# A Q for Libertarian on Libertaria **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140 "2001-05-11T23:03:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/161 "2001-05-18T21:21:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aynrandlover \* > > I know of no other word in the English language which so accurately describes it. If you have contempt for such accuracy then it leads me to wonder (I know you don’t merely a touche). Accuracy? Base distortion. You’re paying to support the very services which you use. Not paying taxes is theft of services. > [@](#): > > 1. I do not authorize the US Government to take money from me. Personal authorization is not how any society or government in this world works. Sorry, try again. > [@](#): > > 1. I expect to earn the money that my employer intends to pay for services I rendered. And you should expect to pay for services rendered to you. > [@](#): > > 1. If I take measures to resist this removal of money I am > penalized in some other way, either through fines and/or jail time. As I know this in advance, this can only be called a threat. If you steal services, you get punished also. (Standard Disclaimer: Other readers please do note that in this context I do not mean to imply that all services rendered by the government are necessarily best rendered by the government in all or even most circumstances, nor do I mean to imply that one has to be happy about every service rendered or for paying for services one may not fully take advantage of, but on the other hand neither do I stand for bullshit claims which abstract away from larger gains etc.) We can play this game all night if you want, I still have nothing but contempt. Now, onto the merry go round > [@](#): > > Excessive inequalities do cause problems economically, politically, and in every other form of interaction I can possibly think of. To remove one excessive inequality you must create another. Are you still incapable of seeing anything other in terms of extremes? I won’t dignify this with a response it as it is clearly reductio ad absurdum. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Problem with Randistas… > > Remind me to change my name. You have to admit it has a certain ring to it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Under-investment in public goods like education will inevitably lead to declining productivity and to inefficient concentrations of wealth in a closed elite. > > Tell me, **C** , is there a pot of gold out there called “resources” and we must manage them effectively? Or are there a teeming group of living, feeling, beings out there who act according to their own interests(wants+needs)? If it is the former, then why ever would we not use force to get things done since it is most efficient. If it is the latter then why would we ever want to use force at all? If it is neither, then what are we and where are these resources? Insofar as your reply is an irrelevant appeal to emotion, I don’t see much point to this. > [@](#): > > The idea that without regulation my job would somehow be in jeapordy runs in the face of my reality. In fact, we could make even more money without having to hire an accountant for taxes. No it doesn’t, it runs in the face of your _ideology_. a rather different proposition. As for making more money without hiring an accountant for taxes, come on now, this is feeble: (a) you as usual ignore those services provided by taxes (b) ignore that even in Libertaria land, land of underinvestment in public goods and rampant market failure, you’ll need the self same account to manage the multitude of criss-crossing contracts and payments for the state services (partially) replaced by private contracting, not to mention a few lawyers to pursue those who decide to fuck the contract for their own interest. It’s nice to willy-nilly abstract away from your paradise’s real transaction costs, makes it easy to set up **straw man** arguments against the current system, but I don’t play that game. > [@](#): > > My boss, the CEO of this company, left England and started this business in his own name 4 short years ago(with one other employee). Since that time, it has been incorporated and profited each year, the number of employees has doubled every year(not counting the sales force). Our customer base spans America, Europe, and some of Canada and Japan. _Trade made this possible_. As did the underlying infrastructure, confidence in a legal system, protections etc. I know this. I do business in places where secure and stable government is absent. Moreover we can find a nice body of nice solid economic research suggesting the importance of good institutions, social and governmental, are fundamental to prosperity. Trade does not occur in a vacuum. It can occur of course in the midst of the most hellish conditions, but rarely in efficient or wealth building manners. > [@](#): > > “But arl, government made trade possible!” > > I’m sorry, but I cannot agree. Okay, brother. Buy yourself a ticket to Yemen and we’ll take a little trek into anarchy outside of Sanaa. Or let’s try to do business in Somalia. Or Congo for that matter. Oh, you object these fellows are not nice, like those idealized citizens of Libertaria. Tough luck, people are mean motherfuckers. Trying to abstract away from this with hand-waving arguments about idealized self-interest is bullshit fantasizing. > [@](#): > > I guess my econ book left that part out. Or you failed to pick up on any number implied discussion or direct discussions of market failure. Econ 101 abstracts away from a number of practical concerns also. You learn the wonderful idealized world of perfect competition, which doesn’t exist. It’s nice for bringing theoretical clarity and for introducing concepts. But its a terribly simplistic view and it fails miserably describing real world economics. I have consistently suggested that you need to inform yourself better if your arguments for Randian Libertarianism are going to attempt to be based on economics. > [@](#): > > From where I stand it only seems to make things more difficult. Then you are far too innocent or willfully blinding yourself. > [@](#): > > While the invisible hand of self-interest is trying to hold me up, the invisible hand of regulation is trying to strangle me. Religious imagery is not substiture for rational analysis. We’ve gone over this before. I really wish you would try to get beyond economics for the Randista. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/162 "2001-05-18T21:26:02Z")
Fenris: Scroll up a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/163 "2001-05-18T21:42:38Z")
**Libertarian:** _People might choose to have a horse that they earnestly love and care for. Why shouldn’t you help support their horse?_ Why not, indeed? Back when horses were considered a near-universal need, that’s exactly what societies did! Common pastures were public property that helped maintain private livestock, including horses. _Why aren’t people who need cars supplied with cars?_ Why in fact, they are (or at least, they receive public assistance to help support their cars). There are numerous automobile-centered public subsidies, of everything from gasoline to road maintenance, that reduce the private financial burden for all car owners. See how it works? The things that are generally considered to be universal or near-universal desiderata of human life—transportation, food, medical care, children, education, etc.—wind up receiving at least some official public subsidization, whether it’s just for the poorest people or for members of society in general. It’s certainly not a perfect system, and it necessarily alters over time (as we see, for example, in the shift from public subsidy of horses to public subsidy of cars), but it’s not a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/164 "2001-05-18T22:12:32Z")
Ayn: Do you have any idea what is meant by Randian libertarianism? Ayn Rand derided libertarians as “hippies of the right” and a “whim-worshipping fringe”. By the way, I understand that you, like I, have adopted the sensible parts of her philosophy and discarded the poofery and, well, snobbery. Kimstu: Unlike us, you’re entitled to prefer whatever government you please. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you’re a lawyer, since a legal education is required to comprehend the laws we must obey, and you seem to be quite comfortable in their comprehension. There are those of us who prefer a simpler common-sense approach. All I would ever ask of you is that you muster a portion of the empathy you have for people you consider to be disfortuned on behalf of people who would rather live their own lives without your interference. But interpretation of the law of Libertaria has nothing to do with majoritarianism, either hidden in any details or otherwise. It has to do with **the voluntary consent of one woman** to be bound to its interpretation by arbiters in exchange for having her rights secured. The great chasmic difference between Libertaria and Majoritaria remains that one is voluntary and the other is not. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/165 "2001-05-18T22:21:42Z")
Yes, I admit it does have a ring to it. I laughed out loud when I read it. 😃 (I still want to change my name though, after a short, rational, calm post was ignored by a certain poster simply due to my name) **taxes payed for services rendered** I believe credit card companies just lost a class action lawsuit due to oversolicitation of their services. Some companies had even issued credit cards without consent, then charged the annual fee. They lost this suit. (I recieved a check for this settlement of which I had no idea I was a member. I did not cash it as I did not feel it applied to me) In light of this case law, perhaps I should sue the government for similar tactics, what do you think? All the cresit card companies can do is ruin my credit. The US government can have more, shall we say, convincing ways of getting people to pay for their services. **Economics** I don’t recall arguing economics on the level you seem to be implying. The only comment which I feel was close to being a truly economic comment was the one about my econ book. Apart from that I have mentioned: [li]Humans have unlimited wants and needs.[/li][li]All interaction is based on inequality.[/li][li]Inequality cannot be rid of under any system.[/li][li]I cannot trade something that no one wants.[/li][li]The market gives property value.[/li][li]The market is quicker to remove problems once it has been decided that the problem should be removed.[/li][li]The market is not centralized.[/li][li]Physical force is always the ultimate winner.[/li][li]Laws do not create or remove freedom, only physical force and mutual agreement can do this.[/li][li]Removing personal responsibility/accountability from investments increases investment. (actually, I just agreed with kabbes here)[/li][li]Public property does not exist.[/li][li]Government is an illusion based on perception of governors of themselves and our perception of the governors.[/li][li]Property is not just land.[/li][li]The current voting system is not what people here seem to argue it being.[/li][li]A completely free market will likely have problems allocating resources like water. Many raise a concern about shelter and land, to which I scoff at (since I own neither).[/li][li]Volunteering is not as popular as it would be due to an agency set up to make volunteering unneccesary, at least in principle.[/li]I think I’ll stop here instead of reviewing page 1 and 2. I don’t find myself arguing economics in the usual sense of arguing economics. I would be interested in seeing your comments on any of those, however. > [@](#): > > Okay, brother. Buy yourself a ticket to Yemen and we’ll take a little trek into anarchy outside of Sanaa. Or let’s try to do business in Somalia. Or Congo for that matter. It’s a date, then? (gathers up goods banned in almost every country of the world but available on black markets) Not that I was, in this thread, arguing for anarchy. We could start a new one for that, if you’d like. I do so love anarchy. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/166 "2001-05-19T09:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > Yes, I admit it does have a ring to it. I laughed out loud when I read it. 😃 (I still want to change my name though, after a short, rational, calm post was ignored by a certain poster simply due to my name) Erislover?!!!?? Why not ARL? Now what do I call you. EL? Elover? Sounds like a kind of vacuum-cleaner or some sort of electronic fetishist. > [@](#): > > **taxes payed for services rendered** > I believe credit card companies just lost a class action lawsuit due to oversolicitation of their services. … In light of this case law, perhaps I should sue the government for similar tactics, what do you think? All the cresit card companies can do is ruin my credit. The US government can have more, shall we say, convincing ways of getting people to pay for their services. I think you will find that the case law is inapplicable and factually speaking does not ressemble the idea of taxes in any case. > [@](#): > > **Economics** > I don’t recall arguing economics on the level you seem to be implying. The only comment which I feel was close to being a truly economic comment was the one about my econ book. Apart from that I have mentioned: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… > [@](#): > > [li]Humans have unlimited wants and needs.[/li] Quack. (true enough) > [@](#): > > [li]I cannot trade something that no one wants.[/li][li]The market gives property value.[/li] quack, quack. Although more precisely, the market allows values to be assigned rationally, given a properly operating market. > [@](#): > > [li]The market is quicker to remove problems once it has been decided that the problem should be removed.[/li][li]The market is not centralized.[/li] Quack, quick. (Although point one is often true, this depends on the proper information being available and an ability of the actors in involved to react. We can’t presume that this holds in all cases, in fact in the case of things like water it fairly clear doesn’t – given present constraints.) > [@](#): > > [li]Physical force is always the ultimate winner.[/li][li]Laws do not create or remove freedom, only physical force and mutual agreement can do this.[/li] Philosophy. > [@](#): > > [li]Removing personal responsibility/accountability from investments increases investment. (actually, I just agreed with kabbes here)[/li][li]Public property does not exist.[/li] The last is your assertion. As you know I and others don’t agree with your reasoning from start to finish, but no reason to go over that. > [@](#): > > [li]Government is an illusion based on perception of governors of themselves and our perception of the governors.[/li] Uhuh. So’s society. Not particularly useful concept outside philosphical exchanges. > [@](#): > > I don’t find myself arguing economics in the usual sense of arguing economics. Perhaps, however there are underlying facts and presumptions. The arguments are based on what are in the end economic principals, yes, no? Libertaria’s conception derives in no small part from a sort of extreme reading of the efficacity of private markets writ large and a willful ignoring if I may of complex issues such as externalities, imperfections in the market, comparative transaction costs for providing services which are known to experience market failure or which are otherwise natural monopolies (given present technology). These are important issues. Now I know you at least do try to grapple with them. I am annoyed that others brush this away with mere slogans. Frankly, the whole Libertaria issue could be much more interesting if it stopped being an exchange of criticisms and willfully silly sloganeering and became an examination of real possibilities based on good economics. Plenty to disagree about of course, but much less sterile an exercise. Unless of course the sole purpose of the thread is to indulge in one or more persons’ private dreams/utopias. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/167 "2001-05-19T12:07:02Z")
A couple of loose ends: Purpose of the thread I believe the purpose of the thread was established by Glitch. Involuntary taxation This is a three-fold whammy: [li] Ethcial implications[/li] Detractors of libertarianism will invariably concoct a justification in what they do for Paul to mitigate mugging Peter. In order to do this, they imbue agents of government with a mystical quality that entitles those agents to do what no one else in the general population may do. Were Paul himself to take from Peter his own portion of what government agents would take, Paul would be a criminal. Trying to corner this mystical quality is like trying to catch a wet bar of soap in a hurricane. In every case, it is reduced to a basic contempt for the individual’s consent. The individual is made into an abstraction, and society is made into a living entity, thus reversing the natural order and creating a sort of antimatter universe in which the few are sacrificed for the sake of the many. [li] Victim compenstation[/li] Detractors argue that what Peter receives from the muggings of others compensates for what he has forfeited. Yet this is hardly ever the case. Now, it might be the case were Peter allowed to submit to the mystical agent a list of what he needs: “I don’t need that million dollar out-house with nonflushing toilets in the New England national park, but I do need the bridge just down the street from me.” In that case, the mystical agent basically just does Peter’s shopping for him. That would be a one-to-one correspondence between what Peter needs and what is delivered to him for the seizure of his property. Of course, the mystical agent would have to do this work for nothing because were Peter to shop for his needs himself, he would not have to pay for the mystical agent’s salary and the salaries of his staff of lawyers and clerks, the maintenance of the grounds and buildings where he works, or the expenses (like haircuts and lunches) he incurs. But that’s not all. Ignoring the one-to-one correspondence, there is also the matter of threshold. Peter, by his lifelong work and sweat, has managed to just afford exactly the school he and his wife have always dreamed of for his son. The school costs $X dollars annually, just the amount that Peter has saved. Now along comes the mystical agent who takes Y away from Peter, so that Peter and his wife now have (X-Y), and are unable to afford the education they prefer for their son. Peter was willing to forego what he would have bought for $Y in order to use $X for his son’s education, but the mystical agent has decided that Paul has needs as well and that Peter is responsible for them. Somehow, the mysterious agent always has a lot more sense than the giant squid, so he attempts amelioration of Peter’s plight by offering Peter a subsidized alternative to his dream school, one that might or might not teach the values and curriculum that Peter desires. [li] Compound markup on prices[/li] Because the seizure of property is ubiquitous, nothing escapes payment to the mystical agents, not even when it has already been paid. Consider the case of a jackhammer needed to build a road in front of Peter’s business. We start at the mines. There, laborers pay a portion of their earnings to the mystical agents. This is called a payroll tax. The mines match some portions of the payroll tax, including medicare and social security. They pay unilaterally the unemployment insurance and other involuntary fees to general pools from which the mystical agents draw for their favorite pork. The mines also pay a portion of their revenues for the right to use the property they own. This is called a property tax. Sometimes this tax is subsidized by neighbors of the mine who might or might not consume its goods directly. This is done for the purpose of creating a revenue pool that the mystical agents may tax. The mines also pay gasoline and transporation taxes and fees, like DOT licenses, and inventory and sales taxes on the tools and components they keep on hand to do their work. Sometimes, the sales taxes are subsidized by other consumers of the tools and components. Because the mine operates under the auspices of manifold mystical agencies, like DOT, OSHA, EEOC, and the like, it must maintain staffs of consultants, accountants, lawyers, managers, and clerks to ensure adherence to the agencies’ myriad and sometimes conflicting or frivolous rules and regulations. Now, were it simply a matter of selling goods for a profit, the mines might calculate that, for every $1.00 in cost, they need to make $1.25 to pay wages and salaries, the Cost of Goods Sold, and owner equity. This would represent a profit of 20%, since markup equals the reciprocal of cost divided by price. However, since they must also pay the Cost of Mystical Agencies, the mines might calculate that they must charge a markup of 80%, or $5.00 for every $1.00 in nominal cost, plus $3.00 in mystical costs in order that they might still make a profit of 20%. So the raw material heads out the door, inflated at four times its nominal cost. Remember the jackhammer? The jackhammer is comprised of numerous component parts, like bearings and bushings, for example. But you can’t just make ore into bushings, so we go to the foundries, where the ore brought from the mines at greatly inflated prices goes again through the same costly interference by the mystical agents that it did before. The foundry must pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, inventory taxes, property taxes, involuntary fees and subsidies, and salaries for support staff to oversee dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. (Mystical agencies are notorious for their anal attention to detail.) The ingots of steal formed from the raw materials, and carrying severely but necessarily inflated markups, are then shipped out the door to component manufacturers all across the country. (You’ll need not just bearings and bushings, but switches, handles, drill bits, motors, and other components for the jackhammer.) We find that the ball bearing manufacturer is not exempt from the pilfering arms of the mysterious agents. Here, once again, the producer must pay the Piper and charge the cost to its consumer, who happens to be a maufacturer’s rep, who must also pay his dues for the right to exist, and pass his costs along to the wholesaler, who sells the bearings with their costs now inflated many times over to the jackhammer manufacturer, who inflates them once again to sell to the road builder, who encounters, in addition to the costs enumerated heretofore, yet a whole new set of costs, namely, the costs of bidding for business from the Mystical Agencies who will play like they are the general contractors for the road’s construction. Bidding for their business is much more expensive than bidding for business in general. Their RFQs (Requests for Quotation) come in boxes sometimes, with multiple volumes of specifications and qualifications that bidders must follow to the letter. Be mindful that not only the jackhammer, but all other components of the road’s construction as well — the trucks and every component therein, the shovels, the uniforms, the refined tar, the bulldozers and their components, the drills, the hammers, and even the pencils in the supervisors’ pockets — have gone through this same or a similar process to arrive in front of Peter’s business. (Remember Peter?) Plus, the actual contractor (whom the mysterious agents hired because they don’t really do general contracting — they just play general contractors on TV) must now pay the same taxes and fees. Some of the components that are used by the contractor, like trucks, are also used by the mines (remember the mines?) where they are bought at their compounded markup levels to start the whole process over again. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/168 "2001-05-19T15:39:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **Lib** , in response to my use of the word “utopia”:_ > Forgive me, but when you tell me what is so utopian about hard work and struggle with no guarantee of success, then I will address your questions and concerns. I don’t know what I did that you, of all people, would take such a stab at me. See, that’s why I regret it whenever I’m careless in my responses to you, **Lib** ; you’re so freakin’ sensitive! > [@](#): > > From [url=“[http://www.merriam-webster.com/home.htm](http://www.merriam-webster.com/home.htm)”]Merriam-Webster[/url: > Main Entry: **uto·pia** > Pronunciation: yu-'tO-pE-& > Function: _noun_ > Etymology: _Utopia_, imaginary and ideal country in _Utopia_ (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek _ou_ not, no + _topos_ place > Date: 1610 > 1 : an imaginary and indefinitely remote place > 2 _often capitalized_ : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions > 3 : an impractical scheme for social improvement Now, I know of no meaning that is commonly held to be derogatory. I certainly did not mean any insult, but I do consider Libertaria to be “an impractical scheme for social improvement” and that idea was the one I meant to imply. (Obviously, if I felt libertarianism was _practical_ I wouldn’t be arguing against it on that basis, would I?) However. I humbly apologize for any wound I have caused you through my careless use of that term. Although I did not intend it as a slur, I understand that you were stung, and I will refrain from future characterization of Libertaria as “utopian.” Instead, I’ll phrase my disagreement with you in terms you may find more civil. Now, if you can find time for it (and I understand you’re trying to address points from half a dozen other posters), would you care to address my point concerning contract law and its implications regarding conflicting rights in Libertaria? -Others seem to be pursuing the general concept of the derivation of rights and the importance of public commons quite adequately, so feel free to ignore the second and third comments in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/169 "2001-05-19T15:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > The individual is made into an abstraction, and society is made into a living entity, thus reversing the natural order and creating a sort of antimatter universe in which the few are sacrificed for the sake of the many. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/170 "2001-05-19T15:51:48Z")
Lib: Here’s an article by Edith Efron which pretty much sums up my attitude towards your type of Libertarianism, which Efron calls “Secular Fundamentalism”. By the way Edith Efron was a very good writer, who died just a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, I think everyone would find this essay worthwhile: [http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/secularfundamentalism.asp](http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/secularfundamentalism.asp) (by the way, I’m not an objectivist, and I’ve never read this magazine before - I just followed a link from _Reason Online_). Speaking of which, if any of you want more background into free-market concepts and practical ideas, _Reason_ is the magazine of choice: [http://www.reason.com](http://www.reason.com) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/171 "2001-05-19T18:27:21Z")
Well, “arl” was a little catchy but I’m afraid it had to go. The impression that I was a fan[sub]atic[/sub] was just too large to accurately represent anything. Now I can be a fan of the second law of thermodynamics, whichn I hope won’t put anyone off 😛 At any rate, you tell me politics aren’t a portion of philosophy, and that government isn’t made of politics, and then I’ll quit with the arguments. Until that time, every government is founded on some idea of interaction. At this moment in history, the major ideas represented are: physical force, fear, repression, theft, and herding. At one point in US history (and through much of world history) the citizens could have destroyed the government at any time. Now, I’m afraid, government’s armory does not allow that. Now is the time for a mental revolution. That’s just how I see it. I do not mind a compromise. That doesn’t mean I accept today’s world as “ok.” Clearly, much of the world has large, large problems due largely to the ideas those people have about human interaction. I will not stop fighting for a better form of life in which personal responsibility is advocated. I see it as the only way to the future. _Someone_ has to do _something_. Matters of economics are very interesting, but I _do not feel_ that “creating” a merket is the way to handle things since we also shouldn’t “create” the people in the market. Since every erson interacts in the market, any act to control the market controls people. A government acting as the largest force in the market is a double-whammy. _A mere 500 Americans can destroy the world_. This is not a matter of lofty intellectual debate. I do not want to fund people who can do that sort of damage. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/172 "2001-05-19T19:54:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Well, are people giving less thought to how they will provide for their children than for their cars or not? Cannot family, friends, neighbors, houses of worship, private and community charity care for this “small minority”?** Sure they can. But what if they are inadequate to the task? There is nowhere else they can go for help in your utopia. > [@](#): > > **Great news for rude, late, or hostile employees: You may be protected by federal “disability” law** > > New regulations issued by the EEOC instruct employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for mentally ill or emotionally unstable employees. You’re right! How dare they suggest that people with disabilities have a right to work! :rolleyes: I saw another tactic here: Single out the rare events where the government fucks up and claim it’s actually business as usual. Please don’t stoop to doing this again. You’re like my mother: You focus on the things that go wrong and ignore the things that go right. Why? Because the things that go right are evidence that we don’t need to be any more libertarian than we already are. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/173 "2001-05-19T19:58:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*Would it be all home-schooling or would all schools be private schools or would there be a mix? (In home-schooling, how does a parent teach a child something the parent knows nothing about? And what about the socialization kids get in schools?) > > What if both parents work AND they still cannot afford private schools? \*\* I’m re-posting this in case you missed it before. You never really answered it. Oh, as for the FAA: So there would be air-traffic control in Libertaria. Fine. But in Libertaria, some towns would go without needed air service because airlines would not serve those towns where they cannot make huge profits. You’d still be able to fly to Chicago, but I wonder if you’d still be able to fly to Fargo? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/174 "2001-05-19T21:40:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **To assemble “freely” in New York, you must get a permit from the property owner, City Hall.** The people own public property; City Hall is merely responsible for its upkeep. Why? The people have given it that authority. (Remember “consent of the governed?”) The reason you need a permit is because the city must provide police service to control traffic and the crowds and provide work crews to clean up the public space afterwards. Someone has to pay for that, so it’s necessary to have someone approve the expense. There is nothing wrong in stopping a demonstration if it becomes a riot and lives, persons and real estate are endangered. I’m curious: If the United States had been Libertaria in 1963, where would Dr. King have given his “I have a dream…” speech since there would have been no public property then? How many people would have witnessed it? > [@](#): > > **To move “freely” in Georgia you must refrain from sitting on a penis.** Have you ever tried moving while there was a penis in your ass? You won’t get very far, believe me! [sub]Not that I’ve ever tried, you understand…[/sub] But seriously… If you think the laws which criminalize sexual behavior among consenting adults ought to be abolished, you’ll get no argument from me or from most people on the Board. But this could be accomplished with the country as it stands now. We just need politicians with the guts to stand up to the Religious Right. > [@](#): > > **To protest in Seattle or Cleveland, you must be willing to have your face bashed in.** Vandalize public and private property for ANY reason and you deserve to go to jail. I agree with the anti-WTO protest in Seattle and the civil rights demonstrators in Cincinnati, but rioting and random destruction of someone else’s home and businesses is not the best way to effect change. Try to deliver a message violently and people will remember the violence and forget the message. (The LAPD is no better today than it was before Rodney King.) > [@](#): > > **And to worship as a Rastafarian anywhere in the U.S., you must be willing to go to prison.** Name some people who have gone to jail for being of the Rastafarian faith. Make it clear that they went to jail for that reason and no other. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/175 "2001-05-19T21:56:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Kimstu:** > > > [@](#): > > > > I was talking about people choosing to have a child that they earnestly love and care for but need some financial assistance to support. > > \*\*Does my need constitute your obligation? > > People might choose to have a horse that they earnestly love and care for. Why shouldn’t you help support their horse?\*\* Because a horse is not a child. (You keep settin’ ‘em up and I’ll keep knockin’ 'em down!) Interestingly, you decried people who have children as though they were pets. Are you saying pets ought to be treated as well as children are? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/176 "2001-05-19T21:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > The people own public property; City Hall is merely responsible for its upkeep. I disagree with this on so many levels, though they have all been listed. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/177 "2001-05-19T22:04:24Z")
Then it’s unfortunate you are wrong on so many levels. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/178 "2001-05-19T22:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Detractors of libertarianism will invariably concoct a justification in what they do for Paul to mitigate “mugging” Peter. In order to do this, they imbue agents of government with a mystical quality that entitles those agents to do what no one else in the general population may do.** (Quotation marks added to _mugging_.) That so-called “mystical quality” is called “authority.” I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It has been granted to the government by the public. It may be an abstract concept, but it is not mystical. Maybe the government ought to allow people not to pay their taxes, but to severely punish them if they ever use anything that the government has provided or inspected. This would eliminate clothes, food, transportation, medicine, electronic communications and shelter. Even the Unabomber went to the store, and on a public highway. > [@](#): > > **Were Paul himself to take from Peter his own portion of what government agents would take, Paul would be a criminal.** Because the public has never granted Paul the authority to do so. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If a football player tackles another player cleanly on the field during a game, he is not hauled off to jail for doing so. Why? Because he has been authorized to do so. If that same player were to perform the same tackle off the field on an unsuspecting pedestrian, you’d better hope he’s jailed. Why? Because he has not been authorized to do so. Why do I get the feeling you have problems with authority? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2001, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/179 "2001-05-20T10:37:07Z")
I want to put my many assailants on hold so I can go back and address an earlier question from Jab. Actually, other than Jab’s question (or a variant thereof — more about that in a moment) all of this is just about on its third spin cycle. Xeno and I are going to go back and forth about contracts and arbitration and whether (as I believe) there will be fewer contract disputes or (as he believes) more. Jab and I will now argue about where “the public” drew _its_ authority from and why the individual, contrary to nature, has none over himself. Kimstu will try to explain to me why wealth redistribution is desirable and necessary and why its ethcal impact on individuals is trivial. Collounsbury will continue making loquacious speeches to his imaginary fans. And I will have to explain things to the continually arriving newbies that I have explained forty ways from Sunday for the last year-and-a-half. Huh-uh. Life is just too precious and short. I’ve answered Glitch’s question, and my work has fallen woefully behind. (I’m not posting here unauthorized; I’m just posting here too much, in my opinion. These libertarianism threads take way more effort than the other threads because I and one or two others must answer posts at a five-to-one ratio.) I would advise all those who don’t like libertarianism to avoid signing your contract with Libertaria. It’s that simple. Unlike in Majoritaria, you need not recoil in horror because you won’t be governed against your will. But Jab’s question is too good to leave hanging. At least, its variant is. Jab asked me to list the flaws I find in libertarianism. I don’t find any, and I told him so. But you know what? If you adjust the question just a tad, you get a remarkably different answer, and possibly what Jab was looking for in the first place. Suppose Jab had asked instead, “Have you _ever_ found any faults with libertarianism?” After all, I wasn’t born holding to the libertarian philosophy. And I really didn’t “get it” the first time I saw it. So, here is a list of the problems I saw with libertarianism on first view. (I had to spend nearly a day recoursing my history and recalling them.) [ul] [li] It is impractical. People coerce by nature.[/li][li] It fails to address matters of the common good.[/li][li] There are precious few scholarly works on the topic.[/li][li] Capitalism favors the rich; those who have get more.[/li][li] The Libertarian Party is goofy and ineffective.[/li][li] It is too chaotic, making it unclear how society will evolve.[/li][li] A government cannot be financed without taxation. Even Jesus told us to pay our taxes (“render unto Caesar…”).[/li][li] Most people don’t know what’s best for them.[/li][li] Even if it worked, corruption would eventually destroy it.[/li][li] There is no accounting for children and their inability to give meaningful consent.[/li][li] There is no basis for deriving the rights that government will secure.[/li][li] It makes no provision for protecting the environment.[/li][li] We couldn’t have public resources like roads and utilities.[/li][li] Too many rights would conflict (e.g, free speech versus religious freedom).[/li][li] The rights it does champion, like smoking pot in Rastafarian worship services, are trivial.[/li][li] It hasn’t been tested in the mettle of practical application. If it’s so good, why hasn’t it been tried?[/li][li] Private charity cannot deal with the scope of poverty we have today.[/li][li] Marginalization of society’s outcasts will undermine the system.[/li][li] Things aren’t all that bad the way they are, and elected officials continually work to make them better.[/li][li] The notion that American government is tyrannical is laughable. The Stalinist government was tyrannical; look at the difference.[/li][li] Mean people would flourish in a libertarian system because no one could stop them from accumulating wealth.[/li][li] It is an un-Christian philosophy that neglects the needs of the helpless. (I was Christian before I was libertarian.)[/li][li] Corporations would be unassailable, hiding behind their wall of limited liability.[/li][/ul] Now, without further ado, I have an awful lot of work to catch up on. See y’all on the kinder gentler threads. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2001, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140/180 "2001-05-20T13:57:37Z")
Great post, **Lib!** I have only a few quibbles with it, but one of them I think is important enough to warrant a response: _Collounsbury will continue making loquacious speeches to his imaginary fans._ Actually, **C’bury** has many non-imaginary fans on this board, at least one of whom has definitely appreciated his “speeches” in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-q-for-libertarian-on-libertaria/65140.md?page=10)