I am happy to try to help you understand Libertarianism, because I believe the better you understand it, the more likely you are to support it. Please read my post to sdimbert as well and let me know your objections/questions.

-VM

[Gadarene]

Upon what measures do you evaluate the successfulness of a nation? Matt's list seems to be relatively objective, insofar as it attempts to quantify health, prosperity, and human development (which is an amorphous concept, depending on which social scientist you talk to, but can be reasonably operationalized). If these things are not the way by which to judge a country's success, what is? In your estimation, of course.

[Smartass]

Gadarene:

As a matter of curiosity--and given your expressed concern for the poor and indigent among us--just how would you devise a system of privatized education better than what we have now? You do understand the value of a literate, productive population, don't you? Even in a libertarian society?

I don't know if I understand it as you understand it, but it is important to me that my daughter be literate and productive. I suspect that a great many parents in this country feel the same way.

You'll get a kick out of this: Even though I don't profess anything beyond agnosticism, I was raised Catholic. For eight years I attended a Catholic school. For one year, I attended a Baptist school. For three years, I attended a public school. My experience leads me to conclude that there is no better education to be found than the one at Catholic schools, so I will probably try to have my daughter at least start at one.

Of course, I will have to pay tuition. Unless something changes, at the same time, I will be paying for public schools with my tax money. What you may not realize is that Catholic schools actually charge more in tuition than is required to provide the service. This enables them to enroll people whose parents cannot afford to send their children there.

What would a Libertarian system be like? I cannot predict the future, but I suspect it would be a lot like that. Schools would exist of varying qualities offering various curricula. Some might even teach Creationism (gasp). Parents would send their children to the best school they could afford that matched their criteria for education. As children became older, they would probably want to participate in the decision.

I know what you're waiting for: What about those people whose parents can't afford to send their children to school? You're waiting for this because you feel strongly that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent education. I feel the same way. In fact, so do a whole lot of other people in this country. Given that, people will figure out various solutions to this problem. Catholic schools will continue to charge a little higher, and accept donations, so that they can offer education to Catholic children who cannot pay. Some people may organize schools that are completely based on donations. Some will come up with solutions I could never think of. Will this solve the problem of ensuring a quality education to every child? No. But it will provide a lot of different solutions, based on the needs and desires of the people involved. Will it be perfect? I doubt it. I'll wager you this, though: It would be a whole hell of heap better than what we've got now and are being forced to spend so much money on.

Most liberals have a tendency to instinctively assume that people will not act to solve problems on their own. The government must do it. Now, I will freely admit that people aren't currently working too hard on these kinds of problems. That's because they have come to think that it is the government's responsibility. And of course, the fact that the government is siphoning off more than a fourth of my income doesn't leave me too damn much to work with either.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

I don't know who started talking about education; I was talking about medicare. Were you aware that the US system costs 16% of GDP whereas the Canadian one costs 9%? And still some tens of millions of Americans are simply not covered at all. So - we have everyone covered for 9%; you have rich people covered for 16%. Yep, I can sure see how US capitalist democracy is better for the people than Canadian social democracy.

[Smartass]

Gadarene:

Upon what measures do you evaluate the successfulness of a nation? Matt's list seems to be relatively objective, insofar as it attempts to quantify health, prosperity, and human development (which is an amorphous concept, depending on which social scientist you talk to, but can be reasonably operationalized). If these things are not the way by which to judge a country's success, what is? In your estimation, of course.

You want to evaluate the successfulness of a nation or its people? I don't have any idea what would make up a "successful" nation, but I would most want to live in one that maximizes the ability of each individual to live their lives as they choose and to gain the things that they most want.

How do you measure this? I don't think you can, directly. Total wealth will tell you how efficiently resources are being used, which is certainly an indicator. People trying to leave vs. people trying to enter would probly be a good indicator too.

I think it is easier to measure the degree to which a nation is failing. I would measure this by counting the unwarranted infringements on people's rights. When you infringe a person's rights, and cannot justify it by the protection of another person's more fundamental right, then you are lessening the ability of that individual to live his life as he chooses and gain the things that he wants most. Thus the more rights you infringe of more people, the more you are failing. It is also important how often you allow one person to infringe the rights of another.

As far as things like wealth per person and the other stuff that matt_mcl mentioned, measuring them in a free society measures only the importance of those things to its members. Thus, if people are free, and you measure their education level, the number you obtain is a measure of how important the citizens believe education to be, relative to other things they want.

Does this help?

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

I understand, then, that you believe the correct way to evaluate government is by a comparison of statistics. I also understand that you believe tha the best way to evaluate medical care, nationwide, is to consider the total costs, divide them by GDP, and then look at the percentage of population that is not covered by insurance.

I will make a note of it.

Needless to say, if these are you measures, then the Canadian system is better, in your opinion.

Doesn't leave much for you and I to discuss.

-VM

[SingleDad]

Lack of capital self-sufficiency does not a priori deny me liberty, but it can have that effect. The argument is lengthy, so please bear with me.

Consider a small, isolated society. Each of the residents is rational, in that they will not make a decision which can be demonstrated to be against their self-interest. However, the residents are otherwise diverse in intelligence, capabilities and talents, and have the normal human distribution of flaws. The residents all begin absolutely self-sufficient, but seeing their neighbors prosper, they decide to organize their own system specialization. One person specializes in water collection and distribution, another on food production, another on house contruction, etc. Each person assumes ownership of the tools, land, techniques, etc. This ownership, over a period of time becomes entrenched.

They find that their specialization has reaped some excellent benefits: Because water collection and food production are more efficient, drought and famine are less prevalent. More importantly, their overall efficiency has allowed them time for leisure and luxury. What they have traded for this prosperity, of course, is self-sufficiency. None of the members can now survive on their own; they depend on each other. Even more so, the decision to become self-sufficient is not resource-free. A significant investment in resources (food, water, clothing, shelter) must be assembled to survive the transition to self-sufficiency. Likewise, leaving the community is not resource-free; those same resources must be assembled to survive the journey to the next town.

To prevent conflict, the residents purchase the latest Mark X Police Robot from travelling aliens (hey, it's a thought experiment!) This robot can be programmed with any political system, and will enforce it thoroughly and without exception. It is, of course, sufficiently powerful that the combined force of the people cannot overcome it. Only a total unanimity of the members can change its basic programming, although it may be pre-programmed to allow different methods of modification, such as a majority vote.

Just to recap: We have a small society of human specialists, none of which may regain self-sufficiency with trivial effort. They are stuck with one another. Whatever political system they decide upon is absolutely enforced; there is no "going outside the system" to correct any deficiencies.

Now, let's program the robot with the Libertarian political system, and see how our model community deals with this issue.

Bill and Ted, the guys who control the two water works, decide they want to be absolute tyrants of our community. Anyone who does not submit to their will in every way is denied water. Anyone who tries to compete with them is denied water; without it, they cannot survive long enough to dig a well. Anyone who wishes to leave is denied sufficient water to survive the journey.

The robot, programmed with the Libertarian political system, cannot act. Property rights and the freedom from coercion are basic principles; they cannot be overridden without a consensus, and Bill and Ted certainly refuse to consent. The tyranny of Bill and Ted is not being coerced politically. No one is compelled to submit to their will; the robot would not permit that. They are merely using their own property as they see fit; anyone is free to refuse their demands without fear of violent reprisal.

There are three counterarguments to my thesis.

The predicated society is unrealisitic. If so, you must point out a common feature of ordinary society that differs from my scenario in a qualitative, and not merely quantitative manner. A million people banding together to oppress a hundred million has been historically demonstrated.

The actions of individuals are unrealistic. Again you must point out a qualititive difference.

My understanding of Libertarian theory is incomplete and inaccurate. As you have greater knowlege of Libertarian theory, I will naturally accept your expert opinion.

[matt_mcl]

Needless to say, if these are you measures, then the Canadian system is better, in your opinion.

That's rather pathetic, Smartass. Of course that's my opinion. Whose opinion would it be? Peter Mansbridge's? This entire section of the SDMB is based entirely on opinion, and if we declare opinions undebatable then we obviate its entire purpose.

If you meant to concede the point, I accept your concession. If you mean to debate, then goddammit, debate.

[pldennison]

And still some tens of millions of Americans are simply not covered at all. So - we have everyone covered for 9%; you have rich people covered for 16%.

Hoo, boy. I'd love to know what you consider "rich." Every single person in my office (15 people) is fully covered, and if any of them is in the top 10% of wage earners in this country, I'll eat my hat, yours, and a hat of your choice.

[matt_mcl]

pl: That's 'rich' as opposed to 'too poor to pay for insurance', not as opposed to 'non-rich'. I was preoccupied with making the sentence sound pithy. It won't happen again.

[sdimbert]

smartass:

My compliments. Your arguments are well-supported and logically sound. I am reminded of a debate I had over dinner with my father on a similar subject. I argued the Libertarian aide as Devil's Advocate (he assigned the roles) and he defended the USA's status quo (OK - we're a nerdy bunch around the table, but at least we can all get good jobs :) ).

Anyway, we got to talking. The point I got hung up on is one of a delicate nature. You touched upon it when you said:

I know what you're waiting for: What about those people whose parents can't afford to send their children to school? You're waiting for this because you feel strongly that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent education....
<snip, snip>
Most liberals have a tendency to instinctively assume that people will not act to solve problems on their own. The government must do it.
The fact of the matter is that one of the many roles of organized society is to care for those that can't or (unhappily) won't care for themselves. This includes everyone from noble veterans of war to sleazy, lower-than-puke indigents too short-sighted and chuckle-headed to know when to come in out of the rain.

You said that most liberals assume that people don't solve problems on their own - unfortunately, most liberals are right, and you are wrong. I mean, look - you posess an understanding of a simple, elegant idea that makes sense, can solve many problems and would work better than the status quo. You lobby for it, educate people about it, send out letter and conduct rallys... to what end?

The plain fact of the matter is that most people's heads are so far up their asses that they haven't seen daylight since Milli Vanilli was in Grammy contention.

...I'm not sure what to say at this point. I've started this concluding paragraph thrice, aiming in a different direction each time; I don't know, honestly, how I feel. I don't want to disagree with you, because I believe your cause to be valid (as I did with my father, as I did before you and I began our debate). Yet, I want to disagree with you because (and maybe I am a Liberal) I believe that a driving reason for society is to protect some citizens from themselves!... It's a hell of a conundrum. I just don't think that a Libertarian Social Democracy of the type you're describing would ever function, as planned, in an effective way.

[Gadarene]

Yet, I want to disagree with you because (and maybe I am a Liberal) I believe that a driving reason for society is to protect some citizens from themselves!

Um, what about protecting citizens from bigger, more powerful citizens (or, in the case of big business, incorporated entities with de jure citizen status)? Isn't that more the liberal ethos? I could care less, honestly, about those schlubs who are too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves (except insofar as their circumstances were shaped by societal mores, such as a lack of commitment to education). Rather, I'm concerned with adequate environmental standards, consumer safety, safe working conditions, fair labor practices, providing education and health care and food and shelter for as many people as possible. Wasn't it Milton Friedman who said that a corporation's board of directors has no responsibility except to generate a profit for its shareholders? Without accountability, the effects of that philosophy are demonstrably adverse to most goals of citizenship or community. Forget about protecting citizens from themselves; protect citizens from institutions over which they have little control, but by which their lives are greatly affected.

[SingleDad]

sdimbert: As a lifelong Liberal, I have to (mostly) disagree with your characterization. There are certainly some people who lack the necessary means to support themselves, and I agree they should be treated with compassion. It is certainly well within our means as a wealthy nation for us to unconditionally allow such people a dignified life. But such compassion is not the basis of the Liberalism I practice.

To my view, most modern political theories base themselves on their definition of and response to the very fuzzy concept of exploitation.

Oppression, using forcible coercion to create a non-reciprocal transaction of value, is pretty well decided. Most serious political philosophies prohibit such behavior.

Liberal political philosophies define exploitation as using an economic advantage to create a non-reciprocal transaction of value. In my thought experiment above, Bill and Ted use the economic advantage of their duopoly to "artificially" inflate the value of water.

Central to conception of all political philosophies is the abstract concept of ownership. The most extreme forms of "left-wing" philosophies (e.g. Communism) deny completely the concept of individual ownership; the most extreme forms of "right-wing" philosophies (e.g. Libertarianism) elevate economic ownership to the sole determination of personal value. Liberals and Conservatives fall somewhere between these extremes, with both supporting the concept of ownership with more or fewer limitations on its acceptable use in determining value.

[Gilligan]

This debate is being framed as if libertarianism and social democracy are opposites, which they aren’t. They aren’t two ends of a spectrum (or an end and a middle, with pure socialism being the other end.) Libertarianism is simply a context in which any societal system can be implemented - including social democracy, for those that want it. Some social democracy advocates believe that libertarians would somehow ban social insurance and other charitable programs, which is simply untrue. What they want to ban is forcing people into them against their will. Libertarianism isn’t about property or property rights. It’s about will, choice, and consent. A person who owns nothing but the clothes on his back has these three things; it is these that are the basis of his rights, not any property he owns. Libertarians usually focus so heavily on property because it the most visible extension of a person’s will, choice, and consent, and thus the thing that is most often at risk.

Libertarians don’t deny that people need to eat and find shelter, and that these are best supplied by cooperation and specialization. They recognize that the biggest coercer is nature itself, and that “society” provides the best protection from it. They also recognize that they “owe” something for this (assuming they aren’t deadbeats), to which they contribute their specialized labor. But “society” can manifest itself in a lot of different ways to get this payment – as a market, as a majoritarian government, as an autocratic government, as a communist government, as Robo-gov 2000. Libertarians believe that everyone can get the maximum value for their contribution through the market, because this is the one that has the most choices, even if not every possible choice is always available to everyone at the same time. But the more choices available, the more likely that everyone will find his own best choice, and further, the more people who want a particular choice, the more likely it will be available to them.

The only thing that libertarianism demands is that the participants be free to choose the system they want. Not, let the majority choose the system for everyone – let each individual choose the system he wants to participate in. This is always called “unworkable” by opponents of libertarianism, as if somehow a society only works if every single person in it is operating under the same system. But what constitutes “society”, anyway? Every single person on earth - not likely. There must be some way of dividing people into “this” society or “that” one. Nationhood is the way this is done, but this can be very arbitrary. Consider the “society” of Niagara Falls, which spans New York and Canada. The members of this society speak the same language, have much the same lifestyle, and interact with each other daily. But they have very different degrees of social democracy, because of a national border. Now consider the society that contains Latino farm workers in California, newspaper columnists in Chicago, and urban rap musicians on New York. What makes a consideration that these diverse groups might have different wants and needs in their lives in terms of their participation in society as “unworkable”, but different systems for a homogenous group as “workable” because a river runs through it?

SingleDad – The only point I can see in your Robo-gov example is this – in a libertarian context, a bad situation can arise. Do bad situations not arise in non-libertarian societies? If I came up with a science fiction scenario in which a strict application of your political beliefs fared badly, would you abandon them?

[matt_mcl]

Libertarians believe that everyone can get the maximum value for their contribution through the market, because this is the one that has the most choices

Then it is simply wrong - see my stats on medicare above.

[oldscratch]

From Gilligan
This debate is being framed as if libertarianism and social democracy are opposites, which they aren’t. They aren’t two ends of a spectrum (or an end and a middle, with pure socialism being the other end.) Libertarianism is simply a context in which any societal system can be implemented - including social democracy, for those that want it.


This means that the two can not coincide. Social Democracy depends on everyone participating, whether they are really interested or not. Theoretically you can have everyone in a society choose to freely participate in a social democracy, theoretically everyone on the planet could sneeze at the exact same time. Will either happen? NO!


Some social democracy advocates believe that libertarians would somehow ban social insurance and other charitable programs, which is simply untrue. What they want to ban is forcing people into them against their will.


Which for all purposes would indeed eliminate those programs. Social democrat’s fears are very well grounded.


Libertarianism isn’t about property or property rights. It’s about will, choice, and consent. A person who owns nothing but the clothes on his back has these three things; it is these that are the basis of his rights, not any property he owns. Libertarians usually focus so heavily on property because it the most visible extension of a person’s will, choice, and consent, and thus the thing that is most often at risk.


This also is wrong. Libertarianism is absolutely about property rights. Libertarians do not defend my right to choose not to do a project at work without getting fired. They do not defend the rights of people with no money to have access to food. Libertarianism is focused on defending property and other individual rights of those who can support themselves, while ignoring all others. Libertarianism, in its purest form, supports the tyranny of the minority.


Libertarians don’t deny that people need to eat and find shelter, and that these are best supplied by cooperation and specialization. They recognize that the biggest coercer is nature itself, and that “society” provides the best protection from it. They also recognize that they “owe” something for this (assuming they aren’t deadbeats), to which they contribute their specialized labor. But “society” can manifest itself in a lot of different ways to get this payment – as a market, as a majoritarian government, as an autocratic government, as a communist government, as Robo-gov 2000.

Markets and governments are very different things. Comparing them is like comparing rivers and steaks. Both supply food, but in very different ways. Even saying that they both supply food is misleading. Like wise saying that society can manifest itself as a market or a government is very misleading.


The only thing that libertarianism demands is that the participants be free to choose the system they want. Not, let the majority choose the system for everyone – let each individual choose the system he wants to participate in.


And if I want to participate in a system where I get to eat children? Libertarianism supports a system where my choice for a system does not cut into anyone else’s rights. But once again you get into the argument of what rights specifically? If someone is living on my land, they are violating my property rights. If I kick them out, I have taken away their right to shelter. Libertarianism always comes back to a very narrow definition of rights, one that is beneficial to large businesses, but not the majority of people in the world.


This is always called “unworkable” by opponents of libertarianism, as if somehow a society only works if every single person in it is operating under the same system. But what constitutes “society”, anyway?
Every single person on earth - not likely. There must be some way of dividing people into “this” society or “that” one.

Society only works if everyone is operating under the same system that is true. What people actually say, is that a country or state could not operate under libertarianism, this is a very different thing.
I would like to speak more of society for a moment.
First let us talk of artificial and real aggregates. If we combine certain parts to form an aggregate it is artificial. If I speak of all men name Bob, or of all the paper in Chicago, or all of the male infants born in a year, this is artificial. There is nothing joining these items together other than my mind. IF you speak of a society, or a forest, or a class, you are speaking of a real aggregate. The items in the forest are joined together whether my mind sticks them together or not. Society is a system, in which thousands of little things are joined together and have an effect on each other.


Nationhood is the way this is done, but this can be very arbitrary. Consider the “society” of Niagara Falls, which spans New York and Canada. The members of this society speak the same language, have much the same lifestyle, and interact with each other daily. But they have very different degrees of social democracy, because of a national border.


That is true. And that society can be broken up in to smaller and smaller ones, and can be ended into larger and larger societies. All of which have an effect on one another. Every single person on earth makes up one big society with many small variations.


Now consider the society that contains Latino farm workers in California, newspaper columnists in Chicago, and urban rap musicians on New York.


These are artificial aggregates. They don’t usually exist as a system.


What makes a consideration that these diverse groups might have different wants and needs in their lives in terms of their participation in society as “unworkable”, but different systems for a homogenous group as “workable” because a river runs through it?


I hope I wasn’t too confusing earlier. What I was trying to point out, is that you are creating artificial aggregates of people. All of these artificial groups you have created exist in one large society. The Niagara Falls group consist of people in a “Libertarian society” in a “Socialist Workers Party Society” in a “NRA society” those are all heterogeneous groups in an artificial group you created. Of course they all have different wants and needs, so do every other person. What unites societies is what they have in common. Whetehr it be socialism, their class, their country, their continent. I can create an artificial aggregate of viagra users and complain about their different wants and needs too. I hope that helps explain why your argument doesn’t work. You are talking about applying libertarianism to an every specific society, that of the nation. In that context in can not work.

Humorous side note. I find it funny that libertarians are some of the most opposed to socialism. They’re main argument is it doesn’t work. This from a group that has never even tried to implement their philosophy, who are even more in the minority than socialist right now, and who don’t have any historical evidence that their system works. :D

[waterj2]

Smartass:

Nice to see another libertarian around here. Especially one who is good at presenting his arguments. Watch out for SingleDad, he's pretty good at finding any fallacies you may fall into, as well as arguing against libertarianism.

SingleDad:

There are a number of ways the residents could break out of the tyranny of Bill and Ted. They presumably control some resources that Bill and Ted need to run the water works. They can always leave. If a mass exodus occurs, Bill and Ted's profits would shrink immensely. They can obtain a stock of water that will last long enough to dig a well. They can purify the water in the local stream or lake.

As a matter of fact, the incentives for anyone to provide water to these people would be very high. Thus even at it's most oppressive, libertarian policies encourage people to specialize in new fields. Meanwhile in a social democracy, the government would demand reasonable prices from Bill and Ted, and a hundred years later, when the wells dry up, the society is woefully underequipped with desalination plants.

Of course by stipulating the town to be as isolated as it is your society becomes a somewhat unrealistic model. One of the main things that make libertarianism feasible is that it is not imposed on a small, isolated, uncooperative group of people. In the real world there are much more plentiful resources, with those that are necessary for survival being widely available. Millions of people might conspire to hold the world hostage by its water supply, but if you can gets millions of greedy people to cooperate that closely, when they can make a shitload of money by not cooperating, you must be quite good at those Jedi mind tricks.

Also, as long as people actually do pay the price Bill and Ted charge, however high it may be, it is not artificially inflated. Water being a necessity for life would have a high value if it were scarce. In this scenario it is. The value of something is what other people are willing to pay for it.

matt_mcl:

Statistics can be very misleading, especially when unaccompanied with any justification as to why those particular statistics are better than others. For example, are the citizens of the US getting sick more or less often than those in Canada? If so, what part of it is due to the quality of the health care system, and what part is caused by environmental factors? Plus you have to compare what you get for the price. By itself, all that the statistic you provided actually proves is that Canadians spend less as a percentage of GDP for their health care system than Americans.

oldscratch:

This means that the two can not coincide. Social Democracy depends on everyone participating, whether they are really interested or not. Theoretically you can have everyone in a society choose to freely participate in a social democracy, theoretically everyone on the planet could sneeze at the exact same time. Will either happen? NO!

A group of people in a libertarian context could get together and form a social democracy. To make it all nice and libertarian-y, they would probably have to sign various contracts at the outset obliging them to obey the dictates of that group. Hell, if we suddenly had freedom to choose worldwide, and Canada (we all agree that Canada is a social democracy, right?) had to go around and distribute these contracts to continue operation (which would continue exactly as before), they would probably get a large number of them signed right away. People who signed the contracts would get the Canadian health care system, and have to pay Canadian taxes and all that, while those who don't would have to figure out some other way to protect their rights.

Which for all purposes would indeed eliminate those programs. Social democrat’s fears are very well grounded.

I see no reason that charity would be eliminated if it were not instituted by the government. People who currently are forced to help support government charity programs also support private charities. Are all of these people suddenly going to stop giving to charity? Not everyone contributes to charity for the tax benefits. And private charities generally seem less bureaucratic than government ones, providing a better return on the investment (I'll try to find some statistics about this).

This also is wrong. Libertarianism is absolutely about property rights. Libertarians do not defend my right to choose not to do a project at work without getting fired. They do not defend the rights of people with no money to have access to food. Libertarianism is focused on defending property and other individual rights of those who can support themselves, while ignoring all others. Libertarianism, in its purest form, supports the tyranny of the minority.

Rights are those things that incur an obligation on others to act in a certain way. By giving you a right, an obligation is incurred upon me to act in a certain way. Libertarianism is based on distributing the same rights to each person, and not violating any person's rights by incurring an obligation upon that person that would violate them. Basically, this works out to a system where each person has the right to be free of violence and fraud be initiated on them.

There are no rights to not do projects at work, because that would incur upon your employer an obligation to provide you with a job that you do not deserve. In effect, society would be stealing money from your employer and giving it to you. Since you cannot have any more rights than your employer, this would mean that you and all of society would no longer have the right to be free from theft. This same logic can be used for any of these other "rights" that you mention.

And if I want to participate in a system where I get to eat children? Libertarianism supports a system where my choice for a system does not cut into anyone else’s rights. But once again you get into the argument of what rights specifically? If someone is living on my land, they are violating my property rights. If I kick them out, I have taken away their right to shelter. Libertarianism always comes back to a very narrow definition of rights, one that is beneficial to large businesses, but not the majority of people in the world.

I will grant you that libertarianism is a system in which only the haves are protected, but the haves are all people who actually posses anything, which is far from the minority. Nothing anyone has can be taken from them by force or fraud, regardless of how much they have. If, however, you and a few of your pinko friends living under a libertarian context decide to form a socialist-oriented commune, and you all agreed (in a legally binding way) that you would all pool the money that you earned at your jobs and divide it equally, and that none of you could kick any of the others off of your property, then you would all be bound to those rules.

Humorous side note. I find it funny that libertarians are some of the most opposed to socialism. They’re main argument is it doesn’t work. This from a group that has never even tried to implement their philosophy, who are even more in the minority than socialist right now, and who don’t have any historical evidence that their system works.

Actually, I believe that in the United States at least, libertarians outnumber socialists. I mean I can actually register as a Libertarian in Massachusetts, and if our great state isn't leftist enough to get the Socialist Party recognized, I doubt that Iowa is (though the policy the US government has adopted towards farmers is pretty, well, socialist). Besides, seeing the worldwide carnage wrought by socialism, I think not existing rates relatively high in comparison.

[matt_mcl]

By itself, all that the statistic you provided actually proves is that Canadians spend less as a percentage of GDP for their health care system than Americans.

I submit that paying 9% of our GDP for a system in which everyone is covered is better than paying 16% of your GDP for a system in which the poorest people - who are the most likely to get sick anyway - are not covered. Besides, considering that Canadian medicare was the envy of the world and our main bragging point until the neoliberals got their scissorhands on it, I think my point is pretty well made.

[Smartass]

waterj2:

Thank you. It was getting very lonely and complicated in here. Your clarity of expression is extremely helpful.

Everyone:

You may look at at waterj2's post and assume that I agree with his points to you--save's me from trying to say again what I believe him to have expressed quite clearly.

Additional Notes:

SingleDad:

As I think that you are interested in your thought experiment for its own sake, I will offer some comments:

-Specialization is not something that people agree to do as a group. As with many Libertarian results, it is sort of a "natural" outcome of allowing people freedom. In other words, for the experiment to be valid, you must point out that no one is required to specialize and that there may be members who never, from the beginning, rely on Bill and Ted for water. I know that you could change it so that there is no way for anyone else to get water, but that would change other aspects of the experiment.
-If you say that they decided, as a group, to specialize, then you have assumed a majority rule from this point forward. When the robot arrives, it is not the introduction of government, it is a change of government.
-I can accept the robot for the purposes of the experiment, but want to highlight the phrase, "will enforce it thoroughly and without exception". One of the problems with systems like social democracy is the effort and resources wasted because of all the "enforcement" and the fact that "without exception" can't be achieved. The more things that the government is doing inefficiently, the more total inefficiency.

-The bad guys:
Bill and Ted, the guys who control the two water works, decide they want to be absolute tyrants of our community. Anyone who does not submit to their will in every way is denied water. Anyone who tries to compete with them is denied water; without it, they cannot survive long enough to dig a well. Anyone who wishes to leave is denied sufficient water to survive the journey.

They sound a little like politicians. I noted you said they "want" to do these things. I take it you are assuming they are able to (I'll come back to this).

-The Dilemma:
No one is compelled to submit to their will; the robot would not permit that. They are merely using their own property as they see fit; anyone is free to refuse their demands without fear of violent reprisal.

Your story here ends as if this situation continues in perpetuity (it's because of that damn robot!). Let's not assume that. You chose water for your example. Bill and Ted are supplying water--that is their specialty. You did not say how they are doing this. Ordinarily, water is not produced; it is sucked out of the ground or out of streams, lakes, or rivers; then it is filtered, treated, etc.; then it is delivered with some amount of pumping. Saying that they specialize in this is not the same as saying they are the only people who are able to obtain potable water--it is only saying that they are better at it. You say that they will punish people for trying to obtain they're own water. I say that they will not succeed, unless they can somehow deny access to all water in the world:

1. I may be so desperate as to decide to dig a well in my living room. They can't punish me because they have no way of finding out that I am doing this until it is too late.
2. I may stockpile water in my bathtub. If I only add a little at a time, they can't catch me. Once I have enough, I can leave or live off of it while I start my own water business.
3. People are ingenious. You tend to discount the resourcefulness of humans when they really want or need something. The market and Libertarianism work because of the resourcefulness of humans.

Now, you could alter it so that Bill and Ted are actually "producing" water, but I think that would be an entirely different thought experiment. For one thing, if you're living somewhere that water has to be produced, then it's probably worth whatever they're charging. As an aside, what if the farmers refuse to give them food until they lower they're prices? People cannot live without water, but neither can Bill and Ted live off of only water.

For the record, it does seem in this experiment that you understand the tenets of Libertarianism pretty well.

Liberals and Conservatives fall somewhere between these extremes, with both supporting the concept of ownership with more or fewer limitations on its acceptable use in determining value.

And interestingly, when you ask them how they base where they draw their lines, instead of being able to explain a coherent philosophy behind it, they more often resort to horror stories and imagined worst-case scenarios of your philosophy.

I note that you are able to pick apart each aspect of Libertarianism in this way because it is complete and provides a systematic way of answering the questions. I haven't noticed you offering a similarly complete system to compare to. In other words, how exactly would you program your robot to implement "social democracy"?

Gilligan:

One small point:
Libertarianism is simply a context in which any societal system can be implemented - including social democracy, for those that want it.

There is a definite difference between people signing contracts to participate in a system and having it implemented governmentally. If you have a social democratic government, you cannot have a Libertarian context. If you have a Libertarian government, you can create a social democratic "enclave" based on contracts. One notable difference: Your kids aren't automatically contracted at birth.

Other than that, I agree with what you're saying.

matt_mcl:

Very soon, I am going to quit responding to your posts at all. I am not refusing to debate you; you are not offering any material to debate. You cannot refute my points with statistics or with quotes--the only thing that does is clarify your opinions, which are already clear. For us to have a debate, you have to analyze my arguments and refute the points. For me to debate your opinions, you have to be able to explain what they are based on. If you have an argument that you think proves the existence of God, but all you post is, "God exists and you can't deny it," I can disagree with you, but there's nothing to debate.

In other words, if you want a substantive reply, you have to post more than your conclusions: You have to explain how you arrived at them. To say that a statistic measures the "niceness" of a nation and have me agree with you, you have to convince me that you are right about what things make a nation "nice".

What you are posting so far just appear to be the whinings of a petulant child, and you can't expect Gadarene to try to finish your thoughts for you.

oldscratch:

Gave up on the Communism thread, huh? It sucks to feel outnumbered.

Which for all purposes would indeed eliminate those programs.

Or would not. I believe your conclusion is wrong. How did you arrive at it?

Libertarianism is focused on defending property and other individual rights of those who can support themselves, while ignoring all others. Libertarianism, in its purest form, supports the tyranny of the minority.

Libertarianism is focused on defending the legitimate rights of everyone equally, including those in the minority--that's why we refer to "individual liberty". You cannot refute this by referencing "rights" than no Libertarian, Socialist, or Communist would likely recognize. The fact that you don't understand the basis of defining rights does not invalidate the concept--see waterj2' comments.

Libertarianism seeks to avoid all types of tyranny, including that of the majority, the minority, and the workers.

Markets and governments are very different things. Comparing them is like comparing rivers and steaks. Both supply food, but in very different ways. Even saying that they both supply food is misleading. Like wise saying that society can manifest itself as a market or a government is very misleading.

Markets do not supply food. Individuals do. Markets provide a way for me to trade my bananas for your apples. Governments should not try to supply food, as they are no good at producing it. Economic systems and governments certainly cannot be the whole of a society, but they can certainly affect what life is like in it.

Libertarianism always comes back to a very narrow definition of rights, one that is beneficial to large businesses, but not the majority of people in the world.

I'll reference waterj2 again. I didn't notice any mention of large businesses. If you want to make this assertion and have us believe it, you're going to have to justify it.

Society only works if everyone is operating under the same system....Society is a system, in which thousands of little things are joined together and have an effect on each other.

While I don't assume that there is no point in all this that relates to the discussion, I confess that I have no idea what it might be.

Every single person on earth makes up one big society with many small variations.

Okay, I admit it. I didn't inhale. What the hell are you talking about?

These are artificial aggregates. They don’t usually exist as a system.

Maybe you should share your definition of "system" and how it must apply to the example for the example to be valid.

...you are creating artificial aggregates of people. All of these artificial groups you have created exist in one large society.

No, the people tend to group together on there own, with no artificial creation necessary. Noticing ways in which they are more related to each other than to Australians is not an act of creation, it is an act of observation.

I can create an artificial aggregate of viagra users and complain about their different wants and needs too. I hope that helps explain why your argument doesn’t work.

Not really, but it does give me a headache.

You are talking about applying libertarianism to an every specific society, that of the nation. In that context in can not work.

Your dissertation on "artificial aggregation" does not establish this fact.

I find it funny that libertarians are some of the most opposed to socialism. They’re main argument is it doesn’t work.

Please do not confuse political speech with Libertarian philosophy, or I'll be forced to start throwing around Stalin quotes. Depending on how you define the term, socialism works, just very inefficiently. Democracy works better, but has major shortcomings. Libertarianism works better than all of these, and I challenge you to present a system that works better (and back it up with something besides dizzying forays into semantics).

This from a group that has never even tried to implement their philosophy...

I hate to continually dispute you...should I call the Libertarian Party headquarters and tell them to stop their efforts so that they don't inadvertently tread on your assertions?

If you don't watch out, we may all vote to assign you the task of programming your ideas into SingleDad's robot.

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

I submit that paying 9% of our GDP for a system in which everyone is covered is better than paying 16% of your GDP for a system in which the poorest people - who are the most likely to get sick anyway - are not covered.

If we are to assume equal quality of care and, I suppose, "general health" in both systems, then I agree with your statement. As it turns out, this discussion has left the current US system and is now focused on a more Libertarian approach. Since we are having such difficulty convincing Americans to try the Libertarian approach, I have no statistics to offer you for comparison. I wonder, though, how good the Canadian system is at producing medical advances compared to other systems, and how many treatment choices the Canadian patients have, and what they do when they have a bad doctor, and so on, and so on...

Besides, considering that Canadian medicare was the envy of the world...

It has never been the envy of me. The only way you win a debate of this sort is if you convince me that I am wrong and you are right. That means you have to argue on my terms or explain your reasoning well enough that I can argue on yours.

You are still mainly providing conclusions and interpretations, without explaining where they came from. However, I do like the use of the phrase, "I submit..."

-VM

[matt_mcl]

I'm at work, so I can't post for long, but:

what they do when they have a bad doctor

Whaaat? The same thing as they do in the US, I suppose - go to another one, like I did when I tired of my therapist.

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

You also can't pick out one example, argue, and consider the point refuted. In fact, you missed the point: There are as many ways of deciding what constitutes a "good" healthcare system as there are people. Your "job" in a debate is not to convince me that you believe what you say. It is to convince me--and whoever else might be listening--to believe the same things.

Since this argument, at this point, is primarily focused on underlying theories, individual examples aren't particularly helpful. If I had time to do the research, I could come up with one "bad" statistic for every one of your "good" ones, at least from my point of view. One of the issues we are debating is how you can have a productive society when all its members don't necessarily agree on every question of "good" and "bad".

-VM

[Gilligan]

I see your point, Smartass; I shouldn’t have used the term “social democracy” here, since it is generally used for governments. What I meant is that in libertarianism, people would be free to participate in the social insurance programs that they find the most desirable, whether they desire them for altruistic or selfish reasons. I don’t know many details of Canada’s social insurance programs, but matt_mcl says it is a very good system. Fine; it’s a very good system. I think it would be a good thing if everyone were able to choose the social insurance system they believe to be very good. Libertarianism offers you that choice. Non-libertarianism doesn’t; under non-libertarianism, you participate in the social insurance system that your government tells you to.

[matt_mcl]

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I was posting quickly and wanted to respond only to that one point, saving a more complete response for later. Be that as it may.

My beliefs about the form of government derive from the simple ethical conviction I maintain that the freedom to be a citizen is more important than the freedom to become a tyrant. For systems which permit people the freedom to become tyrants, I have no use.

The freedom to be a citizen means having one's rights as a human and a citizen maintained by the government, regardless of what other people are doing. Amassing large amounts of money unmolested is not a right; not starving is. The government of, by, and from the people is justified in infringing rich citizens' property in order to guarantee the survival of poor citizens.

It is wrong to argue that governments should not interfere in such inevitabilities as people starving or amassing great wealth. It is the job - the only job - of the government's public power to serve the public good, and if citizens are starving in the streets or dying in hospital corridors, it's safe to say that the public power is not doing its job, to say the least.

Libertarianism as I understand it, on the other hand, means that everyone has an equal right to inequality. Sigh...

Moving right along:

I often note a curious adversarial tendency between the American public and the American government. The people talk about the government as though it were a separate entity against which they must fight. I submit that if this is true, then democracy - the identity between the people and the government - has ceased to function. This is the case whether the fiscal policies advocated by that dictatorship are socialist or (in the case of the US and, increasingly, Canada) neoliberal.

You can't have social democracy without democracy, and if a socialist system exists which does not spring from on-going public dialogue, it is socialism but not a social democracy.

Medicare in Canada, for example, is social-democratic because Canadian citizens - from Tommy Douglas on - worked damned hard to bring it about. The current medicare policies championed by Jean Chretien and Lucien Bouchard (cutbacks) and by Ralph Klein (two-tiered system), since they are in disagreement with the repeated, stated will of the people, are neither socialist nor democratic.

[waterj2]

Matt, the statistics I recall from when the liberals in our country were trying to foist a health care system like Canada's onto us were that over 80% of the people in the country were happy with the current system, which would explain why as much as the media ogled over it, nothing happened. Anyways, the point here is that among the people in our country, Canada's system was probably not being seriously envied.

On the matter of rights, you cannot claim that rights exist just because you want them to. There cannot be both a right not to starve and a right to be free from theft to feed the starving. Therefore, at least some people must lose some of their rights when you give everyone more. If you want, you can list out the rights you believe we all have, and we'll see what others are obligated to do to provide those, then maybe I can do a SingleDad style thought experiment, where increasing numbers of people are lazy and must have the necessities for life stolen from an ever dwindling supply of rich people.

[Smartass]

Gilligan:

Yes, it seems obvious to me that we are on the same side.

waterj2:

An admirable post. Maybe your approach will open the dialog some with Matt. I've been trying, but I may just not be a good enough person to achieve it.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

The problem with thought experiments was demonstrated when two philosophers (if I am not mistaken, one of them was Hobbes) performed the same thought experiment on how humans would evolve in a state of nature. They arrived at opposite conclusions.

Be that as it may, the basis of my philosophy is that your right to survive is more important than my right to hoard huge amounts of money.

[pldennison]

Wealth is not finite, matt, and if I want to amass more of it, as long as I do so legally and without harming anyone, you have no moral right to stop me.

Furthermore, nobody has a right to survive, they merely have a right to try.

[matt_mcl]

Furthermore, nobody has a right to survive, they merely have a right to try.

Well, if we can't even use it to guarantee that people will not starve to death, what's the point of going to the trouble of having a civilization?

[pldennison]

Let's go one better--why don't we guarantee that nobody ever dies of anything, ever? Wouldn't that be peachy? If we can't guarantee that nobody ever, ever dies, why have a civilization at all? If we can't all be 8'4" and play basketball at the NBA level, why have a civilization at all? If we can't breathe underwater . . .?

You certainly are obviously obsessed with this "right to eat/right not to starve/right to steal my stuff" bullshit. Look, any person on this earth has several choices when it comes to eating:

--Forage/hunt for your own food. In urban areas this is obviously impractical, although not impossible.
--Grow your own food. Also impractical in some areas.
--Trade your labor for food. Fairly practical.
--Trade your labor for some medium of exchange and purchase food. Eminently practical.
--Trade something else of value that you own or create for food or for a medium of exchange.
--Steal from other people, directly or indirectly.

I'm sure there are others I am not even thinking of, but which one is the most ethical? Surely not the stealing.

Your entire philosophy appears to be devoted to Mommy and Daddy Government taking care of everyone. Why even bother to live if you're simply a ward of the state from cradle to grave? What kind of freedom is that?

[matt_mcl]

Let's go one better--why don't we guarantee that nobody ever dies of anything, ever? Wouldn't that be peachy? If we can't guarantee that nobody ever, ever dies, why have a civilization at all? If we can't all be 8'4" and play basketball at the NBA level, why have a civilization at all? If we can't breathe underwater . . .?

I don't think you're serious. I shouldn't have to explain to you that the examples you've given are physically impossible. By contrast, we have more than enough money in this society to keep people from starvation.

Is your problem that some people will fall through the cracks? Ooh, that's a good reason not to try. It's clearly time to stop addressing this problem and start ignoring it!

I'm sure there are others I am not even thinking of, but which one is the most ethical? Surely not the stealing.

Oh, so wants are more important than needs?

Why even bother to live if you're simply a ward of the state from cradle to grave? What kind of freedom is that?

It beats the bloody hell out of starving to death because I couldn't find some corporation who would deign to hire me.

[matt_mcl]

I can't believe I realized just now how absurd this statement really is.

Why even bother to live if you're simply a ward of the state from cradle to grave? What kind of freedom is that?

I'm going to explain this calmly.

If I'm alive, I'm a lot more free than if I'm dead.

If I'm healthy, I'm a lot more free than if I'm sick.

Too easy?

[pulykamell]

Wow. I'm almost afraid to jump in here. :)

The Declaration of Independence states that there are certainly unaliable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government is there to secure these rights.

Now, I don't believe that a person born in the ghetto has exactly the same access to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as say, a kid growing up in the north shore suburbs of Chicago. Argue with me if I'm wrong, but the person who was born wealthy has, well, a much, much, much easier path towards these aims than a kid who is worried more about dodging bullets in the street. Doesn't this child deserve the same liberty from violence as other human beings? If the government is there to secure these rights, than it has an obligation to do something. Was this child created equal? Yes. Did he grow up equal? No. If you believe in the Declaration of Independence shouldn't it follow that society's job is to secure these rights and to provide for the common good?

Am I insane to think that as a society we should take care of our fellow citizens? To provide everyone with, God forbid, health care?!? The right to "life?" As far as I understand it, that's what it means to contribute to the common good. To put the needs of the society over one's own.

"Mommy and Daddy government" are there to take of everyone. Not just those who happen to be born in the right place at the right time.

[SingleDad]

waterj2

Libertarianism is simply a context in which any societal system can be implemented - including social democracy, for those that want it. Some social democracy advocates believe that libertarians would somehow ban social insurance and other charitable programs, which is simply untrue. What they want to ban is forcing people into them against their will. Libertarianism isn’t about property or property rights. It’s about will, choice, and consent. A person who owns nothing but the clothes on his back has these three things; it is these that are the basis of his rights, not any property he owns. Libertarians usually focus so heavily on property because it the most visible extension of a person’s will, choice, and consent, and thus the thing that is most often at risk.

This paragraph is as disingeneous as the remark that, "The law equally prohibits the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges."

Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy. It attempts to propagandize the legitmacy of the choice between starvation and exploitation. Even the most oppressed black slave of the early 19th century had this choice. Since he chose to continue working rather than exercise his freedom to starve, under Libertarian theory he was as "free" as the most brutal white plantation owner. Libertarians are usually careful to express ad hoc evasions and denial of these extreme circumstances, but I have found no rational argument that their theory of value would contradict my analysis.

The only thing that libertarianism demands is that the participants be free to choose the system they want. Not, let the majority choose the system for everyone – let each individual choose the system he wants to participate in.

This is a baldfaced lie. Libertarianism does not allow me the political freedom to choose criminality or coercion. Free means free. Don't distort its meaning. All political systems are about which freedoms to deny the individual.

SingleDad – The only point I can see in your Robo-gov example is this – in a libertarian context, a bad situation can arise. Do bad situations not arise in non-libertarian societies? If I came up with a science fiction scenario in which a strict application of your political beliefs fared badly, would you abandon them?

No, what my example proves is that Libertarianism is not only completely unable to correct a "bad" situation that arises between rational people, but that it actually defines the scenario I outlined as "good"! Each individual in my scenario is merely exercising his will. Bill & Ted's neighbors retain their freedom of non-participation (at the cost of death), and thus, by definition, consent to any strictures that Bill & Ted might request.

If you show me an uncorrectable scenario due to another political philosophy, I would certainly consider it strong evidence against that philosophy.

waterj2:

There are a number of ways the residents could break out of the tyranny of Bill and Ted. They presumably control some resources that Bill and Ted need to run the water works. They can always leave. If a mass exodus occurs, Bill and Ted's profits would shrink immensely. They can obtain a stock of water that will last long enough to dig a well. They can purify the water in the local stream or lake.

A specious and blatant evasion of a very simple and reasonable problem. To test a political philosophy, I posed a problem that required a political solution. It seems implausibly naive or disingeneously propagandistic to assert that political problems will magically disappear under Libertarianism.

Meanwhile in a social democracy, the government would demand reasonable prices from Bill and Ted, and a hundred years later, when the wells dry up, the society is woefully underequipped with desalination plants.

The premise includes rational behavior among the residents. Bill & Ted merely need to point out the problem and rationally support the costs necessary to provide for the future. They will then receive whatever support is deemed acceptable by the population.

This objection hints at the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism. Stripped to its core, Libertarianism asserts that only an elite is capable of making rational judgements; the mass of people deserve nothing but subsistence, and even that only as they are useful to the elite.

Millions of people might conspire to hold the world hostage by its water supply, but if you can gets millions of greedy people to cooperate that closely, when they can make a shitload of money by not cooperating, you must be quite good at those Jedi mind tricks.

The enslavement of millions of black slaves by hundreds of of thousands of cooperating white slave-owners. The subsistence existence and brutal working conditions imposed on millions of workers in the 19th century (Ayn Rand's "utopia") by hundreds of thousands of cooperating factory owners. The exploitation of hundreds of millions of Indians by the cooperating British Raj. The genocide of millions of blacks in the Congo by tens of thousands of Belgian "colonists". If you think these are Jedi Mind tricks, you need to go back and read some history.

A group of people in a libertarian context could get together and form a social democracy. To make it all nice and libertarian-y, they would probably have to sign various contracts at the outset obliging them to obey the dictates of that group.

They did and we're in it.

I will grant you that libertarianism is a system in which only the haves are protected, but the haves are all people who actually posses anything, which is far from the minority. Nothing anyone has can be taken from them by force or fraud, regardless of how much they have.

Not by force or fraud, but your property could easily be taken by disparity of economic need or disparity in the immediacy of that need. Today, Bill and Ted require the deed to your house for today's ration of water; tomorrow, your furniture and clothes (they will graciously allow you to retain a loincloth); the next day your virgin daughter. They're not coercing you! You are free to refuse their transaction. Of course, you and your family will die, but Bill and Ted are under no obligation to see to your survival.

Specialization is not something that people agree to do as a group.

Arrant bullshit. Specialization requires a group! It's ludicrous for me to be sitting by myself in the woods, specializing in, say, weaving.

As with many Libertarian results, it is sort of a "natural" outcome of allowing people freedom.

This is just blatant propaganda; you are presenting your conclusions as fact. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Libertarianism has the "'natural' outcome of allowing people freedom" other than the meaningless freedom of choosing between exploitation or starvation.

I'm growing increasingly weary of people spouting Libertarian propaganda and fraudulently calling it reasoned argument.

In other words, for the experiment to be valid, you must point out that no one is required to specialize and that there may be members who never, from the beginning, rely on Bill and Ted for water. I know that you could change it so that there is no way for anyone else to get water, but that would change other aspects of the experiment.

Why would the generalists help the exploited specialists? Since they haven't specialized, they received no benefit from the economy of the specialized. True, they are themselves immune from Bill & Ted's machinations, but it is an irrational choice for them to expend whatever small surplus they can accrue for no benefit to themselves.

1. I may be so desperate as to decide to dig a well in my living room. They can't punish me because they have no way of finding out that I am doing this until it is too late.

Not being the morons you seem to think they are, Bill & Ted will ask very politely if they may see the inside of your house each day. You are, of course, free to refuse them, with the obvious consequences.

2. I may stockpile water in my bathtub. If I only add a little at a time, they can't catch me. Once I have enough, I can leave or live off of it while I start my own water business.

Of course, Bill & Ted own the water; they are merely giving you a license to pass it through your body. A Libertarian condoning theft? The mind boggles.

3. People are ingenious. You tend to discount the resourcefulness of humans when they really want or need something. The market and Libertarianism work because of the resourcefulness of humans.

The problem is that oppressors are as equally ingenious as the oppressed.

And you cannot say that Libertarianism "works". Again that is unacceptable propaganda. No Libertarian society has ever existed to prove that assertion accurate.

The only even defense against economic exploitation under Libertarian theory is non-specialization. You can only maintain your freedom in practical matters by never depending on another person. Thus Libertarianism is impractical in that it prohibits a rational person from specializing. Q.E.D.

And interestingly, when you ask them how they base where they draw their lines, instead of being able to explain a coherent philosophy behind it, they more often resort to horror stories and imagined worst-case scenarios of your philosophy.

History has shown that economic exploitation is not a "worst case" scenario, but actually rather common, as I have noted above. It is interesting to note that whenever one points out a flaw in Libertarian philosophy, they say that "Libertarianism will just magically (or {heavy sarcasm} naturally {/heavy sarcasm}) make that problem go away."

Libertarianism seeks to avoid all types of tyranny, including that of the majority, the minority, and the workers.

But not the tyrrany of the rich.

Libertarianism always comes back to a very narrow definition of rights, one that is beneficial to large businesses, but not the majority of people in the world.

A definition of rights completely focused on property is differentially beneficial to those with more property. This is such an obvious conclusion that your objection is incomprehensible.

Depending on how you define the term, socialism works, just very inefficiently. Democracy works better, but has major shortcomings. Libertarianism works better than all of these, and I challenge you to present a system that works better.

The first two sentences can be established objectively. The third cannot. It is an unsupported assertion. It is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You assert the philosophy, you must convince me of its effectiveness. Merely asserting so is not an argument. Since we're making unsupported assertions here I will present Dictatorial fascism, which I assert with no proof works far better than Libertarianism. There, I have (quite trivially and sarcastically, of course) met your challenge.

pldennison

Let's go one better--why don't we guarantee that nobody ever dies of anything, ever? Wouldn't that be peachy? If we can't guarantee that nobody ever, ever dies, why have a civilization at all? If we can't all be 8'4" and play basketball at the NBA level, why have a civilization at all? If we can't breathe underwater . . .?
...
Your entire philosophy appears to be devoted to Mommy and Daddy Government taking care of everyone. Why even bother to live if you're simply a ward of the state from cradle to grave? What kind of freedom is that?

Please don't waste our time with such childish hyperbole.

[pldennison]

By contrast, we have more than enough money in this society to keep people from starvation.

Oh, I agree. Perhaps some of them should start earning some of it.

Is your problem that some people will fall through the cracks?

No, my problem is that it makes sloth a desirable goal by positing some idiotic "right not to starve to death." Out of curiosity, what other things do I have the "right" not to die of?

Oh, so wants are more important than needs?

Clearly, you have no interest in answering the question I posed, so I can only assume you support theft by able-bodied people capable of earning a living. How moral.

It beats the bloody hell out of starving to death because I couldn't find some corporation who would deign to hire me.

Hey, it isn't my fault if you have no skills for which someone is willing to provide you with the common medium of exchange. It might say something about you, though. Who says you have to work for a corporation, anyway?

I'm going to explain this calmly.

If I'm alive, I'm a lot more free than if I'm dead.

Well, duh. On the other hand, you're going to eventually be dead anyway, aren't you?

If I'm healthy, I'm a lot more free than if I'm sick.

Too easy?

So therefore it's so much better to simply let Daddy Government rock me gently in his arms than dare exert an iota of energy on my own behalf . . . I have a little secret for you, matt--there's nothing wrong with earning a living.

SingleDad: Please don't waste our time with such childish hyperbole

Rest assured that, at the time I feel I require your permission to write the posts I want to, I will explicitly ask. You are under no obligation to read nor to reply to any of them.

[wevets]

I'm sorry that I don't really have the time or inclination to embroil myself in the debate here, but I saw this while lurking and couldn't avoid responding...


Wealth is not finite, matt, and if I want to amass more of it, as long as I do so legally and without harming anyone, you have no moral right to stop me.


How is wealth infinite? By what definition of wealth is that possible? If wealth is infinite, why then does not the finite number of people in existence each have an infinite amount of wealth?

[pulykamell]

pldennison --

i don't think anybody is arguing with "what's wrong with earning a living?" you assume people don't want to get off welfare. you assume people would rather be slothful than earn a living. you are wrong. there are those in society who do fit your categories, but the people i have seen, worked with, lived with, do not fit these stereotypes. some of my friends have come from the ghettos, and they worked their damned asses off. they have little education due to shitty inner-city schools that have no funding, little vocational training, much less access to these means to a decent job that you may take for granted. so, yeah, they're stuck in a submarine sandwich shop making a few bucks an hour, no benefits, and they gotta pray to god they don't get sick, cuz, hell, they don't deserve health care because they can't pay for it. they work harder than the rich kids i went to university with. give me a break.

we DO NOT have equal opprotunity in the US. we DO NOT all grow up with the same access to good schools and training. until we have these, you cannot accurately say that so-and-so succeeds because he tried and so-and-so is poor because he's a lazy sunnovabitch.

[matt_mcl]

SingleDad, pulykamell, wevets - thank you; I was feeling a bit embattled holding up my end of the argument all by myself. :)

And pldennison - in a society in which the Fed and the Bank of Canada intentionally fix interest rates to keep a certain percentage of the population out of work in order to create an optimum profit margin and to avoid the degradation of the savings of the rich due to the inflation associated with a healthy economy*, you have no call to talk about who is or is not lazy or lacking in skills.

*Cite: McQuaig, Linda. Shooting the Hippo. Toronto: Penguin, 1995.

[matt_mcl]

So therefore it's so much better to simply let Daddy Government rock me gently in his arms than dare exert an iota of energy on my own behalf . . . I have a little secret for you, matt--there's nothing wrong with earning a living.

And it is of course so easy to earn a living when one is sick, starving, uneducated, and living in a society in which people are intentionally kept out of work to make greater profit. Watch out, pl, your elitism is showing.

[Gadarene]

I coulda sworn you used to be a liberal. What happened?

[SingleDad]

And the mask debater mounts his trusty steed... Hi Ho Concorde! Away!

<rides off into the sunset>

[waterj2]

pulykamell:

First, libertarians agree that all people are born with those rights. Yes, the kid in the ghetto is equally entitled to be free from violence. Libertarianism proposes that the rich be free as well from having their rights infringed on behalf of the poor. No libertarian proposes not protecting the poor from violence. All people should be equally free to pursue happiness. They have no rights with regard to how close they are to actually achieving happiness.

And no you are not insane to think that "as a society we should take care of our fellow citizens." As a society we should ensure that all of our citizens are free from initiated force and fraud. That is all the taking care that people should need. To provide further care, society would have to use force to get the necessary resources.

SingleDad:

This is a baldfaced lie. Libertarianism does not allow me the political freedom to choose criminality or coercion. Free means free. Don't distort its meaning. All political systems are about which freedoms to deny the individual.


No, but it does allow you the freedom to join a group of people and by agreement among each other govern yourself in ways that would otherwise be criminal or coercive.

No, what my example proves is that Libertarianism is not only completely unable to correct a "bad" situation that arises between rational people, but that it actually defines the scenario I outlined as "good"! Each individual in my scenario is merely exercising his will. Bill & Ted's neighbors retain their freedom of non-participation (at the cost of death), and thus, by definition, consent to any strictures that Bill & Ted might request.

If you show me an uncorrectable scenario due to another political philosophy, I would certainly consider it strong evidence against that philosophy.

Libertarianism does not consider that a good scenario, just a permissable one. And the cost is not necessarily death. If the cost of non-psrticipation explicitly were death, then it would count as force. That is why you cannot make agreements at the point of a gun in a libertarian system. I suppose that at some point, Bill and Ted, if they managed to control the entire supply of water, and having ruled out all possible ways of finding water elsewhere or leaving, may cross the line into initiating force. This would be ridiculously improbable in any large scale society.

A specious and blatant evasion of a very simple and reasonable problem. To test a political philosophy, I posed a problem that required a political solution. It seems implausibly naive or disingeneously propagandistic to assert that political problems will magically disappear under Libertarianism.

I was not evading the problem, I was showing how unlikely it would be for Bill and Ted to completely control the water supply, and why the situation you presented was not as much of a problem as you had made it out to be. To assert that the situation requires a political solution is, according to the principles of Libertarianism, incorrect unless coersion is involved. I was showing technical solutions to the problem as posed. Libertarianism would encourage people to find these technical solutions.

This objection hints at the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism. Stripped to its core, Libertarianism asserts that only an elite is capable of making rational judgements; the mass of people deserve nothing but subsistence, and even that only as they are useful to the elite.

I can't figure out where the Hell this came from. What I said was that in libertarianism, people tired of living under the harsh de facto dictatorship of Bill and Ted would develop desalination technology faster than a social democracy where everyone can get water from Bill and Ted's wells at a reasonable price. Libertarianism asserts that everyone should be free to make rational judgements, as long as they do not initiate force or fraud on others.

The enslavement of millions of black slaves by hundreds of of thousands of cooperating white slave-owners. The subsistence existence and brutal working conditions imposed on millions of workers in the 19th century (Ayn Rand's "utopia") by hundreds of thousands of cooperating factory owners. The exploitation of hundreds of millions of Indians by the cooperating British Raj. The genocide of millions of blacks in the Congo by tens of thousands of Belgian "colonists". If you think these are Jedi Mind tricks, you need to go back and read some history.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about libertarianism, so I forgot to specify that that's what I meant. Also, I specified that it would be to the benefit of an individual to not cooperate, so those situations don't even fit the bill. None of these situations are consistent with libertarian principles. Banning the use of force and fraud makes it much harder for a group of people to oppress another group.

They did and we're in it.

I must have amnesia, as I can't seem to remember when I freely agreed to be governed by the US. You'd think I'd have saved a document that important.

Not by force or fraud, but your property could easily be taken by disparity of economic need or disparity in the immediacy of that need. Today, Bill and Ted require the deed to your house for today's ration of water; tomorrow, your furniture and clothes (they will graciously allow you to retain a loincloth); the next day your virgin daughter. They're not coercing you! You are free to refuse their transaction. Of course, you and your family will die, but Bill and Ted are under no obligation to see to your survival.

You specified that Bill and Ted are going to act rationally. How are their best interests served by having the people that presumably provide their every asset aside from water not actually have any property. Everyone, including Bill and Ted, will die if all the farmers are trying to provide food for everyone by harvesting their farms by hand. Clearly Bill and Ted would be better off if they allowed some property to exist.

The only even defense against economic exploitation under Libertarian theory is non-specialization. You can only maintain your freedom in practical matters by never depending on another person. Thus Libertarianism is impractical in that it prohibits a rational person from specializing. Q.E.D.

Yes, if the incredibly implausible scenario you describe ever happened, it would encourage people to generalize. I fail to see how this proves that it always happens. Poverty encourages generalization. Libertarianism does allow poverty to occur. You still need to show how your situation is a reasonable prediction of what would occur under libertarianism before you can generalize to that last step.

History has shown that economic exploitation is not a "worst case" scenario, but actually rather common, as I have noted above. It is interesting to note that whenever one points out a flaw in Libertarian philosophy, they say that "Libertarianism will just magically (or {heavy sarcasm} naturally {/heavy sarcasm}) make that problem go away."

I am getting sick of seeing slavery and violence used as examples of the type of exploitation that libertarian principles lead to. Slavery is not a fucking economic measure. In a libertarian society, if I bought another human being and forced him to work, I would rightly go to jail for it. Do you simply not understand the difference between force and economic exploitation. Also, if you trivialize all the arguments that smartass, Gilligan, and myself have made as nothing more than ascribing it to magic, I'm not sure I can continue this debate. Unless you were just engaging in "childish hyperbole", in which case I'd like to point out a minor inconsistency in your post.

pldennison:

Can I ask that you use that incredible ability you have the next time someone tries to bring up slavery as an example of something that would happen under libertarianism. I could do it myself, but perhaps your ability to shred a ridiculous argument would cause people to actually think before trying again. Oh, and if you should ever feel that you desire my permission to post the way you like, consider it granted.

matt_mcl:

Uh, please leave the Fed out of this, as that just kind of goes to show why the government should not be involved in the economy. Either way, I really don't think that the choices the Fed faces are to either have full employment, but the rich lose out, or a moderate level of unemployment, but lots of money for the rich. Plus, they want to produce the best results for the most people, as that keeps the politicians in charge in power. They will serve the middle class first, because if the economy sucks for the middle class, they will be out of power.

[pldennison]

wevets: How is wealth infinite?

I didn't say it was infinite. I said it was not finite. Look up "multiplier."

[qyote]By what definition of wealth is that possible? [/quote]

By every commonly accepted definition in pretty much every school of economics.

If wealth is infinite, why then does not the finite number of people in existence each have an infinite amount of wealth?

Well, aside from the strawman of "infinite wealth," which I didn't say, the current problem is inequity in the global distribution of resources, a problem I propose eliminating in part by having completely open borders worldwide.

pulykamell:
i don't think anybody is arguing with "what's wrong with earning a living?" you assume people don't want to get off welfare. you assume people would rather be slothful than earn a living. you are wrong. there are those in society who do fit your categories, but the people i have seen, worked with, lived with, do not fit these stereotypes.

Remind me to introduce you to my mother. And my sister.

some of my friends have come from the ghettos, and they worked their damned asses off. they have little education due to shitty inner-city schools that have no funding, little vocational training, much less access to these means to a decent job that you may take for granted.

I take nothing for granted. I grew up over half my life in a single-parent home in rural Ohio, and I worked my ass off to go to college (incurring several thousands of dollars in debt load along the way), for a time my wife having our only income while I attended school full-time. Between entering school in 1987 and graduating in 1995, I also spent several years in a minimum-wage retail job. Don't lecture me on sacrifice, OK?

we DO NOT have equal opprotunity in the US. we DO NOT all grow up with the same access to good schools and training. until we have these, you cannot accurately say that so-and-so succeeds because he tried and so-and-so is poor because he's a lazy sunnovabitch.

You need to go back and look up matt's thread about giving free food and shelter to people who explicitly say they don't want to work for a living. I'm not talking about uncompassionately shoving aside those in need (although I also don't believe in gunpoint charity), I'm talking about not encouraging sloth because the idea of getting a paycheck offends someone's sensibilities.

matt_mcl

And pldennison - in a society in which the Fed and the Bank of Canada intentionally fix interest rates to keep a certain percentage of the population out of work in order to create an optimum profit margin and to avoid the degradation of the savings of the rich due to the inflation associated with a healthy economy*, you have no call to talk about who is or is not lazy or lacking in skills.

Why would you imagine I approve of the actions of the Fed? Admittedly, I neither know nor care about the Bank of Canada's actions. On the other hand, there are negative economic consequences associated with full employment; the key is to keep the unemployed from being the chronically unemployed, and to try and restrain it to a low percentage of the population.

And it is of course so easy to earn a living when one is sick, starving, uneducated, and living in a society in which people are intentionally kept out of work to make greater profit. Watch out, pl, your elitism is showing.

Elitism. Right. See above.

Gadarene: I'm liberal, but I'm not stupid.

[Gilligan]

SingleDad,
The first few quotes you responded to came from me, not waterj2. This may already have been pointed out as I write this, but just in case.

Re: your comments about slavery. Do you honestly believe that the violent kidnapping of a population, transporting them from their homeland under intolerable conditions, brutally forcinig them to labor, and owning their very lives, are things libertarians approve of? You are more intelligent than that. It is intellectually dishonest of you to claim that libertarians approve of these things when you know otherwise. Since non-libertarians are always so quick to point out that libertarianism has never been implemented, I could easily point out that slavery, as well as every other example of man's inhumanity to man, has taken place in non-libertarian societies. Should we conclude from this that non-libertarianism is evil, or "doesn't work"? Of course not.

The problem with "horror stories", as Smartass calls them, or thought expirements such as Robo-gov, is not that they aren't useful. But it's not enough to simply declare that libs are "required" to evaluate them in a certain way - you have to actually show that they do in fact evaluate them that way. If you are going to criticize the philosophy, at least criticize the things the adherents actually believe and state, rather than the things you think they are required to believe and state based on your misunderstanding of it. If I criticized communism by saying "communists believe in common ownership of property; therefore they are forced to believe that everyone in the world must use the same toothbrush", this would not be evidence of the failure of communism but the failure of me to understand it.

I realize it's our responsibility and not yours to increase your understanding of our viewpoint. You have presented your views excellently; I believe I fully understand both your conclusions and how you arrive at them. I have simply drawn different ones that I am having difficulty expressing to you. Smartass, waterj2, and pldennison are expressing their views more clearly, but I think the best expression of the philosophy is found on the site once so promoted by our Old Friend: "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others."

What is it about this idea that you believe causes human misery, since causing misery is prohibited by the phrase after the comma? You present some examples of inhumanity, oppression, and exploitation; how do you see them as flowing from this principle? European colonists sailed to Africa, America, and Asia, claimed ownership of the land, and killed any natives who disputed them. Are you saying these were libertarian enterprises? Are you claiming that we think children chained to factory floors during the industrial revolution were making free choices? Believe me, both you and we wish to eliminate human misery. We just have different ideas on how this is best done. This doesn't make either one of us evil or deluded.

[pulykamell]

some of my friends have come from the ghettos, and they worked their damned asses off. they have little education due to shitty inner-city schools that have no funding, little vocational training, much less access to these means to a decent job that you may take for granted.


I take nothing for granted. I grew up over half my life in a single-parent home in rural Ohio, and I worked my ass off to go to college (incurring several thousands of dollars in debt load along the way), for a time my wife having our only income while I attended school full-time. Between entering school in 1987 and graduating in 1995, I also spent several years in a minimum-wage retail job. Don't lecture me on sacrifice, OK?


i am not trying to lecture you on sacrifice. i congratulate you, in fact, that you have made the best of your situation. it pleases me that there are people like you out there, and i sincerely mean this.

i grew up in a working-class family on the south side of chicago. my mother is a factory worker, my dad is a machinist. they both immigrated from poland, and managed to succeed in life through hard work and an eastern european mentality towards saving money. i was the only person from my grammar school to move on to a top-tier university. i got a lot of shit for the first 13 years of my life for simply being "smart." but i ignored it, worked my ass off, and a lot of it was i just had a knack for picking things up quickly. i attended northwestern university, with most of my tuition paid through grants, scholarships and loans. i worked all through college in a coffeeshop, and through luck and skill, managed to find a great career as a photojournalist.

my point here is, i think i have a right to have said what i said, because i have worked hard in my life, and i still come to the conclusion, that in order for there to be any point in having a society and in progressing as a nation, we have a duty to provide for the national welfare, even if that means giving money to people we don't want to give money to. i don't believe money is a "right." i believe my health is. if the choice comes for me to choose whether i pay 0 taxes, and have to totally fend for myself, and pay 40% in taxes, but have school, housing, health, etc taken care of for me, then i choose the latter. i would rather live in a society where everybody's basic needs are taken care of for the common good, rather than one in which it's every person for themselves. if that is so, why the point in society in the first place?

listen, i agree with your reasoning, it just seems that we both have different reasons for society existing.

[matt_mcl]

Uh, please leave the Fed out of this, as that just kind of goes to show why the government should not be involved in the economy.

I will not. What it goes to show is that the current government is in business to help the rich, which means three things:

1) the government is certainly not social-democratic;
2) the government should be made more democratic (that is why you keep seeing protesters in the streets, folks);
3) in the meantime, I don't want to hear any kibitzing about the hordes of lazy poor people who aren't working because they don't like to work.

Either way, I really don't think that the choices the Fed faces are to either have full employment, but the rich lose out, or a moderate level of unemployment, but lots of money for the rich.

You don't think that. Ok, that's fine. Care to tell me why not, and why Linda McQuaig (one of Canada's finest current economics writers, winner of the National Newspaper Award, having worked for The Globe and Mail, The National Post, The Toronto Star, MacLean's, and CBC Radio) is a liar from start to finish in the book I cited?

Plus, they want to produce the best results for the most people, as that keeps the politicians in charge in power.

No, to the extent I can currently see, they want to produce the best results for the rich, as that keeps the politicians rolling in dough.

[matt_mcl]

Elitism. Right. See above.

"There is no snobbery like that of those who aspire to the lower classes." - Judith Martin

[matt_mcl]

Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Thank you for this moment of clarity. It is my contention that:

1) unfortunately, it is difficult to make the money to purchase food, healthcare, and a standard of living when one is starving, sick, and/or frozen out of the job market due to economic and political forces in the grip of people who don't care about you. In other words, those who do not have enough food or healthcare are lacking opportunity to begin with, not failing to exploit the opportunity they have.

2) therefore, the necessaries of life, for example food and healthcare, are part of equality of opportunity, not just things that equality of opportunity will permit us to buy.

3) societies exist for the purpose of serving the common weal, which includes providing equality of opportunity for its citizens.

4) "it is against natural law and against humanity that millions of individuals are denied the necessary in order to feed the scandalous luxury of a small number of comfortable citizens." - Denis Diderot, "Fortune", Encyclopédie

[pldennison]

"A clever saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

"If a man is young and is not a liberal, he has no heart; if a man is old and is not a conservative, he has no head." -- I. Forgot

If you want to question my circumstances, matt, go right ahead. Be my guest. But I will hardly be called a snob by an effete socialist who wants to live in FantasyLand, and drag everyone else kicking and screaming.

Out of curiosity (although you've yet to answer a directly-posed question), who are the "rich"? My wife and I grossed in the neighborhood of $70,000 last year--are we "rich"?

pulky: I make no claims that the playing field is currently level. I merely question some people's plans for making it level. The answer, IMHO, is not to steal from the "rich"; it's to make it easier for the poor to become rich, or at least successful. Part of the way to do that is to remove restrictions to education (in the form of school vouchers), and stop teaching that the government is going to solve all your problems. People solve problems, and given the freedom to make choices, they will always come up with a better solution than a top-down government will.

[Smartass]

Damn, it only felt like a day went by...

matt_mcl:

"...the basis of my philosophy is that your right to survive is more important than my right to hoard huge amounts of money.

I don't have a right "to survive". And, in fact, I don't expect to. I have a right to life. That is not to say I have a right to be provided with it; I have a right not to have it taken away.

Well, if we can't even use it to guarantee that people will not starve to death, what's the point of going to the trouble of having a civilization?

We can't use anything to guarantee that people won't starve to death. We can use tools to try to minimize the occurence, and I'm not against it. I just think that the government is a terrible tool for that purpose. You assume that since Libertarians don't want the government giving out food, that they don't want anyone giving out food.

It beats the bloody hell out of starving to death because I couldn't find some corporation who would deign to hire me.

More likely, you couldn't find one you would deign to work for.

If I'm alive, I'm a lot more free than if I'm dead.

If I'm healthy, I'm a lot more free than if I'm sick.

No, you're more free when your dead. At that point, no one can take anything from you, or hurt you, or force you to do anything. The problem is that you want to raise the freedom of some over the freedom of others. Thus, one man is free to have money that was forcibly taken from another, but not vice versa. The core of Libertarian thought is "equal protection", not equal outcomes. We can try to equalize outcomes, but we should not use the government to do it.

pulykamell:

Am I insane to think that as a society we should take care of our fellow citizens?

No. I imagine a lot of people feel that way. Of course, some do not. My point is not what society should do, but what government should do. Government is the wrong tool to achieve this end.

we DO NOT have equal opprotunity in the US. we DO NOT all grow up with the same access to good schools and training. until we have these, you cannot accurately say that so-and-so succeeds because he tried and so-and-so is poor because he's a lazy sunnovabitch.

Why would I say any of those things. Of course we don't have equal opportunity, and we never will. It is not achievable. What we strive for is equal protection under the law. Granting some different protections than others does not provide equal opportunity.

SingleDad:
Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy. It attempts to propagandize the legitmacy of the choice between starvation and exploitation.

I'll say this: When you get ready to make a ridiculous statemtent, you sure do it with conviction. I think Hitler referred to this approach as "the big lie".

The problem with this is your still thinking along the lines of your "thought experiment", which I explained needed a little more thought. No system of government can completely protect every citizen from exploitation. However, your example doesn't achieve it, and here's why: Two people against a whole community cannot exploit the community purely based on economics--they must also use force. Libertarianism cannot prevent a sufficiently large group of people from exploiting a sufficiently small group. The difference is that, with Libertarianism, the exploitative group does not have a tool of force that is outside the boundaries of law (the government) that can be wielded against those it wishes to exploit.

You rail against the rich. It's a popular position to take. After all, there are a lot more poor and middle-class people than there are rich people. Your governmental theory allows the rich to be exploited by the rest. Libertarianism does not. And a small group of rich people cannot exploit a population under Libertarianism--there's just not enough of them. In order to create an example of it, you are required to make such ridiculous assumptions like "people cannot catch rain water in buckets".

Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy. It attempts to propagandize the legitmacy of the choice between starvation and exploitation. Even the most oppressed black slave of the early 19th century had this choice. Since he chose to continue working rather than exercise his freedom to starve, under Libertarian theory he was as "free" as the most brutal white plantation owner. Libertarians are usually careful to express ad hoc evasions and denial of these extreme circumstances, but I have found no rational argument that their theory of value would contradict my analysis.

You obviously do not know the difference between power in general and governmental power. Libertarianism is not plutocracy because the rich are not the government. A rich person may have more ability to influence others, but he cannot rule them. To do that would require force. That's the whole point: No one, rich or poor, should be able to exert the kind of force that government represents against their fellow humans.

I will not waste time arguing about things that are in direct conflict with Libertarian principles (slavery, etc.).

This is a baldfaced lie. Libertarianism does not allow me the political freedom to choose criminality or coercion. Free means free. Don't distort its meaning. All political systems are about which freedoms to deny the individual.

That's right. No one can be completely free. Libertarianism just tries to spread the freedom around equally. Thus, while no one is completely free, no one is more, or less, protected than any other. You prefer for the majority to dictate who is allowed what level of freedom. That's fine--but don't even try to act like you are being more fair.

No, what my example proves is that Libertarianism is not only completely unable to correct a "bad" situation that arises between rational people, but that it actually defines the scenario I outlined as "good"! Each individual in my scenario is merely exercising his will. Bill & Ted's neighbors retain their freedom of non-participation (at the cost of death), and thus, by definition, consent to any strictures that Bill & Ted might request.

If you show me an uncorrectable scenario due to another political philosophy, I would certainly consider it strong evidence against that philosophy.

You're example is pitiful, but you're right this far: Under Libertarianism, the government is not an agency of correction. The people are. Just like in any other system based on notions of freedom. Your system requires the majority to be the agency of correction. It's easy to pose an example where that system falls down: There are 5 geniuses and 95 average people. The five geniuses are able to get rich with their systems for producing water, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, and pepperoni pizzas. The other people are never able to be rich because their products aren't as profitable or as desired by others. Some of them are barely able to make enough to survive. Finally, they get together and vote to amend the Constitution so that geniuses, who have an unnatural "excess" of opportunity at birth, no longer receive the same liberty protections as others. Having made that amendment, they enact a law that the geniuses are required to work 10 hours per day, 6 days a week to provide their services, but are only allowed to be paid a subsistence income.

Your system would call this situation "good".

A specious and blatant evasion of a very simple and reasonable problem. To test a political philosophy, I posed a problem that required a political solution. It seems implausibly naive or disingeneously propagandistic to assert that political problems will magically disappear under Libertarianism.

You tried to pose a problem that required a political solution. We pointed out that no political solution was necessary, and you got mad.

This objection hints at the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism. Stripped to its core, Libertarianism asserts that only an elite is capable of making rational judgements; the mass of people deserve nothing but subsistence, and even that only as they are useful to the elite.

Elite, indeed. In fact, Libertarianism asserts that only an individual is capable of making judgments for him/herself. Can't get any more elite than that, can you?

Who is this elite you're talking about? Libertarianism expects most everyone to make rational judgments. That's why for your thought experiment to work, you had to rely on people making irrational judgments.

They did and we're in it [Social Democracy in a Libertarian context].

Where's the Libertarian context? If I'm already contracted at birth, that's a social democratic context.

Not by force or fraud, but your property could easily be taken by disparity of economic need or disparity in the immediacy of that need.

Or by natural disaster or freak accident. These aren't forces of Libertarianism. And their power does not come from Libertarian policies.

Arrant bullshit. Specialization requires a group! It's ludicrous for me to be sitting by myself in the woods, specializing in, say, weaving.

And it's amazing to me to think that someone as erudite as yourself doesn't understand the difference between having some members of a group do something and having the group decide, as a whole, that they all will do it.

This is just blatant propaganda; you are presenting your conclusions as fact. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Libertarianism has the "'natural' outcome of allowing people freedom" other than the meaningless freedom of choosing between exploitation or starvation.

I'm growing increasingly weary of people spouting Libertarian propaganda and fraudulently calling it reasoned argument.

Alrighty then. I guess you are providing examples of reasoned argument:
"Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy."
"This is a baldfaced lie."
"the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism."
"Stripped to its core, Libertarianism asserts that only an elite is capable of making rational judgements"
"Arrant bullshit."
"This is just blatant propaganda"
"spouting Libertarian propaganda"

Yes, these are exactly the kind of things I expect to see from someone who is arguing reasonably.

The "natural" outcome I referred to was specialization. You seem to think it requires a group decision. Seems to me that the only way a group would decide to specialize is if a majority of them wanted to. In a Libertarian context, instead of a group decision, a majority would specialize and some minority would not. The "natural" part is people seeking increased efficiency. If they don't do it in a Libertarian context, they won't do it in any other.

Why would the generalists help the exploited specialists? Since they haven't specialized, they received no benefit from the economy of the specialized. True, they are themselves immune from Bill & Ted's machinations, but it is an irrational choice for them to expend whatever small surplus they can accrue for no benefit to themselves.

Gee, let's see. I'm a generalist. That means I have enough water to meet my needs. Now, Bill and Ted are charging a house for a glass of water. That means I can forego one glass of water a day and easily get a lovely chocolate cake for it, or a glass of milk, or an extra cow. Indeed, why would I want to do that? In fact, I think I would be tempted to curtail my other efforts and start specializing in just making water. Would thinking that to be a rational decision make me a member of an elite?

Of course, Bill & Ted own the water; they are merely giving you a license to pass it through your body. A Libertarian condoning theft? The mind boggles.

Gee, you said before they were selling water; now they are leasing it? For your thought experiment to be valid, you're going to have to stick to one set of rules, start to finish. What are the conditions of the lease? Do they lease bathwater, too? Do they own all the water that is currently incorporated in my cells? You think this is Libertarian?

And you cannot say that Libertarianism "works". Again that is unacceptable propaganda. No Libertarian society has ever existed to prove that assertion accurate.

Sure I can. Look at market examples: The less government involvement, the faster efficiency and wealth increases. The more government involvement, the less efficiency increases and the more wealth disappears. To posit that a completely Libertarian system works is an extrapolation, but a valid one. The only real assumption required is that people will work the hardest for the things they want the most.

The only even defense against economic exploitation under Libertarian theory is non-specialization. You can only maintain your freedom in practical matters by never depending on another person. Thus Libertarianism is impractical in that it prohibits a rational person from specializing. Q.E.D.

Under Libertarianism, you always have your freedom. You can only increase your wealth by making rational decisions. Specialization is generally good for efficiency, but it is not the best choice in every case. Libertarianism allows both specialization and generalization, at the decision of the individual.

It is interesting to note that whenever one points out a flaw in Libertarian philosophy, they say that "Libertarianism will just magically (or {heavy sarcasm} naturally {/heavy sarcasm}) make that problem go away."

I find your "heavy sarcasm" very similar to your "reasoned debate".

To say things happen "naturally" is just a convenient way of expressing it, based on the assumption that you will remember previous parts of the discussion from one minute to the next. Things actually happen because people want them to happen badly enough to work to make them happen. Since people naturally strive to be more efficient, they naturally tend to gravitate toward specialization. Since Libertarianism allows them the freedom to do this, specialization happens naturally.

Libertarianism seeks to avoid all types of tyranny, including that of the majority, the minority, and the workers.
But not the tyrrany of the rich.

If the rich are going to tyrannize, they are going to limited in their success, as they only have economic weapons to work with. In your system, theoretically, they can use their money to influence government and thus tyrannize people using the force of the government to violate their rights.

A definition of rights completely focused on property is differentially beneficial to those with more property. This is such an obvious conclusion that your objection is incomprehensible.

Your reduction of waterj2's definition of "rights" to "focused on property" shows a reasoning capacity that I expect often leads to incomprehension.

You assert the philosophy, you must convince me of its effectiveness. Merely asserting so is not an argument. Since we're making unsupported assertions here I will present Dictatorial fascism, which I assert with no proof works far better than Libertarianism. There, I have (quite trivially and sarcastically, of course) met your challenge.

By deliberately ignoring some of our arguments and misrepresenting others, you reduce every one of your statements to usupported assertions. We don't feel that we must convince you. We are Libertarians--we support your right to hold whatever idiotic beliefs you like.

And the mask debater mounts his trusty steed... Hi Ho Concorde! Away!

<rides off into the sunset>

Making sure to clear the area before the other participants can point out his errors.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

We can't use anything to guarantee that people won't starve to death. We can use tools to try to minimize the occurence, and I'm not against it.

Ooh, we can't completely fix the problem, so why try? I believe I mentioned how pathetic that was. The point of guaranteeing such a right is to give a standard to work up to and to acknowledge failure whenever people starve to death (as opposed to dismissing it entire).

If the rich are going to tyrannize, they are going to limited in their success, as they only have economic weapons to work with.

Weapons which are quite powerful enough, thank you. Or had you failed to notice?

[pldennison]

I apologize for my comments above, matt. Although I have enormous differences with your philosophy, attacking you personally isn't going to help either of us understand the other better. I am stressed enough from putting together my move next month that I am doing too much talking and not enough thinking. Peace?

[matt_mcl]

I've been thinking about this a great deal, pl, and I'm starting to think that what we have here is a cultural difference that cannot be sensibly debated.

Americans fought a bloody war against the British Crown for their independence. They currently have a system of government in which some 80% of the population do not bother to vote. Americans are in general disinclined to trust any government; to consider government a thing separate from the people; and to seek to curtail its power at every opportunity. They are more private.

Canadians were essentially abandoned by their colonial masters, our country dismissed as a few acres of snow. We evolved our own system of government from what was left to us by two distant and uncaring parents. From the refusal to follow Lord Durham's report through Prime Minister Laurier through Tommy Douglas, the CCF, and the birth of medicare, we fought for governments that would provide for the people. Canadians prefer in general to force the governments to give them what they want; rather than to curtail government intervention in their affairs, they wish to force government to intervene in their affairs the way they want it to. They are more public.

I am not writing this as a moral judgment, merely as a reading of history. Both have strengths and weaknesses. And heaven knows that having been raised in a given culture, it's quite difficult to understand how someone could tolerate so different a common sense.

Obviously, I prefer the Canadian way of life; I fight quite vigorously to preserve the Canadian way of life and to keep the American one on the other side of the border.

However, having participated in this thread, I have a new appreciation for how deeply rooted the American beliefs are; not simply self-serving amorality as I had felt previously, but rather a matter of culture and history.

Call this a culture shock.

Peace.

[SingleDad]

waterj2

If the cost of non-participation explicitly were death, then it would count as force. That is why you cannot make agreements at the point of a gun in a libertarian system. I suppose that at some point, Bill and Ted, if they managed to control the entire supply of water, and having ruled out all possible ways of finding water elsewhere or leaving, may cross the line into initiating force.

This paragraph completely contradicts everything I've been told about Libertarianism. Please provide a cite from Ayn Rand or any serious Libertarian philosopher that supports this interpretation.

But there's a contradition. A person can demand water (& food, etc.) without offering resources. He can correctly claim that withholding such will lead to his death and is therefore inherently coercive by the above definition. Since Libertarianism (and common sense) does not permit such parasitism, more elaborate mechanisms (such as Democracy) are required to evaluate specific cases of parasitism vs. exploitation.

As a society we should ensure that all of our citizens are free from initiated force and fraud. That is all the taking care that people should need. To provide further care, society would have to use force to get the necessary resources.

Again you assert your political morality as fact. It is the continued presence of these statements leads me to believe you are a propagandist, not a debater.

(Regarding Bill & Ted's excellent economic exploitation) Libertarianism does not consider that a good scenario, just a permissable one.

Good! You've agreed that Libertarianism permits unrestricted economic exploitation!

I was not evading the problem, I was showing how unlikely it would be for Bill and Ted to completely control the water supply, and why the situation you presented was not as much of a problem as you had made it out to be. To assert that the situation requires a political solution is, according to the principles of Libertarianism, incorrect unless coersion is involved. I was showing technical solutions to the problem as posed. Libertarianism would encourage people to find these technical solutions.

Do you understand the nature of a thought experiment? It's not meant to be completely realistic. You create a simplified situation to highlight a feature of a theory; in this case the Libertarian response to economic exploitation (as opposed to oppression by brute force). But you answered its essential nature above. Unrestricted economic exploitation is permissible by Libertarian theory. Since economic exploitation has a high value for the exploiter, it becomes highly rational for an individual to pursue a strategy that will give him the economic power to enable exploitation.

(In response to "This objection hints at the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism.") I can't figure out where the Hell this came from.

It came from your assertion that a democratic government would eventually fail from short-sightedness. Actually, I overstepped; the hypocrisy is not Libertarian, just your own. I made a hasty generalization, and I apologize.

(Re: historical instances of slavery and oppression) I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about libertarianism

No, I did not bring up those instances as a direct criticism of Libertarianism. I brought them up to prove that a group of people can collude to derive immoral beneft from a larger group.

I must have amnesia, as I can't seem to remember when I freely agreed to be governed by the US. You'd think I'd have saved a document that important.

The US has open borders. You may leave any time you wish. Your continued presence implies your consent. You are perfectly free to criticize the government and suggest radical changes, but you may not truthfully claim that your consent is being violated without those changes.

You specified that Bill and Ted are going to act rationally. How are their best interests served by having the people that presumably provide their every asset aside from water not actually have any property. Everyone, including Bill and Ted, will die if all the farmers are trying to provide food for everyone by harvesting their farms by hand. Clearly Bill and Ted would be better off if they allowed some property to exist.

The last sentence is the key. Property rights become decided by the whim of the economic ruling class (Bill & Ted), not by consensual economic agreements.

Yes, if the incredibly implausible scenario you describe ever happened

As I have pointed out, the capability of people to use whatever means possible for oppression and exploitation is hardly implausible; rather it is ubitquitous.

I am getting sick of seeing slavery and violence used as examples of the type of exploitation that libertarian principles lead to.

Firstly slavery and violence were offered as examples that people commonly collude to pursue oppression and exploitation in general; these are not Libertarian failings. But, because Libertarianism specifically fails to prohibit this common strategy pursued through economic dominance rather than violent force, the argument that Libertarianism can lead to a de facto condition of slavery is therefore valid.

Gilligan:

Re: your comments about slavery. Do you honestly believe that the violent kidnapping of a population, transporting them from their homeland under intolerable conditions, brutally forcinig them to labor, and owning their very lives, are things libertarians approve of? You are more intelligent than that. It is intellectually dishonest of you to claim that libertarians approve of these things when you know otherwise.

I know no such thing. If such conditions are implemented through economic power rather than direct coercion, I see nothing in Libertarian theory that condems such actions, other than the kidnapping.

But it's not enough to simply declare that libs are "required" to evaluate them in a certain way - you have to actually show that they do in fact evaluate them that way.

Are you unable to read? In my evaluation of the thought experiment I explicitly stated that my evaluation of Libertarian theory was potentially incomplete or inaccurate. I have seen precisely one claim of a theoretical refutation, which I refuted. The remainder of the objections merely state that the possibility of economic exploitation magically goes away under Libertarianism. Both the thought experiment and the history of Socialism and the US labor movement from the late 19th centure to present is a strong argument against that facile dismissal.

"Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others."

All well and good, and I'm in agreement. But political theory is about what to do when those freedoms come into conflict. If I perceive that Bill & Ted's freedom to control the water comes into conflict with my own right to reciprocally set the value of my labor vs. their water, how is this conflict resolved? Under Libertarian theory, Bill & Ted have the power to unilaterally set that value.

Are you claiming that we think children chained to factory floors during the industrial revolution were making free choices?

Yes. Their parents were making free and rational choices. Without the child's labor, the family would have starved. By freely agreeing to offer their child's labor, the parents ensured that child would live. They made the value judgement that labor was superior to death. The chain was in place only to efficiently coerce compliance with that freely made agreement (a permissible use of coercion under Libertarian theory).

My point is that Libertarian theory has nothing to prohibit such blatant exploitation so long as it comes from a differential of economic power and not from overt coercion. Just claiming an arbitrary exception whenever something seemingly permissible offends your sensibilities is not a defense of the theory.

Smartass:

(re: "Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy.") I'll say this: When you get ready to make a ridiculous statemtent, you sure do it with conviction. I think Hitler referred to this approach as "the big lie".

I support my analysis by showing that the structure of Libertarian theory permits economic exploitation, which leads to Plutocracy (rule of the rich). If you want to mindlessly propagandize, take it to the Pit.

No system of government can completely protect every citizen from exploitation.

Well duh. I don't object to Libertarianism because it's not perfect, but because it doesn't rule out any form of economic exploitation. This is an example of the reverse slippery slope fallacy: If it's impossible to correct every instance of a perceived wrong then it is irrelevant whether you correct any instance.

Two people against a whole community cannot exploit the community purely based on economics--they must also use force.

Baloney. The instances of blatant economic exploitation from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century (and continuing in some forms even today) handily proves that such exploitation is not only possible but common and pernicious.

You rail against the rich.

I do no such thing. I am rich. Well, I'm not competing with Bill Gates, but I'm a talented professional with a comfortable income. What I rail against is the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

You obviously do not know the difference between power in general and governmental power. Libertarianism is not plutocracy because the rich are not the government. A rich person may have more ability to influence others, but he cannot rule them. To do that would require force. That's the whole point: No one, rich or poor, should be able to exert the kind of force that government represents against their fellow humans.

You're making a distinction without a difference. If someone compels by behavior by threat of a gun or by starvation, I still must submit or die. This is my main objection to Libertarianism. It seems to argue, not against exploitation itself, but only exploitation by certain means.

Thus, while no one is completely free, no one is more, or less, protected than any other.

According to the most strict Libertarian definition of "freedom" this statement is tautological. I'm attempting to show that Libertarian philosophy permits economic exploitation. While each person is still free to starve (the fundamental inalienable freedom under my understanding of Libertarian philosophy), any additional freedom or right can be dictated by those who own the means of survival.

You prefer for the majority to dictate who is allowed what level of freedom. That's fine--but don't even try to act like you are being more fair.

Don't try to distract this discussion with a straw man. The argument is whether or not Libertarianism permits economic exploitation. We're not discussing comparisons, we're discussing a particular feature of Libertarianism.

You're example is pitiful...

Debate me or don't debate me. If you want to call me names, take it to the Pit.

Your system requires the majority to be the agency of correction.

Since I have not proposed a system, this is just a blatant straw man. Defend Libertarian, but don't try to cloud the issue with a trivial distortion of democracy.

You tried to pose a problem that required a political solution. We pointed out that no political solution was necessary, and you got mad.

Like your colleague, you seem to fail to understand the nature of a thought experiment.

That's why for your thought experiment to work, you had to rely on people making irrational judgments.

Damn, I'm getting pissed off. You make claims like this without offering a shred of evidence. More and more you are demonstrating that your comments are propaganda and not debate; your "political" philosophy nothing more than religious dogma.

I guess you are providing examples of reasoned argument:

"Libertarianism is nothing more than a moralistic rationalization of plutocracy."
"This is a baldfaced lie."
"the hypocrisy of the hidden elitism inherent within Libertarianism."
"Stripped to its core, Libertarianism asserts that only an elite is capable of making rational judgements"
"Arrant bullshit."
"This is just blatant propaganda"
"spouting Libertarian propaganda"


Let's examine these statements one by one.

Plutocracy: I provide an elaborate justification of this statement. I may be wrong, but there can be no doubt that I have at least made a prima facia case.

Baldface lie: Calling the restriction of behavior (regardless of how justified) "freedom" is nothing less than a lie. You lie, I call you on it.

Hypocrisy ... elite: An error which I admitted and corrected when noted.

Arrant bullshit: Again, The assertion that specialization does not require a group is ludicrous on its face.

Propaganda: Presenting value judgements as fact and making obviously fallacious arguments are inherently propagandistic. I've noted repeated instances of these sorts of statements.

Yes, these are exactly the kind of things I expect to see from someone who is arguing reasonably.

Sorry, but if you lie, bullshit, or spout propaganda, I will say so. I will also show reasons why I so identify such statements. So yes, these statements do constitute reasonable argument.

Gee, you said before they were selling water; now they are leasing it?

Oy vey. Are you unable to recognize humor? My response to the first objection to the thought experiment covers the other two.

To posit that a completely Libertarian system works is an extrapolation, but a valid one.

Depends on what you mean by "valid". The decision to make the hypothesis that Libertarianism will work is certainly valid. But elsewhere you say it does work, which is a classic example of the fallacy of assuming the consequent.

Under Libertarianism, you always have your freedom.

The only "freedom" that Libertarianism explicitly guarantees is the freedom to starve in peace. Everything else must be proven to follow from its explicit premises. And continually, you assert the consequents of the premises of Libertarianism as fact, an obviously fallacious and propagandistic argument.

Since Libertarianism allows them the freedom to do this, specialization happens naturally.

Yet another assumption of the consequent. Are you getting the point here? You continually assert that Libertarianism has this or that "natural" effect, but you fail to demonstrate the reasoning that leads to these conclusions.

If the rich are going to tyrannize, they are going to limited in their success, as they only have economic weapons to work with.

As has been amply demonstrated, economic weapons have sufficient power to tyrranize.

In your system, theoretically, they can use their money to influence government and thus tyrannize people using the force of the government to violate their rights.

Your psychic powers continue to amaze me.

We are Libertarians--we support your right to hold whatever idiotic beliefs you like.

More propaganda: an ad hominem attack. I'm done with you.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you or waterj2 that your arguments are transparent and propagandistic, any more than I could convince CalifBoomer or Zion that their argument of the truth of their religious principles was self-righteous and beyond the bounds of rational debate.

You have confirmed my suspicious that Libertarianism is a religious postion, and not a rational position. Like any religion, what you believe in the privacy of your own home is none of my business. However your attempts at presenting it as rational debate are as inappropriate and unfounded as any bibilical literalists presentation of divine creation.

It does not suit me to get into shouting arguments with religious zealots. I have made my points. Go play with your fellow believers on a Libertarian board, but don't intrude your religion in a rational community such as the SDMB. If anyone wishes to offer a rational defense of Libertarianism, I would be happy to debate him. But I won't engage religious zealots. It's time-consuming, and without any benefit, and thus irrational.

[wevets]

I didn't say it was infinite. I said it was not finite. Look up "multiplier."

I'm still inclined to disagree with the assertion that wealth is not finite.

From Webster's Dictionary ("http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm):

"Main Entry: fi·nite
Pronunciation: 'fI-"nIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire
Date: 15th century
1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>
2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the finite velocity of light>
3 a : less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer b : having a finite number of elements <a finite set>
4 : of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number)
- finite noun
- fi·nite·ly adverb
- fi·nite·ness noun"

I would argue that wealth does have definable limits, has a limited existence, and has a finite number of elements. It might be completely determinable in theory by counting and measurement, but I'm not sure about that one.

Perhaps what you meant was that the aquisition of wealth is not a zero-sum game, which I would completely agree with.

Sorry if I'm posting too far off-topic.

[waterj2]

SingleDad:

I am quite offended at your last post. If you think smartass' ad hominem attacks poison the well of rational debate, how can you justify yours? Just because you have sufficiently convinced yourself that your position is unassailable doesn't make it so.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this matter. There seem to be two points on which our premises in this argument are at odds. The first one is on the matter of rights. You consider exploitation by means of economic disparity to be comparable to force in terms of the degree to which it is morally wrong. I don't.

The second point we might have more luck with. This is on the matter of economic theory. You believe that in a libertarian society the rich would exploit the poor. Since none of the libertarians here can explain the exact workings of the "invisible hand" the Adam Smith wrote about, you ascribe it to magic. Yeah, I have a tendency to discuss it as if it is a readily apparent point. But my mistake in assuming you have the same economic beliefs as I do does not excuse your claim that this makes it wrong.

Now I do not have a thorough enough understanding of the economics involved to explain it adequately. I'll try to read through The Wealth of Nations more, but I will not be able to argue this point for a while. In the meantime, you have not shown the converse either. You have made the point that it is likely that the rich would want to oppress the poor. We all accept that. You haven't shown how they would realistically go about it without resorting to force.

While I understand that the burden of proof falls to me on this matter, I feel you have argued that my lack of bringing it forth makes me wrong, and then called libertarians a bunch of bad names based on it (and as a staunch atheist, I find religious zealot a bad name indeed). I apologize for my inability to argue lucidly on economic theory, but I simply can't yet. That does not, however, make my beliefs irrational.

If you want to continue this debate civilly, I am more than open to it, and we can resume the point for point style we had going if that's what you desire. But please leave the sanctimonious comments about my fitness to post to this message board out of it. And if you do know of any libertarian message boards, please let me know where they might be found.

How's that for irrational religious zealotry? Just a mindless Atlas Shrugged-thumper is all I am.

[waterj2]

matt_mcl:

I can see what you mean about cultural differences. The notion of "forcing" the government to do good and noble things is still shocking to me.

About the Fed, I cannot comprehend that stuff at all, and therefore assume that it is incredibly complex. For all I know, they just have a computer with two buttons, one that says "screw the poor" and another that says "let the rich eat a lower grade of caviar". I just assume that there's more to it than that, and that the ultimate goal is more along the lines of a good overall economy than a keep the rich happy economy.

As evidence, I look around my middle-class neighborhood here and we all seem to be gaining disposable income. And from what I've heard the economy is doing pretty well for the middle class. The politicians can't overly screw the middle class or they will no longer be politicians. That they will live fat and happy lives is dependant on them being in power.

[Gilligan]

matt_mcl - You know, it had never occurred to me that such stark difference in opinions could be the result of cultural differences rather than ethical ones. That was quite an enlightening a post.

SingleDad - I admit to hastily and grossly misunderstanding your key points. You might have stated that I was misunderstanding you. Obviously, though, rational debate is better served by questioning my ability to read. I now have a clearer idea of your objections to libertarianism, both from your last post, and your post in the Marxism thread. I withdraw and apologize for my accusation of intellectual dishonesty, if in fact you "know no such thing" of libertarian condemnation of slavery. I misunderstood your point; you've clarified it. Libertarians will go on condemning slavery regardless of your knowledge of how they are able to do so. My level of education on the subject matter is insufficient for me to adequately rebut your claims. If because of this you wish to declare that you've "won" the debate, you are welcome to the "victory." (Obviously, I am speaking only for myself in this, not for Smartass, waterj2, or pld.) The rest of us, though, will probably continue to post on the subject, in this and other threads, in an effort to understand each others' points of views, as well as clarify our own positions. I think it's more important that we are learning things from each other, rather than that one side or the other is winning. Fortunately the board rules permit us to do this without first submitting our posts to your specific criteria for rational debate.

wevets - Not claiming to speak for pld, but I think if instead of "wealth is not finite", he had said "wealth is not fixed", the meaning would be clearer. That was my understanding of the statement.

waterj2 - You often express things I agree with much better than I can, (and beat me to it, to boot.) There is an active libertarian message board at www.free-market.net/forums/. I don't participate there due to lack of time, but I do read it occasionally. I think you would enjoy it.

[Liberal]

Phil

You've remind me of the scene from The Matrix, where Keanu is fighting the Agent with one hand. You are inspirational. Thank you.

Single Dad

You've posted so much crock that I don't have near the time to deal with all of it. I have to work, for one thing. But one particular boner screams for attention:

This is a baldfaced lie. Libertarianism does not allow me the political freedom to choose criminality or coercion. Free means free. Don't distort its meaning. All political systems are about which freedoms to deny the individual.

We'll ignore the logic errors, like the tautology that "free means free", and deal directly with the mean-spirited and arrogant notions that underlie your, er, um, point.

Unless you are a pure Sanguine or Choleric, you ought to be aware that there are other people out there besides you. Freedom, as libertarianism defines it (and yes, philosophies do define their terms — often differently from one another) is merely the absence of coercion. That is, meaningful freedom is a particular context, that of peace and honesty.

If you are "free" to coerce, then that means that some other man is not free; i.e., he is a slave to your whims.

You are confusing freedom with license, and because you have taken upon yourself the role of logic cop, you need to arrest yourself.

[matt_mcl]

Gilligan and WaterJ: thanks for your comments. The interesting thing about common sense is that while it helps us separate the standard from the absurd, we have to realize that it's culturally based. History is a good way to look at the roots of our common sense and see why we feel particular ways about things.

My fave philosopher, John Ralston Saul, suggests the existence of (a for-the-sake-of-argument list of) six mental faculties: natural reason, common sense, ethics, intuition, creativity, and memory. Each of them has to be balanced by all the others, otherwise one or another of them ends up as a dictatorship.

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

We can't use anything to guarantee that people won't starve to death. We can use tools to try to minimize the occurence, and I'm not against it.

Ooh, we can't completely fix the problem, so why try?

You're reading more into my statement than is there. I'm not saying we shouldn't try; I'm saying that government should not be the tool we use for that trying.

If the rich are going to tyrannize, they are going to limited in their success, as they only have economic weapons to work with.
Weapons which are quite powerful enough, thank you. Or had you failed to notice?

It is a rare period of history when someone isn't trying to control someone else. I don't know that anyone has said that libertarianism can prevent tyranny. It can't. Neither can any other system I know of. Only people can prevent tyranny. By protecting rights, libertarianism gives people the most tools for protecting themselves from tyranny.

In other words, yes, economic weapons can indeed be effective. However, the combination of economic weapons and physical force is far worse.

My fave philosopher, John Ralston Saul, suggests the existence of (a for-the-sake-of-argument list of) six mental faculties: natural reason, common sense, ethics, intuition, creativity, and memory. Each of them has to be balanced by all the others, otherwise one or another of them ends up as a dictatorship.

How do you keep one from oppressing the others?


SingleDad:

Obviously, we are in disagreement about what it is that we are trying to debate. I don't know that anyone has said that libertarianism is the world's perfect system or that under it, nothing can ever go wrong. If you think that we are trying to prove that, it's no wonder you think we are failing miserably.

Speaking for myself, I am only trying to establish that libertarianism is preferable to any system that men have come up with to date. Since you entered the debate in support of social democracy, I have been arguing as if that is the system that you propose to be better than libertarianism.

I am still prepared to continue arguing that libertarianism is the best system, so far; I wouldn't know how to begin arguing that it is perfect. If you have come up with a system that is better, I am all ears. If there is some other system you want to hold up to ours (other than social democracy), you should point it out.

I am still not sure what you hoped to accomplish with your thought experiment. If all you wanted to prove was that economic oppression is possible, it was pointless. If enough people want to oppress others, there does not exist a system that can stop them, except by having the system oppress everyone. However, if your goal was to show that this oppression was likely, or easy to achieve by a small number of people, you have failed. We have shown that, given the situation you created, Bill and Ted cannot realistically be expected to be able to oppress the community. Does this prove that economic oppression cannot happen? No. Does it prove, as you seem to think, that it will happen--or is even likely? No. The experiment simply does not work.

The key advantage that libertarianism has over every other system I know of is not that it utterly eliminates oppression. It is that it makes oppression more difficult. Every other system puts coercive (read: physical) force in the hands of some number of people to use as they please. Libertarianism eliminates this.

Libertarianism also recognizes a simple fact that you, apparently, prefer to ignore: In any system, it is up to the people to ensure that they are not oppressed. It is up to the people to ensure that resources are used efficiently. It is up to the people to ensure that their overall society is accomplishing the goals that they want to see achieved. Libertarianism does nothing to guarantee that people achieve their goals: It only ensures that they cannot be forcibly thwarted from achieving them. It is this that leads you to accuse us of claiming magic causes things to happen. This is not true. We expect things to happen because we expect people to want them to happen. Given that our system is designed to allow people to pursue their goals, we are confident that those goals that are most desirable to the largest number will be achieved. This is not magic. Also, if the people suddenly decide that their goals have changed, then society will change to match their new goals. This happens quickly because they don't have to battle the government to do it. Once again, this is not magic.

In other words, your concerns about libertarianism's response to economic exploitation are, from our standpoint, misguided. In libertarianism, the government is not expected to solve problems--the people are. This is also true in a democratic system, the main difference being that in the latter system people expect to use the government as their tool for problem solving. Under Libertarianism, the people use whatever tools are available to them, and they generally tend to be better tools than centralized government.

Let me put it another way: Let's say that oppression begins to happen in a democratic system. How does the system correct it? It doesn't. It waits for the people to act--by voting that something be done. Now let's say that oppression begins to happen in a libertarian system. How does the system correct it? It doesn't. It waits for the people to act--the advantage is that it doesn't require them all to agree and ensures that they will not be thwarted in their actions by use of physical force.

You claim that, in the thought experiment, libertarianism fails because the government does not act "on its own" to solve a problem that develops. We claim that libertarianism does not fail, because the people are not prevented from taking actions to solve the problem. In our refutation of your thesis, we pointed out some of the options that were available to the people that could be exercised to solve the problem.

Your position is that since government did not act to solve the problem, then the system failed. Our position is that since the government could not be used to prevent people from solving the problem, the system succeeded.

Now, if you want to propose a governmental system that is better than ours, I will be happy to compose a thought experiment to show where it fails.

I'm attempting to show that Libertarian philosophy permits economic exploitation.

Only if the people do. On the other hand, it prevents all exploitation based on use of physical force. Once again, can you name a system that is better? That is more effective at preventing exploitation and oppression?

I think that's far enough for now, in terms of theory. We can go further, based on your response, if there is one.

Now, I cannot sign off without pointing out the hypocritical nature of your behavior. You have used deliberately inflammatory remarks, and an overall condescending tone, in every one of your posts in this thread. And yet, when we respond in kind, you tout it as an example of our failure at "reasoned debate". Last time I checked, reasoned debate required adherence to the tenets of reason from both sides. To expect it from us and not from yourself is the essence of "unreasonable".

So, how about this? I have made a point in this post of not responding in kind to your deliberate baiting of me. If you will respond in kind, then we will indeed have a reasoned debate, and will probably all be enriched by it. But remember, libertarians believe in the rights of individuals to defend themselves from the unfairness of others. If you post half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks, I will respond in kind.


waterj2:

As a fellow member of "the faith", I couldn't help but notice you failed to attend last week's "Market-Worship Revival", which is considered a holy day of obligation. I hope you realize that, before you can participate in any further market transactions, you will have to go to recession.


Gilligan:

Methinks you concede to easily.


Libertarian:

It's about time you showed up. I was beginning to think you might have applied for a name change.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

natural reason, common sense, ethics, intuition, creativity, and memory. Each of them has to be balanced by all the others, otherwise one or another of them ends up as a dictatorship.

How do you keep one from oppressing the others?

Like I said: by keeping them in balance, using them constantly, and not deifying any particular one of them.

In my conciliatory post above, I showed that we have to use our memory to keep our common sense from overwhelming us.

For another example, The Enlightenment destroyed a dictatorship of ethics (the Church) and of memory (the royal successions of Europe) using reason and common sense.

However, Saul argues in Voltaire's Bastards that the Enlightenment left our present societies in a dictatorship of reason: an amoral, meaningless tyranny of structure. He gives profound arguments for mustering our ethics, common sense, creativity, memory, and intuition to bring reason back in balance.

[matt_mcl]

At any rate, we probably shouldn't talk more about the dictatorship of reason and faculties in balance in this thread, it being completely beyond the scope of the present discussion.

A thread in which it has been discussed is here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22864

[2sense]

I am starting late and struggling to catch up. I haven't kept up after my flippant post. I have started reading the 2nd page and I expect to be caught up tomorrow. A couple things right now:

DISCLAIMER: I claim no responsability for the hypothetical government which bears my name.

waterj2:

I believe I might have to disagree with you here.

Libertarianism proposes that the rich be free as well from having their rights infringed on behalf of the poor.

You are talking about the property rights of the rich, correct?

As in, the poor have no right to my money?
-

BTW- I was right. I can't resist opening Sun Tzu's masterpiece. I've already read a good deal of the intro, and at this rate I will have finished my "vacation book" before I even see the beach.
Thanks again.

[Gilligan]

Smartass, all I'm conceding is a lack of sufficient education in economic and political theory to make the points that you and waterj2 are making. (I was a music major, of all things.) I came to libertarianism from an ethical direction, rather than a political one, and extremely recently as well. Also, I generally prefer the types of threads in which people post their various points of view on a subject. This thread seemed to start out that way, but eventually became another "I'm right" "No, I'm right" confrontation. I become frustrated when this happens to threads because they stop being places to learn.

On a humorous note, I think there may be a strategic advantage for us to consider our philosophy a religion, as it's been called. I note that the Amish are granted exemption from participating in the Social Security system because it violates their religious beliefs. Maybe we could get the same exemption. We could all get t-shirts, keychains, and bracelets printed with our slogan WWMD.

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

However, Saul argues in Voltaire's Bastards that the Enlightenment left our present societies in a dictatorship of reason: an amoral, meaningless tyranny of structure. He gives profound arguments for mustering our ethics, common sense, creativity, memory, and intuition to bring reason back in balance.

I suggest a libertarian approach: Let that faculty which is most affected lead in each situation. Thus, when discussing the origin of the universe, reason should predominate; when someone leaves their car unlocked, ethics should predominate; etc. What do you think?


2sense:

Sorry about that 2sense government thing. I was just so pleased with it, and it seemed to fit, I hated to have it go to waste. Don't mean for you to have to wear it around like a scarlet letter.


Gilligan:

I understand, and agree with, your frustration. I make no claim to economic expertise either. For me, it is largely about fairness. I think, however, as a participant, you can keep your portion of the debate in those areas that you feel most qualified to discuss. Since you actually arrived at libertarianism by way of ethics, I think you and matt_mcl could have a fascinating discussion.

As for the religion idea, I think it sounds pretty good. As long as I still get to sleep in on Sundays.

-VM

[Liberal]

Smartass

I'd visit more often, but I have to work. Besides, you're doing a fine job overall. Perhaps some of the socialists here wouldn't mind giving me their money so I could visit more frequently.

Gilligan

I, like you, came into libertarianism from ethics, rather than from politics. In my libertarian infancy, whenever I became confused, I simply closed my eyes and recalled the ethic. 'Yes', I would remember, 'all people are entitled by God or nature (whichever they believe gave them life — our original property) to be free from the coercion and fraud of others, even if that means using defensive or retaliatory force, or hiring someone else to use those forces for you'.

Simply deal with the Giant Squid scenarios honestly. Yes, if a really mean man owned all the water on earth, the rest of us might be in a pickle. But since we're just supposing, I'll say the man is really nice. Okay?

Also, always remember that libertarianism is not a system, but rather a context, namely, a context of peace and honesty. It is not a matter that the "libertarian system" (sic) is better than some other system. There is no libertarian system.

Remember, libertarianism will allow the socialists to collectivise voluntarily, if they wish, and enjoy a veritable orgy of mutual pillage.

[matt_mcl]

I suggest a libertarian approach: Let that faculty which is most affected lead in each situation. Thus, when discussing the origin of the universe, reason should predominate; when someone leaves their car unlocked, ethics should predominate; etc. What do you think?

That's the first part. The second part is to doubt the conclusions of each. In most cases, such as the ones you mention, the doubt is swift and quiet. However, in the case of national and international issues of major import, the doubt ought to be non-trivial and resolved by an extensive humanist discourse rather than the sequential expert solutions which the current system favours.

[wevets]

wevets - Not claiming to speak for pld, but I think if instead of "wealth is not finite", he had said "wealth is not fixed", the meaning would be clearer. That was my understanding of the statement.


OK, thanks. That's a statement I can live with. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate...

[SingleDad]

The Libertarian arguments in this thread are by and large religious, self-righteous propaganda. This is too bad, because with decent, rational arguments, I might be convinced. I'm 90% there. I believe (with limitations) in the power of the free market to reciprocally set value. I agree (with very few limitations) that a person's private behavior should be beyond the bound of democratic control. With possibly a few technical alternations to remove my objections relating to economic exploitation, mostly by accepting a modified system of taxation and placing structural limitations on extremes of wealth, I might well become an adherent of some neo-Libertarian philosophy.

There have actually been some good arguments here, and some arguments that are reasonable but subject to refutation. However the blatant propaganda has drawn my attention; lacking infinite time, I focus on the really egregious errors in thinking.

Libertarianism, at least as I have read its defense here, has a religious and self-righteous nature because it depends on the assumed inherent truth of its fundamental principle: that coercion is always immoral unless it is used to defend oneself or one's property. Because Libertarians consider its truth beyond question, it is impossible to rationally debate the principle itself.

Time and again, I have seen Libertarians assert the principle as intrinsically correct. The most consistent examples are the references to taxation as "theft" and the assertion that they do not consent to the social agreement as enacted in the body of laws of our society.

To characterize taxation as theft is prima facie incorrect. Theft is the unlawful or felonious (Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com)) taking of property. Taxation is obviously neither. To give the characterization meaning, it must rest on the assumption as fact of the fundamental premise of Libertarianism.

The assertion of oppression (i.e. unjust compulsion) is also prima facie incorrect. Societies live longer than individual human beings. It is impractical and unreasonable to renegotiate the social contracts as each person reaches majority. But each person in our society has a telling option: that of leaving. This option is open to any adult, absolutely free in the strictest sense of the word; there is not the hint of coercion to keep any adult in our society. Since you are under no compulsion to stay, your continued presence is fully consensual, regardless of the consequences.

You may legitimately argue that you wish the social contract to be changed, but it is simply self-righteous to argue that you are subject to oppression unless your personal morality is implemented by society. Again, the only way this argument has any meaning is to assume as fact the fundamental Libertarian principle, and thus derive the "fact" of the consequent oppression.

As waterj2 points out, Libertarianism "does allow you the freedom to join a group of people and by agreement among each other govern yourself in ways that would otherwise be criminal or coercive." Not leaving when you are free to do so is equivalent to joining.

The word "propaganda", while having the denotation of merely "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" (Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com)), has a strong pejorative connotation. The American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/) gives the example, ""the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda." Clearly, repeated fallacious reasoning deserves the pejorative connotations of the word. Obvious and repeated fallacies abound in this thread, thus I term the argument as a whole propagandistic.

First I want to define some of the fallacies. The fallacy of the straw man, argument by absurdity, non-sequitor and equivocation are quite prevalent in these arguments.

The basic Libertarian "straw man/absurdism" fallacy follows the model that "your" political theory requires absurd levels of parasitism or paternalism. Since "your" theory is so absurd, Libertarianism must be correct, no?

A "non-sequitor" fallacy asserts that a consequent follows from a premise with no evidence to support the connection. All sorts of consequents are asserted from following lLbertarian philosophy. If a Libertarian system were in place, this, that or the other would "naturally" occur. No such evidence is offered; indeed it is impossible. Lacking structural guarantees or prohibitions, it would take an actual implementation of the theory or impossibly detailed examination by game theory to prove these assertions. I refer to non-sequitors as "magical thinking." The underlying thought process I'm inferring is that "if we have this perfectly moral basis, then every good thing must naturally follow, and no evil thing can ever occur," as if by magic.

The fallacy of "equivocation" means using a piece of the complex meaning of a word to differentiate a philosophy. The use of "freedom", which Libertarian admits as having an arbitrary definition under Libertarianism, usually follows this fallacy. Since Libertarianism is "free" by definition, any divergence from Libertarian philosophy by definition moves towards "non-freedom" or slavery.

"No one said that the government owned my property, but I sure never got to exert any influence over a great deal of it." (faulty premise; The Constitution says the government may institute taxation)

"I also think that having the government be the agent of this generosity introduces a ridiculous amount of inefficiency into the system." (non-sequitor)

"'In fact, I feel so strongly about it, I think you should be required to help pay for it as well.' This is completely contrary to the notions of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded." (faulty premise, again the Constituion, embodying the "notions of freedom and liberty upon which this nation was founded," explicitly permits taxation)

"Socialism = the people are too stupid to know what is goood for themselves, therefor the Gov' tmust decide what is goood for them." (ridicule/straw man)

"And you think it is acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I do not. That kind of thinking justifies such wonderful things as slavery and socialism." (non-sequitor)

"You refuse to accept that, not only do government-imposed solutions trample on rights, they are also not good solutions. Centrally imposed policy is never as effective as allowing individuals to choose their own solutions. This is why socialism fails. This not just true in economics. It is true for any situation where people wish to solve problems." (non-sequitor)

"... you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom." (equivocation)

"What displeases me is when the protections afforded in that document (the Constitution) are flouted." (non-sequitor; no Constitutional provisions are shown to have been flouted)

"Most liberals have a tendency to instinctively assume that people will not act to solve problems on their own." (straw man)

"I would measure this by counting the unwarranted infringements on people's rights. When you infringe a person's rights, and cannot justify it by the protection of another person's more fundamental right..." (assumption of the Libertarian principle)

"As with many Libertarian results, it (specialization) is sort of a "natural" outcome of allowing people freedom." (non-sequitor)

"And interestingly, when you ask them how they base where they draw their lines, instead of being able to explain a coherent philosophy behind it, they more often resort to horror stories and imagined worst-case scenarios of your philosophy." (straw man)

"I haven't noticed you offering a similarly complete system to compare to. In other words, how exactly would you program your robot to implement 'social democracy'?" (shifting the burden of proof)

"Libertarianism works better than all of these" (non-sequitor)

"Let's go one better--why don't we guarantee that nobody ever dies of anything, ever? Wouldn't that be peachy? If we can't guarantee that nobody ever, ever dies, why have a civilization at all? If we can't all be 8'4" and play basketball at the NBA level, why have a civilization at all? If we can't breathe underwater . . .?" (ridicule/straw man)

"Your entire philosophy appears to be devoted to Mommy and Daddy Government taking care of everyone. Why even bother to live if you're simply a ward of the state from cradle to grave? What kind of freedom is that?" (straw man)

"No, my problem is that it makes sloth a desirable goal by positing some idiotic 'right not to starve to death.'" (straw man/ridicule)

"... so I can only assume you support theft by able-bodied people capable of earning a living." (straw man)

"So therefore it's so much better to simply let Daddy Government rock me gently in his arms than dare exert an iota of energy on my own behalf . . ." (straw man)

"As a society we should ensure that all of our citizens are free from initiated force and fraud. That is all the taking care that people should need." (assumption of the principle)

"Libertarianism would encourage people to find these technical solutions." (non-sequitor)

"What I said was that in libertarianism, people tired of living under the harsh de facto dictatorship of Bill and Ted would develop desalination technology faster than a social democracy..." (non-sequitor)

"Also, if you trivialize all the arguments that smartass, Gilligan, and myself have made as nothing more than ascribing it to magic, I'm not sure I can continue this debate." (ridicule)

"But I will hardly be called a snob by an effete socialist who wants to live in FantasyLand, and drag everyone else kicking and screaming." (ridicule)

"Two people against a whole community cannot exploit the community purely based on economics--they must also use force." (non-sequitor)

"You rail against the rich." (straw man)

"Your governmental theory allows the rich to be exploited by the rest." (straw man)

"I'll say this: When you get ready to make a ridiculous statemtent, you sure do it with conviction. I think Hitler referred to this approach as 'the big lie'." (ridicule/straw man)

"Libertarianism does not. And a small group of rich people cannot exploit a population under Libertarianism--there's just not enough of them." (non-sequitor)

"Libertarianism just tries to spread the freedom around equally." (equivocation)

"Where's the Libertarian context? If I'm already contracted at birth, that's a social democratic context." (faulty premise; at adulthood one is free to leave; there is no contract compelling his presence)

"If they don't do it (specialize) in a Libertarian context, they won't do it in any other." (factually incorrect)

"That's why for your thought experiment to work, you had to rely on people making irrational judgments." (non-sequitor)

"The less government involvement, the faster efficiency and wealth increases. The more government involvement, the less efficiency increases and the more wealth disappears. To posit that a completely Libertarian system works is an extrapolation, but a valid one." (non-sequitor, also factually incorrect: anarchy is less efficient than many very large governments)

"Under Libertarianism, you always have your freedom." (equivocation)

"Your reduction of waterj2's definition of "rights" to "focused on property" shows a reasoning capacity that I expect often leads to incomprehension." (ridicule)

"If you think smartass' ad hominem attacks poison the well of rational debate, how can you justify yours?" (factually incorrect)

"Just because you have sufficiently convinced yourself that your position is unassailable doesn't make it so." (straw man)

"Freedom, as libertarianism defines it {freedom} (and yes, philosophies do define their terms -- often differently from one another) is merely the absence of coercion. That is, meaningful freedom is a particular context, that of peace and honesty." (arbitrary definition)

"Remember, libertarianism will allow the socialists to collectivise voluntarily, if they wish, and enjoy a veritable orgy of mutual pillage." (straw man)

In closing, I think I have offered sufficient evidence that Libertarianism cannot be rationally debated, at least not with its adherents on this board. Actually, I never met a Libertarian who could engage in rational debate (this is not to say there aren't any, of course). I don't see that it's possible to convince Smartass, waterj2, Gilligan, etc. of the presence of the tiniest flaw in Libertarian theory. They are true believers. I'd have no more success in an attempt to convince CalifBoomer of the fallacy of Creationism.

To say that I'm hypocritical and deliberately inflammatory is disingeneous at best. I have merely identified the prevalence of Libertarian propaganda while offering none of my own. If I have committed any fallacy or ad hominem attack besides a few heated remarks, I am in error on that point and will admit it. It is especially ironic to read Smartass's statement, "If you post half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks, I will respond in kind." I urge you to read the this thread and figure out for yourselves who started the "half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks."

[2sense]

Hello everyone,

I would like to clear up the L.( Libertarian or -ism ) context vs system question. The L. context would be in a democratic system with an unchangeable L. theory of government?
( An assumtion based on conversing with Smartass. )

It seems to me that SingleDad has exposed a fundamental flaw in L.

How does L. prevent economic exploitation?

On a practical level, does the L. Party endorse a fair division of property before implementing its ideas in the USA?
( I could guess, but I want to be sure. )

Smartass:
Don't sweat the governmental disclaimer, I just wanted to avoid confusion.
It is my belief that SD's thought experiment did show that B&T could reallisticly oppress the community. What am I missing?

Libertarian:

I am not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if not, allow me to give my understanding of this. A thought experiment is a model. By changing the suppositions in it you are, in effect, creating a new model. While the new model may be more to your liking, it does NOT invalidate the 1st model.

I am not certain that you understand freedom.
In this context freedom is neccessarily limited. Your given definition of freedom is "merely the absence of coercion". If I can not enslave others, then I am being coerced me. Hence, coercion is not absent. So, unless I am free to do everything, then I am not free at all. However, if I enslave others, then they are not free. Complete freedom is therefore not possible in any society. You will never be completely free as long as there are other people out there besides you.

matt mcl:

A few things off topic: I also enjoyed your "cultural differences" post. I would be interested in an exploration into the differences of American and Canadian political philosophies. Since I tend to agree with your point of view, I think that the cultural differences can be overcome. If someone is willing to discard some preconceptions. I would love to learn more about the Canadian system, so I could hone my arguements on how to reform the US system.

I also would like to get in on the next 6 mental faculties discussion. I have a "You Can't Have Common Sense" argument that I would like to test out. I probably would not be able to understand most of the references in the discussion though. My knowledge of the classics is sadly lacking. I have never read Voltaire, and I am only slightly more familiar with the Greek dispositions that Libertarian was talking about.

Also, how about a translation of the quote in your sig line. Je ne parle pas le Francais ou le Quebecois. I am not even sure that I got that right, its been a long time since high school.
-

[Cazaly]

(Dipping a late toe into a hot debate)

Like matt_mcl, I am at a cultural disadvantage in understanding Libertarianism. (Australia is sufficiently like Canada in this respect).
I would like to take up a couple of remarks made by Smartass and Libertarian. I didn’t notice these points addressed in the thread – sorry if they were and I missed it.

1. Police power

Libertarian quoted someone (a Libertarian saint?):
‘all people are entitled by God or nature (whichever they believe gave them life — our original property) to be free from the coercion and fraud of others, even if that means using defensive or retaliatory force, or hiring someone else to use those forces for you'.

Smartass wrote:
The key advantage that libertarianism has over every other system I know of is not that it utterly eliminates oppression. It is that it makes oppression more difficult. Every other system puts coercive (read: physical) force in the hands of some number of people to use as they please. Libertarianism eliminates this.

Have I got this right? This is talking about the ideal Libertarian system. Libertarianism accepts that people will sometimes attempt coercion and fraud against others and regards this as violation of the latter’s rights, an offence against the whole of Libertarian society. However, this does not justify having a body representing that society (a police force in this case) with coercive powers of its own in order to prevent such attempts. A police force, or the politicians directing it, would use the power as they pleased and would end up oppressing people themselves. Instead, the victim is entitled to self-help, using whatever assistance s/he can pay or otherwise persuade other people to provide.

If the victim is weaker, stupider, poorer, or just less popular than the aggressor, that is too bad.

If the aggressor is weaker, stupider, etc, and gets lynched for not showing proper respect, that’s too bad too.

Question (if this is indeed what you think): Why can coercive power can be trusted to individuals or groups that are acting in the interests of only some people, and not to a public body that, in a representative democracy, is answerable, even if imperfectly, to all?

2. Property

Smartass’s signature quote:
“We will continue to grow and prosper so long as we keep telling people directly that we want them to be free -- free to live their lives as they see fit, not as George Bush or Al Gore thinks is best for them -- free to raise their children by their own values, not the values of the politicians and bureaucrats -- free to keep every dollar they earn, to spend it, save it, give it away as they see fit." Harry Browne

I take it that here the existence of politicians and bureaucrats is accepted—Harry Browne is talking practical politics and urging that the government be minimized rather removed altogether.

Question 1 “.. free to keep every dollar they earn…”—What does “earn” mean here?

Abe takes an axe, his muscles and his determination and clears a farm in the wilderness that gives him a living. I take it that he has earned it.
Barry, his son, inherits the farm. Has he earned it?
Cecil, his friend, wins it in a wager. Has he earned it?
Dave, buys it cheap and then finds oil. Dave is rich. Has he earned it?

My point is that acquisition of property is doesn’t have any correlation with virtue, and is only weakly correlated with hard work or ability. Luck plays a very large part – and in any case ability, and perhaps even the character that makes hard work possible, depend on a person’s genetic luck.

Question 2 Why is it so important that a person get to keep all the property all the property s/he acquires, rather than simply enough of it to make his/her freedom meaningful?

(Sorry if it's hard to read: I haven't yet worked our formatting. And two more posts appeared while I was writing it.)

[hawthorne]

Can I try to put words into Singledad's mouth?

Not being a libertarian, I don't agree that negative freedom is all that matters and any agreement about the rules of society I might be inclined to make would have to reflect that. The problem here is that libertarians believe that the rules should only be about consent, but insist on the rules being their rules.

A social contract entered into by several libertarians and several non-libertarians would have to be a compromise: the only way it would be a purely libertarian social "contract" is by coercion.

picmr

[matt_mcl]

I didn't mean to imply that all Americans and all Canadians follow the dominant ethos in their society. I know many Americans and, heaven knows, more than enough Canadians who don't. It's merely a cultural atmosphere.

The quotation from Voltaire means, "Let us move away from these fictions we call systems, and to raise ourselves up let us descend into ourselves."

[Smartass]

Excellent; now, I think it is getting more interesting.


matt_mcl:
...the doubt ought to be non-trivial and resolved by an extensive humanist discourse rather than the sequential expert solutions which the current system favours.

So, you are aware that governmental solutions tend to be bad ones; is that what you're saying? If so, you're already headed down the road to Libertarianism.


SingleDad:

I think we just have to piss each other off a little more, and then we'll really be able to communicate. I think I am starting to understand where your complaint wrt libertarianism is. If I am reading you correctly, then you generally agree with libertarian principles, you object to the fact that there is nothing inherent in the system to prevent economic exploitation, and that is the reason for the thought experiment. Just to be clear, I don't agree that the experiment shows that economic exploitation will happen; however, I don't deny that, as a system, libertarianism does not actively prevent it. I think I want to come back to this point.

Libertarianism, at least as I have read its defense here, has a religious and self-righteous nature because it depends on the assumed inherent truth of its fundamental principle: that coercion is always immoral unless it is used to defend oneself or one's property. Because Libertarians consider its truth beyond question, it is impossible to rationally debate the principle itself.

While I agree with this, I don't think of it as a religious or moral view. If I have a moral position it is this: People should be as "free" as possible to live their lives as they see fit. Do you disagree with this? Second, I don't believe that any one person is inherently more entitled to freedom than any other. Do you disagree with this? Now, there is no way for me to exert coercion on you without taking away from your freedom. Likewise, there is no way for you to exert coercion on me without taking away from my freedom. As a result, the fairest (that is, the most evenly distributed) way to give out freedom is to protect every individual equally from coercion. Thus each person is "safe" to live their lives according to their beliefs without worrying about being coerced by another. For me, this is not about the morality of coercion so much as it is about the importance of freedom and the equality of individuals. If there is some reason to dispute this, I would be interested to hear about it. In my experience, libertarians don't assert this because of a religious feeling, but because we believe it to be something that should be obvious to everyone (or at least everyone who is fair-minded).

The most consistent examples are the references to taxation as "theft" and the assertion that they do not consent to the social agreement as enacted in the body of laws of our society.

I pay my taxes every year, on time. While there are definitely things I would like to see changed in this country, I haven't seen anything better. For me, it is not necessary to tear down the government and start over. Rather, I think we could get pretty damn close to the libertarian ideal by electing libertarian leaders and reasserting the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution.

To characterize taxation as theft is prima facie incorrect.

I have not characterized taxation as theft, but as "stealing". Obviously, it is legal. I am referring to this definition (also from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)): "to take away by force or unjust means". Specifically, because of all the democracy, members of society are able to use the government to forcefully take money from me.

It is impractical and unreasonable to renegotiate the social contracts as each person reaches majority. But each person in our society has a telling option: that of leaving. This option is open to any adult, absolutely free in the strictest sense of the word; there is not the hint of coercion to keep any adult in our society. Since you are under no compulsion to stay, your continued presence is fully consensual, regardless of the consequences.

If the contracts were libertarian, there would be no need for renegotiation. The fact that I think the US is better than the alternatives does not mean that I am pleased about such things as taxation. When I would be leaving a situation of being forced to part with my earnings in order to enter a situation where I would be even less free, it's not much of a choice. And certainly does not qualify as a libertarian context.

You may legitimately argue that you wish the social contract to be changed, but it is simply self-righteous to argue that you are subject to oppression unless your personal morality is implemented by society.

This is exactly the point. I don't want my personal morality implemented by society. I don't want yours implemented either. I want us all to be free to implement our own personal moralities for ourselves as we see fit. To believe that people should not be allowed to starve is a moral position. To use the government to forcibly collect money to feed these people is to implement the moral position of some portion of the population.

Clearly, repeated fallacious reasoning deserves the pejorative connotations of the word. Obvious and repeated fallacies abound in this thread, thus I term the argument as a whole propagandistic.

That is a legitimate opinion for you to hold. I could also have the same opinion of your positions. However, calling our arguments propagandistic does not help forward the debate. Your definition includes "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". This, in and of itself, does not clarify whether the ideas are right or wrong. By calling our arguments propagandistic, you are calling into question our motives, without saying where the error you seem to perceive lies. If you then dismiss an argument out of hand because is it is "propagandistic" leaves us no points to argue, unless you are saying that if we convince you that we are not trying to help a cause, then you will accept the ideas. On the other hand, if you will give the reasons that you think the ideas are incorrect, then we can debate.

The basic Libertarian "straw man/absurdism" fallacy follows the model that "your" political theory requires absurd levels of parasitism or paternalism. Since "your" theory is so absurd, Libertarianism must be correct, no?

I think I pointed out before that my position isn't that every other theory is incorrect or that libertarianism is in some way innately correct. Instead, my position is that libertarianism offers a system that is more fair than any other now existing. I don't believe that there ever will be such a thing as a perfect system.

If a Libertarian system were in place, this, that or the other would "naturally" occur.

I also thought I explained this. I will try again. Under libertarianism, those goals that are most desirable to the most people will be most likely to be achieved. Since people are free to use their resources as they see fit, they are able to devote their energies to the goals that they think are most desirable. Therefore, if a large number of people think that it is important to feed the poor, then they will act on this belief by creating organizations to feed the poor and by donating money for this purpose. Thus, if enough people desire for the poor to be fed, they will be. Most of the things that a democratic government tries to achieve are those things that the majority of people vote in favor of. Thus, if in a democratic government, people would vote to feed the poor and thus encourage government to tax the people in order to achieve this, that means that a large percentage of the population are in favor of this action. In a libertarian system, voting would not need to occur; people, knowing that it wasn't government's job to solve problems, would act on problems on their own and, I believe, achieve better results. I would describe this as happening "naturally" because it corresponds to the will of the people. Whereas, when something happens by means of forcing citizens to cooperate, I think of that as being "unnatural", or forced.

Lacking structural guarantees or prohibitions, it would take an actual implementation of the theory or impossibly detailed examination by game theory to prove these assertions.

And how would the structural guarantees work? Based on what you've posted in the past, I think you support an ability to vote to enact change as a structural guarantee. However, this guarantee does not automatically solve problems. Before any action by the government, the people must vote for it to act, which means there has to be a large number of people wanting something to be addressed. Without a majority decision, the government offers no guarantees. In a libertarian system, people may act without the need of a vote. If enough people want something to happen to constitute a majority, then I submit that there are enough people interested to accomplish their goals without the need of government intervention. This is the problem that I have with your thought experiment. There were enough unhappy people to have passed a law to solve their problem. However, as we pointed out, there were also enough people to solve the problem without need of a law. I submit that, if you create a similar experiment where the people cannot solve the problem on their own, then they won't be able to muster up the votes to solve it in a democratic system either.

The use of "freedom", which Libertarian admits as having an arbitrary definition under Libertarianism, usually follows this fallacy. Since Libertarianism is "free" by definition, any divergence from Libertarian philosophy by definition moves towards "non-freedom" or slavery.

Since I don't know if you agree that the most fair system is one that provides the most freedom to everyone, I don't know how to argue this. Do you think that libertarianism gives more freedom to some than others? You have only mentioned the rich. I agree that rich people have more freedom than poor people, but this freedom is not given them by the system--it is given them by having more money. And they have more money because they (or their parents) were able to sell something that was of great value to many people.

Here is the thing about democratic government that I have a problem with: Yes, the people can act, by voting, to correct a perceived inequity. However, there is no "structural guarantee" to ensure that the majority will act in a fair way. Thus, as long as there is a majority, they have power to exert supreme force against those in the minority. This is not to say that economic exploitation isn't bad, but oppression by forced coercion is worse, because it can include economic exploitation. Taxation is a fine example. There are some things that tax money is used for that I think are good uses. However, there are a whole lot of things that I would never choose to spend my money on. Unfortunately, if I don't make my contribution, I am breaking the law, and the government will not hesitate to use force to bring me back into line. The cost of this to me is over 1/4 of the money that I earn. Thus, I am being economically exploited through use of force. Sure I could leave; I note, though, that that is my only alternative. The people in a libertarian system also have that option--of course, they usually would have many other options as well, giving them more choice.

In closing, I think I have offered sufficient evidence that Libertarianism cannot be rationally debated, at least not with its adherents on this board.

Sure it can. However, just "proving" that economic exploitation can occur is not enough, at least from my standpoint. In every other system, you can also have economic exploitation, and you can have coercive exploitation as well. If you want to turn me away from libertarian views, you will have to convince me of more than that it is not perfect. I already know that. You have to convince me that there is another alternative that is better (for everyone).

Does that leave us more to debate?

I urge you to read the this thread and figure out for yourselves who started the "half-assed refutations, sprinkled with snide remarks."

And don't forget to notice who has posted more of them, as well.


2sense:

How does L. prevent economic exploitation?

It doesn't. Neither does any other system, unless it does so at the price of everyone's freedom. Ultimately, the people are always the final guarantors of their own freedom. What it does is attempt to give the people as much freedom as possible to prevent it on their own. As SingleDad has noted, no one living in society can every be completely free. Libertarianism is based on the ideal of giving every individual as much freedom as possible, without favoring one individual or group over another.

How does democracy prevent economic exploitation? If the majority make the decision, then it is the minority that is exploited. In a democracy, there is also exploitation by use of force.

On a practical level, does the L. Party endorse a fair division of property before implementing its ideas in the USA?

What would be a fair division of property?

It is my belief that SD's thought experiment did show that B&T could reallisticly oppress the community. What am I missing?

They don't have enough power. All they control is water, which also happens to fall out of the sky. Without being able to use force, the only thing they can do is charge exorbitant prices. However, since they cannot live off water alone, they have needs for more than just wealth. Just as the people cannot live without water, they cannot live without food, fuel for heating in winter, etc. Also, they cannot patrol the use of water well enough to prevent stockpiling. Nor can they control the sources of water well enough to prevent people from getting their own.

It is possible to envision along the lines of this experiment situations where real exploitation would be possible. However, they generally require some unique assumptions and the freezing of time. Also, it requires more people to be "in on it". Eventually, if you get enough people in on it, you have a majority anyway. Or you run into the same problem that cartels have: The inability of conspirators to police each other.


Cazaly:

However, this does not justify having a body representing that society (a police force in this case) with coercive powers of its own in order to prevent such attempts. A police force, or the politicians directing it, would use the power as they pleased and would end up oppressing people themselves.

Libertarians do not support anarchy. However, they feel that "policing" is the only legitimate purpose of government. In other words, government's purpose is to protect people from violations of their rights (from within the country or from foreign invasion), but nothing else. No regulation of health care, no feeding of the poor, etc. Needless to say, if the police have been given such power as to feel free to use it as they say fit, libertarians won't be very happy.

Why can coercive power can be trusted to individuals or groups that are acting in the interests of only some people, and not to a public body that, in a representative democracy, is answerable, even if imperfectly, to all?

The government should be answerable to the people, but should not be seen as the tool of the people for accomplishing purposes outside of the goals I described above.

Abe takes an axe, his muscles and his determination and clears a farm in the wilderness that gives him a living. I take it that he has earned it.
Barry, his son, inherits the farm. Has he earned it?
Cecil, his friend, wins it in a wager. Has he earned it?
Dave, buys it cheap and then finds oil. Dave is rich. Has he earned it?

If people are willing to give Abe something of value (let's assume money) in exchange for what he produces on his farm, then he has earned the money. Since it is now his property, he is free to dispose of it as he wishes. That means if he wants to give it all away to the poor guy on the corner, that is his right. If he want to give it to his son upon his death, that is also his right.

Once the money is given to Barry, it belongs to him, to keep or dispose of as he sees fit. If he loses it to Cecil in a wager, it is now Cecil's. And so forth.

My point is that acquisition of property is doesn’t have any correlation with virtue, and is only weakly correlated with hard work or ability.

This is true. I take it that you think of hard work and ability as virtuous and gambling as not virtuous. This is a perfectly fine moral system. However, it would be inappropriate to have government impose this morality on others, who may not have the same beliefs, and whose moral systems are equally worthy of consideration.

Why is it so important that a person get to keep all the property all the property s/he acquires, rather than simply enough of it to make his/her freedom meaningful?

We do not insist that people keep all their property. In fact, most libertarians would encourage people go give money to causes that are important to them if they have more than they feel they need. What we think is important is that no one forcibly take your money from you, based on what they think is the proper amount to make your freedom meaningful. Only you can decide how much money is necessary to make your freedom meaningful. As long as you can obtain it without violating the rights of others, libertarians support you going and getting it.


picmr:

The problem here is that libertarians believe that the rules should only be about consent, but insist on the rules being their rules.

We believe our rules to be the most fair to every individual. Can you suggest a set of rules that is more fair? Convince me and you've got a convert.

Also, you make it sound like libertarians have a whole bunch of rules, and the discussion is just "your rules or my rules". Libertarians want the least feasible number of rules so that, in practice, it is usually "your rules and my rules".

A social contract entered into by several libertarians and several non-libertarians would have to be a compromise: the only way it would be a purely libertarian social "contract" is by coercion.

Could you please clarify this point? An example of what you mean would be nice, because I can't picture the situation you're describing.


matt_mcl:

Actually, there are many Americans who think of the government as a tool for achieving desirable societal goals. However, with each passing year, I think that number grows smaller. The reason is that usually when the government attempts to solve a problem, not only does it fail to solve it, it creates new problems that are often worse. Take, for example, the drug war. No one would argue that it would be better for society and its individuals if people did not ingest things like cocaine and methamphetamines and become addicted to them. Because of this, the people have made it clear that they want government to solve the problem. The result? Several trillion dollars later, we still have all these drugs readily available to most people (at higher prices). Because of the decrease in supply, the trade of drugs has become extremely profitable. With these kinds of rewards available, sellers are willing to take extraordinary risks in order to get their goods to market. Then, they are free to use the profits to engage in more illegal activities, such as bribery, and arming themselves with smuggled weapons. Now, we have an entire criminal class, with a lot of "illicit" money, armed to the teeth, and patrolling every major city.

The more government spends our money to implement these sorts of solutions, the more people begin to think, "I think I could do at least that well if I got to keep my money and government stayed out of it." Needless to say, the Libertarian Party has been achieving some phenomenal growth lately.

-VM

[hawthorne]

(Smartass)So, you are aware that governmental solutions tend to be bad ones; is that what you're saying? If so, you're already headed down the road to Libertarianism.
Only if you fall for "we must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it" fallacy.

Government solutions are never ideal, and frequently disasterous. No-one here would dispute that. But compared to what? To the extent that governments fail in the correction of market failure, to say they have failed is only to say they have failed to perfectly correct the failings of individual interaction. Compare actual government performance with actual market performance, not with hypothetical market performance.

Now to my example, which was, truth be known, a polite way of suggeting that libertarians are hypocrites:

(Me)
The problem here is that libertarians believe that the rules should only be about consent, but insist on the rules being their rules.

(Smartass)
We believe our rules to be the most fair to every individual. Can you suggest a set of rules that is more fair? Convince me and you've got a convert.

Also, you make it sound like libertarians have a whole bunch of rules, and the discussion is just "your rules or my rules". Libertarians want the least feasible number of rules so that, in practice, it is usually "your rules and my rules".

What I am saying is this: (1) a social order requires a set of rules: property rights, etc.

(2)A libertarian would have to agree that the legitimacy of such rules would depend on the consent of all parties (hence a social contract).

(3)Given that not all people are libertarians, the agreed social contract specifying the rules of society would not be libertarian, it would be a compromise which would gain the consent of people of varying political philosophies.

Therefore, a libertarian social order (a set of rules/ constitution) which only protected negative freedoms would fail to gain the consent of non-libertarians, and thus would be coercive of such people if applied.

To insist on interpreting the existing set of rules from a libertarian point of view is a misrepresentation. To suppose that a social order could be libertarian is wrong unless one assumes that everyone is a libertarian. Without coercion of non-libertarians, there would be no agreement on such an order.

To espouse a view that it would be better if the set of rules were different is fine. Just don't insist that we argue on your turf: it is inconsistent with your political philosophy.

picmr

[SingleDad]

The market forces of the "invisible hand" are very efficient as long as the establishment of value remains reciprocal. In such an environment market forces have been empirically proven as unbeatable in arriving at optimally efficient negotiations of value.

Where I disagree with Libertarianism is I hold the opinion that pure market economies are not stable. The accumulation of wealth has a positive feedback effect that market forces cannot control. Left unchecked, tremendous differentials of wealth will eventually remove the reciprocity of market forces. The success of Bill Gates is a prime example of this positive feedback effect: His original success derived from an astute business decision, but his success in later years derived solely from the weight of his already-accumulated wealth.

In fact there are no inherently stable theories of political economics. Societies survive and prosper, not because they have found or are approaching a "perfect" theory of political economy, but because they consiously implement a variety of competing feedback systems: moral ideas (and the moral protection of property is an important moral idea held by many people, including myself), market mechanisms, and the use of coercion to maintain both the equality of participation (taxation) and limitations on the extremes of accumulation of wealth (welfare on one end and anti-monopoly laws on the other).

Libertarianism and Communism are examples of extremist philosophies. Communism attempts to completely prohibit market forces because they can (truthfully) lead to exploitation. Libertarianism attempts to completely prohibit political forces because they can (truthfully) lead to oppression. But both systems fail because they lose the negative feedback effects of the forces they prohibit on those they permit. Western democracies have succeeded because, by permitting both market and policitical forces, they hold those forces in a meta-stable state of dynamic feedback, thus limiting the excesses of either alone.

Lest I be accused of non-sequitor, I will amplify and support these assertions in later posts.

The "robo-gov" experiment is not just a contrived example to put down Libertarianism. It is an admittedly artificial environment to isolate the operation of political and economic theories. The robot exists only for the specific purpose of ruling out revolution; the political theory must stand or fall on its own merits. And such is the purpose of political philosophy: To examine ideas that to allow us to specialize and cooperate without killing a lot of people off every generation or two.

Libertarianism can fare quite well in our theoretical community, given a small alteration in Libertarian theory.

Under classical Libertarianism, there is no check on the wealth that Bill & Ted can quickly accumulate. Since, in the short term, everyone must agree to an arbitrarily high value of water, they can quickly accumulate all the property in the community. On day one of their "putsch", they simply set the value of water to all one's worldly possesions, one's home, one's labor for life, ownership of the water, and even the very air they breathe. They don't coerce this value, but since the alternative is death by thirst, the residents have no rational choice but to agree. There is not enough time for market forces to counter Bill & Ted's actions. Deprived of their property, the robot, programmed with classical Libertarian theory, protects only Bill & Ted's rights.

But let's add one restriction to classical Libertarian theory: No one may own more property than they can personally use and control. For the sake of brevity, I will leave the precise definition of "personally use and control" as an exercise for the reader.

If we craft our definition carefully we can take away Bill & Ted's primary tool of exploitation. Since they cannot live in each house, they cannot demand ownership of other peoples' houses. Since they do not control the water not yet extracted, they cannot demand ownership of it. The same is true of the future value of each person's labor. The robot simply will not enforce claims to ownership of property one does not use and have under his own control. Bill & Ted will most probably become quite wealthy, and good for them. But they are unable to use their wealth to completely remove the other residents' ability to reciprocally set value. And now the market forces will have time to work.

The science fiction novella, And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russel describes such an ownership-limited Libertarian society.

In isolation, this sort of theory would work very well. In competition with other communities, it is arguable that other more sophisitcated methodologies would have more efficiency. "Social Democracracy", where the large scale power of abstract ownership is permitted but limited by the power political force is a strong candidate; it's value has been proven by the economic success of the United States and other Western Democracies. As technology becomes more advanced, and the critical immediacy of relative efficiency becomes less pronounced, it is entirely plausible that some group of people might successfully chose to live in this manner.

[matt_mcl]

...the doubt ought to be non-trivial and resolved by an extensive humanist discourse rather than the sequential expert solutions which the current system favours.

[quote]
So, you are aware that governmental solutions tend to be bad ones; is that what you're saying? If so, you're already headed down the road to Libertarianism.
[quote]

As any member of the New Democratic Party will tell you, there is a difference between believing that the government ought not to do what it is doing now, and believing that the government ought never to do anything.

[Gilligan]

I couldn’t pass this one up.
Smartass: “nothing inherent in the system to prevent economic exploitation”

“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”

Lib made clear, at least to me, that the solution to the thought experiment lies in ethics, not in economics or politics. If Bill and Ted used a weapon of force to oppress the people, correction is easy to justify as a matter of self defense. They instead chose a weapon of economic exploitation, which makes correction impossible to justify without throwing out our own notions of property rights. Thus we tried to find economic solutions that didn’t solve things very well. But we were looking in the wrong place. Of course weapons of force are entirely different from weapons of economics. But the more important thing is that they are both weapons. We were focused on the type of weapon, rather than the use: oppression. In that light, correction is once again a matter of self defense.

It would be dishonest for libertarians to create this shift of focus magically just because it’s convenient. But I think it can be found in the principle that states it’s initial force that isn’t permitted. B&T initiated the oppression, so defense is justified. I can’t think of a good way to say it using terms that all sides can agree on the meaning of, but the best I can do is to say B&T “breached their social contract” once they began requiring people to be their subjects in order to live.

In the real world, it’s a lot easier to identify the oppressed than the oppressors. It makes a lot of sense to just come right out and say everyone is guilty, and it provides a practical way of “punishing” them fairly, using amount of wealth as an indicator of the degree of guilt. I need to come up with a better way of saying why I think this is the wrong approach before I post it. SingleDad, picmr, and matt_mcl raise important objections that in the past I’ve totally misunderstood in a hasty attempt to be defensive. I’ll agree to consider these objections a lot more thoroughly before replying.

[Smartass]

picmr:

To the extent that governments fail in the correction of market failure, to say they have failed is only to say they have failed to perfectly correct the failings of individual interaction. Compare actual government performance with actual market performance, not with hypothetical market performance.

I suspect I am not following your argument. I'm not aware of any instances where the market, at least here, has failed. I am aware of instances where the government acted to correct perceived "imbalances" and, in my opinion, did more harm than good.

(1) a social order requires a set of rules: property rights, etc.

Agreed.

(2)A libertarian would have to agree that the legitimacy of such rules would depend on the consent of all parties (hence a social contract).

I'm not sure that even libertarians think they can work miracles. I think the key is that, if the top-level government were libertarian, then virtually all other forms of social contracts are allowed within that society, as long as they are indeed based on legitimate contract. I don't think of it as exclusionary. If the society were completely libertarian, that wouldn't mean that everyone was required to live a libertarian lifestyle. As has been mentioned, other forms of order can exist within this context.

(3)Given that not all people are libertarians, the agreed social contract specifying the rules of society would not be libertarian, it would be a compromise which would gain the consent of people of varying political philosophies.

While your point is taken, it doesn't make me feel hypocritical. Since the goal of libertarianism is to give everyone the best chance of living the way they want to, I don't see how you can imply that we are forcing people to live the way the want to. Somehow just sounds odd.

Therefore, a libertarian social order (a set of rules/ constitution) which only protected negative freedoms would fail to gain the consent of non-libertarians, and thus would be coercive of such people if applied.

Once again, any form of government is coercive to some extent, else it is not a government. The libertarian form strives to involve as little coercion as possible. Are you saying that since we can't reach this level of perfection, we are hypocrites for saying that it is our goal?

To suppose that a social order could be libertarian is wrong unless one assumes that everyone is a libertarian. Without coercion of non-libertarians, there would be no agreement on such an order.

I just don't get it. Are you saying we would by hypocritical for forcing freedoms onto people that they don't want? A libertarian government does not force people to be libertarian, it only prevents them from coercing others. Now, if their personal beliefs require the ability to coerce others, then they will receive coercion from the state. Is this what you're referring to?


SingleDad:

It's becoming clear that we are not as far apart as I originally thought. I personally don't have a problem with government being able to act in case of a real inequity, like in the Bill and Ted problem; the problem, to me, is defining the limits on that action--and defining what problems justify an action. As Gilligan mentioned, exploitation at that level is coercion. But, if we were re-inventing government, where would we draw the line between acceptable business practices and exploitation?

The success of Bill Gates is a prime example of this positive feedback effect: His original success derived from an astute business decision, but his success in later years derived solely from the weight of his already-accumulated wealth.

At this point, though, I don't see it as a failure of the market. I have spent a fair amount of money on Bill's products, but I don't feel I have been exploited. In fact, even now, the market is working: Linux grows more popular every day. More people are learning about BeOS. Plus, the public backlash. Without the antitrust trial, MS was already getting in trouble because of consumer perception. Consumers are showing more interest in alternative OS's for no other reason than because they disapprove of the size of Microsoft.

Western democracies have succeeded because, by permitting both market and policitical forces, they hold those forces in a meta-stable state of dynamic feedback, thus limiting the excesses of either alone.

I want to point out, again, that the US is not a democracy. More importantly, even though it is ignored in some cases, the government is based on a Constitution which relies heavily on the notion of protecting individual rights. These rights are of a very libertarian nature. I believe that one of the reasons the US has been so successful is because of the protection that the Constitution has granted us. I also believe that, as leaders feel more and more free to flout the Constitution, we are in more and more danger of losing this greatness.

I would, in fact, contend that the political forces are not being held in check. If I were being taxed 5 or 10 percent, it might not even be worth getting too upset over. But when I am being taxed over a 1/4 of my income, I think we've gone into the realm of "outrageous". And the government seems to just grow and grow...

But let's add one restriction to classical Libertarian theory: No one may own more property than they can personally use and control. For the sake of brevity, I will leave the precise definition of "personally use and control" as an exercise for the reader.

I can accept that libertarianism might be more acceptable to more people with a bit of a "security blanket", and that it should be focused on preventing the kind of economic screw-up that you are referring to. However, I'm not convinced that the correct basis of it would be what one person can "personally use and control". I think that leaves to much room for unwarranted governmental abuse. Of course, at this point, I don't have an alternative to offer. I must think on it...

"Social Democracracy", where the large scale power of abstract ownership is permitted but limited by the power political force is a strong candidate; it's value has been proven by the economic success of the United States and other Western Democracies.

I would not contend that social democracy is unworkable. However, I think it is still tends to be too inefficient to compete with a libertarian system. In comparing the countries that are generally referred to as "democracies", the general trend is that the more "social" their policies, the less efficient their economies. The US, while certainly having socialistic aspects, and democratic elections, is the most libertarian of all. And it is the most successful. I believe that this is not coincidence.


matt_mcl:

As any member of the New Democratic Party will tell you, there is a difference between believing that the government ought not to do what it is doing now, and believing that the government ought never to do anything.

I guess that feeling comes with time. As you grow older, and watch the government screw up more and more stuff, you start wanting it to do less and less. Not to say that you'll want to give up on making the world better. I think most of us want to do that. The problem is that government is outside of the market, and thus is not subject to the forces of the market. Without the nudging of the "invisible hand", there is little incentive to be efficient or to ever completely solve a problem. Most government employees are working to solve a problem that, if it were ever solved, they would be out of a job. I'll go ahead and submit that both my parents were government employees for their entire careers.

[Smartass]

Gilligan:

1: What I object to is your deliberately treating me like an inferior.

2: Well, I am king.

1: And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers...

Just remember, strange people hanging about message boards distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

-VM

[SingleDad]

Smartass:

I think we just have to piss each other off a little more, and then we'll really be able to communicate.

Sometimes this is indeed the case! :D

More seriously, before Libertarianism can be rationally debated, the implicit assumption of the Libertarian principle as intrinsically true must be laid bare and debunked. As long as this implicit assumption exists, Libertarians can argue that their philosophy is by definition correct, and no debate is possible. Competing philosophies are by definition incorrect.

I call this sort of conflict "religious" because it almost precisely mirrors the impossibility of arguing against Creationism. Regardless of the evidence presented, evolution contradicts the Creationsists definition of truth as the contents of the Bible. Until that definition is exposed, debate cannot proceed. Once it is exposed, the only possible response is accept the disparity of definitions, or agree on a meta-theory for evaluating different definitions. I don't debate with Creationists about the validity of the Bible. It is only when they attempt to prove their point according to my definition of a truth-seeking process that I engage in debate.

Libertarians generally have more intellectual integrity than Creationists (and I apologize for damning you with faint praise ;)). My primary intention in this thread has been merely to knock Libertarianism off its self-rightous high horse and find a relatively neutral basis by which the relative merits of various political philosophies might be discussed.

If I am reading you correctly, then you generally agree with libertarian principles, you object to the fact that there is nothing inherent in the system to prevent economic exploitation, and that is the reason for the thought experiment.

Yes, you are reading me correctly.

Just to be clear, I don't agree that the experiment shows that economic exploitation will happen...

Of course you're correct; the system is far too simplistic to itself be a predicion of the behavior of actual people.

While I agree with this, I don't think of it as a religious or moral view.

Then I'm uncertain as to what you're actually agreeing.

People should be as "free" as possible to live their lives as they see fit. Do you disagree with this?

The assertion of the initial sentence is far too fuzzy for me to agree or disagree with it. It depends on what you mean by "free"? In the narrow definition Libertarian offered, I would disagree.

The use of the word "free" in describing a political system, be it Libertarianism, Communism, Liberalism, etc. is usually a fallacy of equivocation, because the term is much too broad. Specifically, "free" has two contradictory interpretations in political philosophy: paucity of restrictions, and abundance of options. The fundamental Libertarian principle shows this dichotomy: The restriction of the ability to coerce opens up an abundance of options not available if that restriction is removed. I can claim that my system is more "free" because it offers more options; you can simultaneously claim yours is more free because it offers fewer restrictions. Even worse, we can each argue that the other's philosophy leads to slavery, the antitheses of freedom, because each contradicts the other's definition of "free". Far better to abandon this complex term and move to more narrowly defined comparative measures.

The remainder of your argument proves my point. Under a definition of "freedom" as paucity of restrictions, Libertarianism is merely tautologically correct. Libertarianism is indeed the best method of implementing the Libertarian definition of freedom.

I have not characterized taxation as theft, but as "stealing". Obviously, it is legal. I am referring to this definition (also from Merriam-Webster): "to take away by force or unjust means". Specifically, because of all the democracy, members of society are able to use the government to forcefully take money from me.

"Stealing" vs. "Theft" is a semantic quibble. You are, in essence, asking us to accept the Libertarian principle as an assumed definition of justice. The perspective of the Democrat is that compulsory taxation is merely the enforcement of a an agreement consented to by your continued participation in society.

This rebuttal is not intended to show the superiority of taxation, but rather to demonstrate that different definitions of "justice" lead to different moral interpretations of a specific action. You may not simply presume your own definition.

If the contracts were libertarian, there would be no need for renegotiation. The fact that I think the US is better than the alternatives does not mean that I am pleased about such things as taxation. When I would be leaving a situation of being forced to part with my earnings in order to enter a situation where I would be even less free, it's not much of a choice. And certainly does not qualify as a libertarian context.

This paragraph is in direct contradiction to other definitions of the "Libertarian context" offered in this thread. By those definitions any set of agreements freely consented to, forms a valid Libertarian context. As I have said before, since there is no coercion forcing you to remain in this society, your continue presence implies your consent. To declare the natural fact that there's no other place equally or more "free" somehow hampers your political liberty is equally invalid as a parasite's declaration that the natural fact of the necessity of eating somehow hampers his.

This is exactly the point. I don't want my personal morality implemented by society.

When your personal morality requires that you be allowed to participate in society without fulfilling the agreements imposed by that society, yes you are arguing that your personal morality be implemented by society.

However, calling our arguments propagandistic does not help forward the debate.

Actually, the facts seem to contradict you. The debate does appear to be moving forward from a stand-off.

By calling our arguments propagandistic, you are calling into question our motives, without saying where the error you seem to perceive lies.

I explicitly added repeated fallacious reasoning to the pejorative connotation of "propaganda" and gave a score of examples where I perceived obvious fallacies as well as a basic refutation of the two primary points (theft and oppression) of Libertarian arguments.

Under Libertarianism, those goals that are most desirable to the most people will be most likely to be achieved. Since people are free to use their resources as they see fit, they are able to devote their energies to the goals that they think are most desirable.

This is a deduction. The robo-gov example posits a simple situation where the goal that is most desirable to the people is survival, and they acheive that through unchecked submission to Bill & Ted. I proved that such a "distortion" of rational goal-setting is possible (although I did not prove it inevitable). However it does throw an obstacle to your deduction. Since I proved economic oppression possible, I threw the burden of proof in your court to explicitly show how it is avoided. Since it is conceivable that the "invisible hand" may lead to oppression, you cannot merely invoke it in your favor without further proof.

Since we're here, let's extend the robo-gov example somewhat. According to game theory, in a resource-production competition, the victory usually goes to the player that can acheive even a small advantage in resource production. The competition is over the initial accumulation of that small advantage. Once it has been gained, the victory is almost certainly assured.

The strategy, once the initial advantage has been gained, is to use one's superior ability to weather (or create) short-term crises to unilaterally manipulate value in one's own favor. Monopoly is an excellent example of this initial strategy. If I can gain even a slight edge in overall resources (e.g. a hotel on Boardwalk), at some point I will almost certainly (barring unusual luck) have the ability to set the value of the rent arbitrarily high; if he cannot pay the rent in cash, I may demand enough of his property to crush his ability to compete yet allow him to survive in the game. As I take advantage of each player's crises, it becomes easier to create or take advantage of the next player's crises; thus the accumulation of wealth shows unrestricted "runaway" positive feedback.

This strategy finds strong analogies even in the real world. Predatory pricing, dumping, product linkage are all strategies designed to induce a short-term crisis to inflate certain valuations. These strategies rely on their proponents' amplification of small differentials in economic power for their success. Of course, once the initial differential has been parlayed into a larger differential, complete domination is all but assured.

Purely market-base counter strategies are quite difficult to formulate. The assertion of sufficient size or complexity of the environment as a "natural" counter is not sufficiently obvious to stand on its own merit. Political solutions, i.e. enforcing arbitrary limitations on ownership and economic power, have been proven to curb at least the most extreme examples of runaway positive feedback in economic differentials.

Naturally political solutions have their own problems; runaway political positive feedback leads to disaster: Soviet Communism, for example. It is not my intention to argue the superiority of political controls over economic value. I merely wish to show that without political control, runaway feedback in the accumulation of wealth is not so trivally dismissed as "impossible".

This is the problem that I have with your thought experiment. There were enough unhappy people to have passed a law to solve their problem. However, as we pointed out, there were also enough people to solve the problem without need of a law. I submit that, if you create a similar experiment where the people cannot solve the problem on their own, then they won't be able to muster up the votes to solve it in a democratic system either.

I have countered the refutation that without structural limitations Bill & Ted have the means of total domination at their disposal in the simplistic environment. I have shown that there is evidence that in any purely resource-accumulation based environment, game theory predicts that a small difference in resources will lead to inevitable concentration through a process of positive feedback. I have shown that real-world strategies implement these features of game theory. Naturally, a more thorough examination of these assertions is warranted.

Here is the thing about democratic government that I have a problem with: Yes, the people can act, by voting, to correct a perceived inequity. However, there is no "structural guarantee" to ensure that the majority will act in a fair way. Thus, as long as there is a majority, they have power to exert supreme force against those in the minority. This is not to say that economic exploitation isn't bad, but oppression by forced coercion is worse, because it can include economic exploitation.

Unrestricted democracy certainly can have this effect. The structural protections of constitutional democracy against economic and political positive feedback catastrophes are not absolute, but they are present.

By its very nature, rationality is usually consistent. Indeed one definition of a rational evaluation is that it remains consistent over time across different investigators. By requiring majorities or super-majorities, and imposing lengthy procedural requirements on fundamental changes, constitutional democracy amplifies rational decisions and diminishes irrational decisions. A rational point of view, by its very definition, will have a greater consistency across multiple people for long periods of time; irrational views, because they, again by definition, are inconsistent, will tend to cancel each other out.

No political theory, be it Libertarian or Democratic, can completely rule out social catastrophe. But, as a corollary, philosophies cannot be compared according to their moral basis. Self-destruction is a bad outcome, even if it proceeds on the most moral basis possible. We cannot compare flavors of Libertarianism and Democracy based on their intrinsic morality; I offer the alternative of basis of their predicted ability to generate wealth and avoid catastrophe. Libertarianism probably works best at the former, but there are troubling concerns about the latter.

Sure it can. However, just "proving" that economic exploitation can occur is not enough, at least from my standpoint. In every other system, you can also have economic exploitation, and you can have coercive exploitation as well. If you want to turn me away from libertarian views, you will have to convince me of more than that it is not perfect. I already know that. You have to convince me that there is another alternative that is better (for everyone).

Before we can begin to debate, though, we have to find a neutral basis on which the debate can occur. The assumed inherent moral superiority of Libertarianism must be overcome before such a neutral basis can be found. If I prove that Libertarianism is not perfect, then I have we are closer to finding a mutual basis of negotiation other than the definitions of the philosophy itself.

[Liberal]

Gilligan

Splendid analysis. Thank you.

Single Dad

All definitions are arbitrary because they are all tautological by nature.

Given any arbitrary word, its definition consists of other arbitrary words that are themselves defined, and so on. This recursion of elements (words) within the universal set (the language's whole vocabulary) will always lead eventually to the original word. It is like a curved universe in which, if you looked through a telescope sufficiently far, you would see the back of your head.

A crib is not a baby bed in South Central LA. Force is not mass times acceleration when we are talking about ethics. And freedom is not anarchy when we are talking about libertarianism.

It is not a fallacy to define your terms. Whatever source conveyed that to you is mistaken, or else you have mistaken what it was saying.

[SingleDad]

Libertarian If all terms are arbitrary, and all analysis equivalent, on what basis can we debate? Or are we all just engaging in meaningless activity, with no point but to amuse ourselves until we die?

[2sense]

All governments operate at the expense of the freedom of their citizens. Our present government has laws to prevent economic exploitation. Assuming that these laws were enacted to prevent exploitation that was happening at the time, I would think that the exploitation would begin again if these laws were repealed. I assume that you would favor the repeal of these laws.

The reason that I was asking about a fair distribution of wealth was this:
In democracy everyone has an equal say in governmental decisions ( obviously this is theoretical ). In a L. system while everyone would have equal rights, they would not have an equal say in solutions. A person with more wealth would be in a position to have more influence on an issue. This seems unequal to me.
Why should I be more influential in social policy making than someone else simply because I happened to be born with more property?

Since SD is back I will leave his thought experiment to him.

I still do not understand what type of govenmental system the L. context would be in. Was my earlier statement about this correct?

Thanks for the reply.

[Smartass]

SingleDad:

The fundamental Libertarian principle shows this dichotomy: The restriction of the ability to coerce opens up an abundance of options not available if that restriction is removed. I can claim that my system is more "free" because it offers more options; you can simultaneously claim yours is more free because it offers fewer restrictions.

I'm not too sure about this. In real world terms, how can you achieve, long-term, more options without the removal of restrictions? Is not each restriction the removal of an option? Or are you referring to equality of options? If that is the case, then I would submit that equality of options is neither achievable nor desirable. For one, many people begin life with a distinct inequality of options due to their genetic makeups. Further, for most people, it is not the quantity of options that are important so much as the specific ones--it will never be important to me to have the option of homosexual marriage. On the other hand, it is very important to me to have the option of purchasing a firearm. I would say that by trying to minimize restrictions, libertarianism ensures that people are most able to pursue those options that are most important to them.

Under a definition of "freedom" as paucity of restrictions, Libertarianism is merely tautologically correct.

Are you suggesting that we can come to a more mutually acceptable definition of "freedom", or that we should abandon the term? At some point, to reach any sort of a agreement, we're going to have to determine some sort of base value--something that we can agree is important to achieve. If we are not giving some sort of weight to something, then all systems are equally acceptable.

"Stealing" vs. "Theft" is a semantic quibble. You are, in essence, asking us to accept the Libertarian principle as an assumed definition of justice.

Indeed, I am trying to convince you of that. However, that is not the reason I pointed this out. I have noticed a tendency for you to point out things that are "legal" or "illegal"--and in this case you dismissed my statement as simply incorrect on this basis. I was pointing out that my statement was not in reference to legality but, indeed, the libertarian definition of justice.

You may not simply presume your own definition.

This is true. But if we don't have agreed-upon definitions, we cannot discuss anything. Until and unless you offer an alternate definition--which we can debate--that leaves me with only my own to go by.

To declare the natural fact that there's no other place equally or more "free" somehow hampers your political liberty is equally invalid as a parasite's declaration that the natural fact of the necessity of eating somehow hampers his.

But, in reality, this "natural fact" does, in fact, hamper my political liberty. However, I will submit that this society is libertarian enough that we can achieve greater freedom from within it, without necessitating departure. To be honest, I find this part of the debate a little confusing because my goals are not to destroy the system but improve it--to modify the social contract, if you will. I think my goals could be achieved merely by the election of a libertarian president and a certain number of libertarian representatives. I further believe that if more people had a clear understanding of libertarianism, that this would be achievable.

When your personal morality requires that you be allowed to participate in society without fulfilling the agreements imposed by that society, yes you are arguing that your personal morality be implemented by society.

I disagree. My desire is not to circumvent the agreements. My desire is to change them. I think this is fair. If society were implementing what you are referring to as my personal morality, it would not prevent anyone else from living according to theirs--as long as theirs didn't require use of my property. I think if we pursue this, though, we will wind up chasing our tails. We need to get the underlying stuff straightened out first.

Since I proved economic oppression possible, I threw the burden of proof in your court to explicitly show how it is avoided.

Depending on your assumptions, you can prove anything to be "possible". And I don't know of any way of proving something to be "impossible". While we did not show that your scenario was always avoided, I think we did show that it was "unlikely". Does "unlikely" counter a "possible"? I don't know, but it's giving me a headache.

According to game theory, in a resource-production competition, the victory usually goes to the player that can acheive even a small advantage in resource production.

I don't like this line of reasoning. In real life, there is rarely a clear-cut victory to be had, and often decisions are made on factors other than just cost. By this line of reasoning, Coke should have already put Pepsi out of business. In most cases, rather than winners or losers, you usually have people doing the "most well" and others who are doing "not as well". The thing about playing Monopoly is that there is no choice--I don't decide to stay at your Boardwalk hotel; I am forced to by the roll of the dice.

Of course, once the initial differential has been parlayed into a larger differential, complete domination is all but assured.

If it is "all but assured", why is it that it practically never happens, even in markets where practically no outside intervention is present?

I merely wish to show that without political control, runaway feedback in the accumulation of wealth is not so trivally dismissed as "impossible".

No need to argue that point--I have no desire to dismiss it as impossible.

I have shown that there is evidence that in any purely resource-accumulation based environment, game theory predicts that a small difference in resources will lead to inevitable concentration through a process of positive feedback.

I disagree. I would submit that this occurrence is possible, but would not say that it "will" happen or is, for that matter, even likely. In the thought experiment, for example, you did not establish the accumulation of resources--specifically, water. You said that Bill and Ted specialized in water production, meaning they are more efficient at it than others; this does not, however, lead to the conclusion that they can contol all sources of water. And in fact, I would counter that, as soon as their prices exceed the less-efficient costs of people acquiring their own water, people would stop purchasing from them. The only way that Bill and Ted can force people to pay exorbitant prices is by controlling all other sources of the good. I submit that, in almost all cases, this is virtually impossible without the use of physical force. Once again, I'm not saying it is impossible, but far less likely than you are suggesting.

Unrestricted democracy certainly can have this effect. The structural protections of constitutional democracy against economic and political positive feedback catastrophes are not absolute, but they are present.

And, in the short term, generally quite effective. What disturbs me most is the erosion of these protections over time: An income tax of the sort we are using now would have been unthinkable at the founding. Second Amendment rights to bear arms are infringed more with each passing election cycle. Protections of one of our most valued rights, free speech, are abridged by pointless "political reforms" like campaign finance restrictions and disclosure laws. Dishonest, or misguided, politicians are too able to point to perceived problems and convince the majority that the solution lies in conceding necessary liberties.

...irrational views, because they, again by definition, are inconsistent, will tend to cancel each other out.

I disagree, unless you are assuming rational thinkers. If this were true, by now there should be no Biblical Creationists left. The Drug War should have ended years ago, when rational thinkers realized that it just plain isn't working. Etc.

We cannot compare flavors of Libertarianism and Democracy based on their intrinsic morality; I offer the alternative of basis of their predicted ability to generate wealth and avoid catastrophe. Libertarianism probably works best at the former, but there are troubling concerns about the latter.

I can accept this.

If I prove that Libertarianism is not perfect, then I have we are closer to finding a mutual basis of negotiation other than the definitions of the philosophy itself.

This proof is not necessary. I will submit that libertarianism is not perfect. Let us find this mutual basis of negotiation.


Libertarian:

Naturally, I appreciate you jumping in. However, I think you are, indeed, equivocating. The point is not whether any words can have an ultimate, inviolate definition. The point is that, before we can have a meaningful debate, we have to be able to agree on at least provisional definitions. Otherwise, I might refer to my pet dog sitting on my lap. Meanwhile, you, who think of "dog" as referring to what I think of as "elephant", are appropriately horrified.

If we cannot agree on what is "freedom", we must agree at least on what things are desirable for society; else we will never reach any sort of conclusion.


2sense:
Assuming that these laws were enacted to prevent exploitation that was happening at the time, I would think that the exploitation would begin again if these laws were repealed. I assume that you would favor the repeal of these laws.

Generally, yes. Could you list some examples of this exploitation that were curtailed by laws? When you say, exploitation will begin "again", I am wondering when it stopped.

In democracy everyone has an equal say in governmental decisions ( obviously this is theoretical ). In a L. system while everyone would have equal rights, they would not have an equal say in solutions. A person with more wealth would be in a position to have more influence on an issue. This seems unequal to me.

In what way does this person with more wealth influence this theoretical issue? For one thing, if the decisions are not "govermental" decisions, it changes the landscape, don't you think? In this case, decisions are "personal" decisions, and I have the most influence on my personal decisions. Someone with wealth may be able to influence those decisions--but I ultimately have the greatest influence.

Also, you seem interested in equality. I guess you define "one person, one vote" as equality. As for me, I think there are many different measures of equality and that, in this world, no two people will ever achieve equality. If I am consistently in the minority of a democratic society, I may not have more votes than my neighbor, who is in the majority, but his choices are always implemented and mine are never implemented. Is this equality?

Why should I be more influential in social policy making than someone else simply because I happened to be born with more property?

If the government is solely concerned with protecting the rights of citizens, what sort of social policies do you expect to be influencing? In terms of big social issues, even Bill Gates can only accomplish so much, particularly with money as his primary tool. For big issues, the amount of actual change is going to be based on the number of people interested and their level of dedication. This is similar to what happens in a democracy; however, leaving all participants subject to market forces tends to make the processes much more efficient.


I still do not understand what type of govenmental system the L. context would be in. Was my earlier statement about this correct?

Hmmm. I may be the wrong person to ask about that. I don't know if libertarian theory provides for a "correct" governmental system or not. To be honest, I don't get a lot of joy from theory for its own sake.

For my purposes, we can achieve a quite effective libertarian context with our current governmental system. Maybe I'm not fanatical enough, but I believe that our Constitution, as written, provided a very libertarian context to society. It is the willingness on behalf of the Congress and the Supreme Court to reinterpret things like "interstate commerce" in such a way that everything is now interstate commerce that leads to problems. Most of the things that I see the government doing now that are "anti-libertarian" are things that they were not actually empowered to do.

So, the short answer is: We can achieve a libertarian context by electing Libertarian candidates. For me, that is enough of a revolution.

-VM

[Liberal]

Single Dad

If all terms are arbitrary, and all analysis equivalent, on what basis can we debate?

We can debate so long as we understand one another's arbitrary definitions and so long as we accept one another's axioms. Failing those, debate is futile.

Or are we all just engaging in meaningless activity, with no point but to amuse ourselves until we die?

Some of us seem to be.

[Gilligan]

2sense: "I still do not understand what type of govenmental system the L. context would be in."

Think about it this way: a governmental system operates within a context, not the other way around.

[SingleDad]

"Freedom", "rights", "liberty", "justice", "morality"; all of these terms have complicated ordinary (dictionary) meanings, and strong emotional connotations. To try to give them a specific meaning, and then to assign the general emotional connotation to that specific meaning, constitutes the fallacy of equivocation.

In order to justify the acceptance of terminology, one must generally redefine a term to an empirically verifiable meaning and abandon the emotional connotation.

For instance, in other threads I have defined "freedom" as "the ability to perform an action"; "natural freedom" as "the physically possible (i.e. natural) ability to perform an action"; "political freedom" as "the ability to exercise a natural freedom without fear of reprisal from the community"; and a "right" as "the ability to demand the community impose a reprisal for another's exercise of a natural freedom." I gain a set of narrow, precise definitions of the words, but I must abandon the ability to reference their emotional connotations. I can no longer say that "my system is better because it's for Freedom," any more than I can say, "My system is better because it's Blue." To narrow their meanings, I had to abandon the value judgement connotations associated with their complex meanings.

The following faulty syllogigism demonstrates the fallacy of equivocation and underlies he essence of "moral" argument for Libertarianism:

Premise: Freedom is good (by its complex meaning)
Definition: Freedom is the absolute absence of agressive coercion (restricted definition)
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.

Almost all moral justifications of various political theories follow this model. Moral theory only works when people already accept the underlying morality.

Premise: It is morally wrong to enslave human beings (shared morality)
Demonstration: Black people are human beings (by Uncle Tom's Cabin)
Deduction: Enslaving black people is morally wrong (valid deduction)

The moral argument against black slavery failed, and indeed was fallacious, until the mass of population became convinced that black people were human beings. Stowe's novel acheived this result and thus introduced the necessary element to validate the moral argument against slavery.

To debate political theories, I propose we can proceed if we can agree upon definitions of "utilitarian value" and "individual intolerance". The first term is fairly straightforward to understand (although difficult to actually define). The second term refers to actions that, while they might have some positive "utilitarian value" (whatever definition that might have), it is intolerable to implement. For instance (absent a definition, it is useful to consider obvious case) slavery is almost universally held to be individually intolerable regardless of its utilitarian value.

If you accept this basis, we can proceed to define qualities as having or lacking utilitarian value or individual intolerability. I suggest that we take terms one at a time; a good place to start might be a careful and thorough examination of "consent".

[Smartass]

Libertarian:

Let's all be nice now. Also, please continue to keep an eye on this thread. As long as we're discussing the why's and wherefore's, I feel pretty comfortable. But if we start getting too far into the details of libertarian theory, I may need your help so that I don't inadvertently credit (or debit) libertarianism with notions that are purely my own.


SingleDad:

Don't want this to hold us up unnecessarily, but I want to comment on this:

Premise: Freedom is good (by its complex meaning)
Definition: Freedom is the absolute absence of agressive coercion (restricted definition)
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.

I think the logic would be more correctly stated like this:

Premise: Freedom (complex) is good.
Premise: No person is more or less entitled to freedom (complex) than any other.
Premise: (From a separate argument). Freedom (complex) is maximized for all individuals in a context of absolute absence of aggressive coercion.
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.


On to the terms:

I can see by your choice of terms that this is definitely going to be interesting. I believe your definitions are going to be agreeable to me, but want to make sure that we are agreed on the meanings.

As far as "utilitarian value", I have no problem with the "utilitarian" part, but want to be sure about the "value" part. Am I correct that you mean that something has utilitarian value if it accomplishes something that is "valuable" to a person or group, or are you referring to a specific type of value?

Also, I am not clear why you are saying individual intolerance when your example is something that is intolerable to a large group of people. Is the key aspect of this, for you, the "individual" part of the "intolerance" part?

-VM

[hawthorne]

To be meaningful, negative freedom (the existence of options amongst which one can in principle choose) must be accompanied by autonomy (the capacity to make choices which have a real impact on one's life) and the possibility of valued outcomes. Without autonomy, negative freedom is trivial. Without a base level of outcomes, negative freedom is merely a right to be frustrated.

picmr

[Smartass]

picmr:

While these things are true, I'm not real sure where they fit into the debate as it stands. Was there a larger point you were making and I missed it? I think sometimes you like to make other people's positions more complicated without necessarily offering a position of your own. And I also think that when you do it, you probably engage in a chilling laugh.

-VM

[Liberal]

Smartass

(Love your handle, by the way...)

Let's all be nice now.

Have I been Not(Nice)?

Also, please continue to keep an eye on this thread. As long as we're discussing the why's and wherefore's, I feel pretty comfortable. But if we start getting too far into the details of libertarian theory, I may need your help so that I don't inadvertently credit (or debit) libertarianism with notions that are purely my own.

As you wish, but precious little libertarian theory is being discussed here (excepting your and Single Dad's latest excellent exchanges). It has morphed from its original (ridiculous) assertion that the U.S. is socialist — it is, in fact, Fabianist — to a more complicated argument about political systems. Inasmuch as libertarianism is not a political system, that whole line of argument seems to be much ado about nothing.

I have, however, invited Single Dad to voice his opposition to the libertarian political philosophy in another thread. I disdain to hijack this one due to a reputation, however undeserved, that was fostered onto me by a couple of high-clout posters, that I am a thread hijacker.

Besides, you're holding your own just fine. But I will certainly honor your request to lurk, with the understanding that I am to comment when I see contradictions in matters of theory. Is that correct?

[waterj2]

Okay, so I've been away for a little while. Samrtass seems to be handling himself without any help from me in any event, but hopefully I'll be around some more to help out, as it seems I'm the only libertarian here who is interested in the practical aspects more than the ethical ones, so I might be useful.

This seems like a good place to point out that I am not a "true believer" as SingleDad characterized me. I am a libertarian mainly due to a very strong belief in laissez faire capitalism. Libertarianism is the political philosophy most in line with the principles necessary for that. I can see many problems with a libertarian society, but these are mainly practical problems involved with the move away from depending on the government for so many things.

The biggest problem I see, however, is that people simply are most likely not ready for it yet. While I believe that if people behaved rationally, there would be no discrimination in the world, there still is, and government may still be necessary to keep racism and its fellow -isms from having much impact. As humans as a race advance, widespread irrational ideas will disappear, and these governmental protections will be unnecessary. In the meantime, I believe we should be moving towards libertarianism.

I am unlikely to change my mind due to a variety of reasons, not least of which is an incredible stubborness on my part about ever admitting that I am wrong. Libertarianism is also something I have given much thought, and find preferable to any competing system for a wide variety of reasons. I will hear out criticisms (although I would prefer that people not call me "elitist" or "religious zealot", as I believe I have been avoiding name calling) but if you seek to change my mind, it is going to be an uphill battle.

Oh, and I'll disagree with the notion of calling ourselves a religion. Last thing I want is The Wealth of Nations kept out of schools as a religious text.

SingleDad:

First, it's spelled "non sequitur", and yes that was one as well, although I disagree with your characterization of a few of my statements above.

Now on to the real issues. You mention that by not leaving the US, I am consenting to be governed by it. I maintain that an agreement that is imposed upon me by force, and which I am able to leave only at a cost to myself is not a consentual agreement. I cannot come over to your house with a gun and declare you my slave, although you are free to sell the property and move away if you like. Basically, the United States Government is using force to alter the terms of the agreement such that I must leave the country to not participate in it.

A consentual agreement that is free of coercion is one where the parties involved can choose to not make the agreement and still be in the same situation as before. By incurring a penalty, through the use of force, upon one of the parties for not agreeing, the agreement is no longer free of coercion.

This could apply to your thought experiment by saying that if Bill and Ted actually control every possible source of water, then for them to use it as a bargaining tool is wrong because the penalty upon the thirsty person for not agreeing is death, thus the agreement is coerced. This is, however, my own interpretation, not one that is necessarily held by all Libertarians. However, I do not believe that this sort of bizarre occurence is the proper way to test a context for everyone to live in.

2Sense:

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss The Art of War. It should prove interesting. And we could stop these hijacks of unrelated threads, despite the great fun they are.

matt_mcl:

I appreciate your email about the Fed, haven't been able to entirely read through it yet, but it is certainly enlightening.

[Liberal]

waterj2

:D

Yes, the "you are free to leave" argument is a classic false dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm). It is like a troll proclaiming, "you are free to move this site."

[Smartass]

Libertarian:

(Love your handle, by the way...)

Thanks--just trying not to misrepresent myself.

Have I been Not(Nice)?

Well, this is what I was responding to:

Or are we all just engaging in meaningless activity, with no point but to amuse ourselves until we die?
Some of us seem to be.

Obviously, you could probly get by okay using my name, but I'm not steeped enough in theory to trade with you.

As you wish, but precious little libertarian theory is being discussed here (excepting your and Single Dad's latest excellent exchanges).

That's actually what I'm referring to. Since I'm not sure where he's going with his current argument, I'm a little concerned we might get into areas that I don't know enough about to comment on "correctly". So far, though, we've pretty much stuck with areas I feel pretty confident about.

It has morphed from its original (ridiculous) assertion that the U.S. is socialist...

I note that this was done only after Gadarene gave permission.

I have, however, invited Single Dad to voice his opposition to the libertarian political philosophy in another thread. I disdain to hijack this one due to a reputation, however undeserved, that was fostered onto me by a couple of high-clout posters, that I am a thread hijacker.

I assume you're talking about the "Calling all Libertarians" thread? I've been enjoying reading it. At this point, I don't see how anyone could accuse you of hijacking this thread--that "honor" would have to go to matt_mcl and me.

Besides, you're holding your own just fine. But I will certainly honor your request to lurk, with the understanding that I am to comment when I see contradictions in matters of theory. Is that correct?

Exactly so. If I'm saying things that are coming from my ass and crediting them to libertarianism, please point it out so that we minimize the chance that anyone might get my ass and libertarianism confused. Since you are more steeped in the lore, you will be most likely to notice if I stray.


waterj2:

hopefully I'll be around some more to help out, as it seems I'm the only libertarian here who is interested in the practical aspects more than the ethical ones, so I might be useful.

I hope so, too--I definitely find your posts "useful".

The biggest problem I see, however, is that people simply are most likely not ready for it yet.

The biggest problem I see is so many people are completely unaware of it. I think if we can spread knowledge, readiness will take care of itself. Which is why I bother with these kinds of debates.

-VM

[hawthorne]

My apologies folks if my posts in this thread have not been clear. I don't write as well as some others.

I do however think that Smartass's reply to my assertion that autonomy and outcomes matter as well as negative freedom is useful here:
While these things are true, I'm not real sure where they fit into the debate as it stands.
This is surely as crucial point (although not all libertarians would agree with it). As I read it, it allows you to deal with the hypothetical repugnant conclusion posited by Singledad.

What you seem to be saying is that negative freedom is important in itself, but is not the only important thing. But in practice it is also instrumentally important: more negative freedom would lead to greater autonomy and better outcomes (I would wholeheartedly agree with this).

Doesn't this allow you to say that the situation put forward by Singledad troubles you, but that your position is not meant to apply to all conceivable circumstances, just likely ones?

picmr

[SingleDad]

I'm off to lunch in a few minutes, so I'll restrict this post to a few technical items. I promise a substantive reply as soon as time permits.

Smartass:


Premise: Freedom (complex) is good.
Premise: No person is more or less entitled to freedom (complex) than any other.
Premise: (From a separate argument). Freedom (complex) is maximized for all individuals in a context of absolute absence of aggressive coercion.
Deduction: The absolute absence of aggressive coercion is good.

It is the highlighted premise that I consider not proven. picmr makes a prima facie case that the premise is not obviously true (note the word placement; "not obviously true" differs from "obviously not true").

As far as "utilitarian value" and "individual intolerance" go, I am deliberately using fuzzy terms as a starting point for debating a system of "meta-politics": the philosophy of determining the relative value of differing political systems. Although currently lacking in a truly objective definition, these terms seem to have an intuitive appeal in such a meta-political philosophy.

Libertarian:

I have, however, invited Single Dad to voice his opposition to the libertarian political philosophy in another thread.

With all due respect, we have a degree of momentum going in this thread, so I'm going to keep my arguments here. Much as I would wish to, my time is too limited to allow me to engage in more than one debate of this nature. To be honest, I also find Smartass a more interesting interlocutor.

waterj2:

First, it's spelled "non sequitur"...

Damn... I thought I checked that out in the dictionary. I stand corrected.

[redtail23]

Wow! "I am only an egg" is the first phrase that springs to *my* mind.

As a self-registered (and how else!?!) Practical Anarchist, I plan to enjoy the show, perhaps tossing in the occasional comment or question to feed the flames, er, I mean, stimulate discussion. ;) From my spectator's seat, I can reassure you that all of the snide namecalling and armwaving rhetoric, particularly when it's as well crafted as yours, does indeed serve a purpose, namely to spice up the debates. OK, nuff flattery. On with the show! <comfie seating - check, yummy goodies - check, choice of potables - check!> Yep, I'm ready. Bring on the gladiators!
[/quote]

After y'all finish defining 'free(dom)' (you did end up agreeing, right? could you explicitly state the agreed-upon definition(s) for us kibitzers?), would you please move on to 'right(s)'? I think I have a basic understanding of what the nonLib side means (although I'd welcome a stated definition), but I'm unclear on the Lib side. I've seen you use the term as if you meant absolute or 'inalienable' rights, but when I see Smartass say "and cannot justify it by the protection of another person's more fundamental right", then it seems that there's some sort of Libertarian 'hierarchy of rights'. I'm so confoosed!

Thanks!

[Liberal]

SingleDad

With all due respect, we have a degree of momentum going in this thread, so I'm going to keep my arguments here. Much as I would wish to, my time is too limited to allow me to engage in more than one debate of this nature.

I understand.

It is important, though, that people are not mislead to believe that libertarianism, per se, is being debated here. What is being debated here is not whether people who are peaceful and honest ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Rather, what is being debated here is 1 whether and 2 how a libertarian society might evolve differently than a statist society.

Were I involved in the debate, I would concede 1 and point out that 2 is hopelessly speculative. You know, since we're supposing...

To be honest, I also find Smartass a more interesting interlocutor.

Well, at least on that we can agree.

[Liberal]

Smartass

I hope this will be helpful. If it isn't, please feel free to ignore it. I've put together a brief, informal list of definitions and contextualizations of terms with respect to the libertarian philosophy, hopefully to assist you in your arguments as to how a libertarian society might evolve:


Property — that which was given to you by God or nature (e.g., your life), as well as that which you have peacefully and honestly acquired (e.g., your money)
Ownership — authority over property (i.e., the owner of a thing is he who ultimately makes the decisions with respect to it)
Rights — the attributes of ownership (e.g., you have the right make decisions with respect to your own life, but not with respect to mine)
Force — intentional assault, threat, or usurpation against ownership
Fraud — misrepresentation of intentions, value, or suitability
Coercion — the abridgement of rights (i.e., the use of initial force or fraud)
Freedom — the absence of coercion
[/List=1]
Note the implications of these definitions. For example:

[List]
The use of force in your own defense is not coercion; neither is tricking a thief to recover property he has stolen from you.
Eminent domain conveys de facto ownership of all property to government.
If your rights are unabridged, then you are free.

And so on...

[Smartass]

picmr:

What you seem to be saying is that negative freedom is important in itself, but is not the only important thing. But in practice it is also instrumentally important: more negative freedom would lead to greater autonomy and better outcomes (I would wholeheartedly agree with this).

We are agreed then. SingleDad, however, is uncomfortable without guarantees.

Doesn't this allow you to say that the situation put forward by Singledad troubles you, but that your position is not meant to apply to all conceivable circumstances, just likely ones?

Indeed, you are correct. However, I am intrigued by how strongly SingleDad feels about his position. I get the impression that he believes that he has a solution that "modifies" libertarianism in a way that makes it applicable in all conceivable circumstances. Obviously, after this modification, it is no longer libertarianism per se, but I'm wondering if the modifications will be unobtrusive enough to be acceptable. That is to say, I wouldn't know how to implement a purely libertarian government, maybe what he suggests will be as close as we can realistically hope for.

Also, it is apparent that SingleDad will not be satisfied with a system that he thinks has such big weaknesses. As I think it would be good for libertarians in general if he were won over, I'm don't mind seeing where he's going with this.


SingleDad:

It is the highlighted premise that I consider not proven. picmr makes a prima facie case that the premise is not obviously true...

Indeed. It has been at the crux of our discussion. I think the situation is as follows:
-I cannot prove this to be true to your satisfaction.
-You cannot disprove it to my satisfaction.
Your thought experiment shows that you think that there is an exception to the rule: economic exploitation. Your objection is that the system does not actively prevent it. I don't believe any government can completely protect anyone, so I feel comfortable leaving it to the people to prevent this from happening, and trust their ability to do so.

Which leaves us at an impasse as far as that argument goes. I just wanted to point out that our belief in the argument wasn't totally irrational.

So, onto the current approach:

As far as "utilitarian value" and "individual intolerance" go, I am deliberately using fuzzy terms as a starting point for debating a system of "meta-politics": the philosophy of determining the relative value of differing political systems. Although currently lacking in a truly objective definition, these terms seem to have an intuitive appeal in such a meta-political philosophy.

I don't have a problem with leaving them fuzzy for now. Obviously, though, this fuzziness may lead to another impasse as we proceed.

Please continue.

To be honest, I also find Smartass a more interesting interlocutor.

Thank you.


redtail23:

but when I see Smartass say "and cannot justify it by the protection of another person's more fundamental right"...

Please provide more of the context where you saw this. At this point, I don't know whether I misspoke myself or not.

...it seems that there's some sort of Libertarian 'hierarchy of rights'.

I don't know if libertarians hold to an actual hierarchy. However, many people have sort of a mental hierarchy, with life being the most fundamental right. After all, once its taken from you, other rights do you little good. We have to be careful when discussing hierarchies, though--each person has his own personal one. Better to go by Lib's definitions.


Lib:

Thanks for the definitions.

-VM

[hawthorne]

This is getting interesting. For spectators, don't assume that everyone on the two sides agree across the board. I doubt for example whether Smartass, Water2j and Libertarian agree, and whether Singledad and I do.

However:

Lib: You proposed the following defintions: 1.Property — that which was given to you by God or nature (e.g., your life), as well as that which you have peacefully and honestly acquired (e.g., your money)
2.Ownership — authority over property (i.e., the owner of a thing is he who ultimately makes the decisions with respect to it)
3.Rights — the attributes of ownership (e.g., you have the right make decisions with respect to your own life, but not with respect to mine)
4.Force — intentional assault, threat, or usurpation against ownership
5.Fraud — misrepresentation of intentions, value, or suitability
6.Coercion — the abridgement of rights (i.e., the use of initial force or fraud)
7.Freedom — the absence of coercion
For what it is worth, it seems to me that all of 1-4 and 6 depend on your definition of "property". (I don't understand what you mean by "suitability", but let it pass).
Your point 7 has already been mentioned, either here or close by: not everyone understands "freedom" in this way. "Freedom" can mean "freedom to" and "freedom from": your definition refers to negative freedom.

I do not agree with your definition of property. I do not think there could be a notion of property independent of a political and economic system (libertarian or other). Rightly or wrongly, stuff is only "property" if it is practicably defensible in one's social situation.

On to Smartass:
Singledad...it seems that there's some sort of Libertarian 'hierarchy of rights'

Smartass
I don't know if libertarians hold to an actual hierarchy. However, many people have sort of a mental hierarchy, with life being the most fundamental right. After all, once its taken from you, other rights do you little good. We have to be careful when discussing hierarchies, though--each person has his own personal one.

I guess this is the point I was trying to get at, which in my mind distinguishes "political libertarians" from "philosophical libertarians" in my book. The former see negative freedom as an important element in a "social welfare function" which is currently undervalued. The latter see negative freedom as the "social" welfare function.

[note: I have not been following the "Calling all Libertarians" thread over the past couple of days: the board has been playing up for me, and I have not been able to see much. Apologies if I am missing points that have been made there.]

picmr

[Smartass]

picmr:

Those definitions Libertarian posted were not actually part of the debate--he was offering them to me on the assumption that I already agree with the underlying notions. My understanding of libertarian theory is based primarily on my agreement with the platform of the political party. Lib is making sure that I am properly grounded in theory.

Also, for what it's worth, I think we all agree that no definition of property has meaning if it can't be agreed on by the people involved. Needless to say, libertarians will want to convince you that the libertarian definition is the best.

The former see negative freedom as an important element in a "social welfare function" which is currently undervalued. The latter see negative freedom as the "social" welfare function.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social welfare function". If you're referring to government-implemented social welfare, then I think pretty much all political and philosophical libertarians would hold it as a violation of their rights. On the other hand, if your referring to a system implemented by choice, then some would want to participate and some wouldn't.

-VM

[hawthorne]

I'm using "social welfare function" to mean "function which evaluates ethical achievement of society."

So a utilitrian SWF would evaluate states according to net "happiness", an equalitarian SWF as achievement of equality etc.

A purely libertarian SWF would evaluate states according to negative freedom: two states (fully specified situations) with different levels of goods/ outcomes but the same degree of negative freedom would be of the same social value. As would be clear from above, I would not regard outcomes as a matter of indifference.

picmr

[2sense]

I thank you for the time that you put in discussing your politics with me. I still do not understand your position as well as I would like, but I am going to lurk for now. I am interested in seeing this debate move forward and I believe that posters like picmr, mattmcl, and SingleDad are doing a fine job of representing my viewpoint. If I have questions that are unanswered then I will ask them.

You seem to me to be holding your own here against some heavy competition. Kudos!

[Smartass]

picmr:

Okay; think I'm starting to get you now. It's been a few years, so I'm sometimes caught off guard by "academic" terminology.

I think it's easy to point to libertarianism and say that negative freedom, in and of itself, leaves out too many other results to be a meaningful basis for government.

However, I think you know that libertarians aren't just saying that freedom supercedes all other concerns because of its inherent value. Rather, libertarians would argue that this equality of negative freedoms leads more effectively than any other system to the maximization of others, like happiness.

Also, attempts to raise other social welfare functions by providing unequal negative freedoms carry too high a cost. In other words, if you try to increase happiness by removing some negative freedoms, or giving more to some people than others, then you lower the overall happiness (assuming each person's happiness is of equal value).

Does this make sense?


2sense:

Glad you hear from you, and thanks.

-VM

[hawthorne]

Smartass:
Does this make sense?

Yep, and I agree completely.

On the other hand, we now have some pesky empirical issues to deal with. (And some reason to suppose that no everyone on either side is going to look at the questions in good faith.)

Libertarians who agree with you (I'm guessing waterj2 might, but Libertarian probably wouldn't) have to make the case that a general guiding principle should hold in the face of obviously great injustices on other fronts.

picmr

[Smartass]

picmr:

Libertarians who agree with you...have to make the case that a general guiding principle should hold in the face of obviously great injustices on other fronts.

I'm gonna have to nail you down on that one. Let's talk about these "great injustices" and how we could prevent them from happening.

-VM