# Another libertarian debate thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685 "2014-04-09T02:18:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/281 "2014-04-14T17:45:54Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Since use of guns is not purely defensive, widespread ownership of guns can impose a cost on others, as the US finds out quite regularly. It is thus very analogous to other externalities. This is exactly correct, and not only is it correct, it’s an excellent illustration of the unintended consequences of any political philosophy that values idealistic principles over actual outcomes, unintended or otherwise – a detachment from reality that libertarianism seems actually proud of. So we get to hear about guns as an absolute and sacredly untouchable pillar of freedom despite the carnage they cause, the removal of any vestige of social welfare in the broadest sense despite the injustices and horrors and social strife this would cause, and the alleged necessity of complete non-intervention in commerce or employer-employee relations despite the obvious historical consequences of doing that because of the real-world reality of who actually holds the overwhelming balance of power and wealth. We should understand by now that extremist idealism never works, on either extreme side of the political spectrum, and that ignoring history and experience is never a good basis for any political system. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/282 "2014-04-14T17:55:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This is exactly correct, and not only is it correct, it’s an excellent illustration of the unintended consequences of any political philosophy that values idealistic principles over actual outcomes, unintended or otherwise – a detachment from reality that libertarianism seems actually proud of. Er…in case you missed it, I’m pointing out how libertarianism is _consistent_ with gun control, because libertarianism _does_ agree that regulating externalities is necessary. The disagreement is that ownership of guns has an externality in the first place. If you could convince Bone that it has an externality, he would be on the side of regulating it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/283 "2014-04-14T18:15:15Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Er…in case you missed it, I’m pointing out how libertarianism is _consistent_ with gun control, because libertarianism _does_ agree that regulating externalities is necessary. I realize that you’re trying to take a somewhat ambivalent non-position here, but the statement nevertheless makes the point I claimed, as do the other analogous ones, all equivalently opposed to any kind of regulation. > [@bldysabba](#): > > The disagreement is that ownership of guns has an externality in the first place. If you could convince Bone that it has an externality, he would be on the side of regulating it. He would? He seems much more concerned about principles than outcomes: > [@Bone](#): > > Your focus is on the outcome - the state of employment. The libertarian’s focus is on the process. **You may object to the outcome and the libertarian will say, so what?** The [Libertarian Party agrees](http://www.lp.org/platform): “We … oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.” Sure sounds like “no gun laws” to me. In fact it sounds a lot like the rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ wild west before the sheriff comes to town. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/284 "2014-04-14T18:26:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I realize that you’re trying to take a somewhat ambivalent non-position here, but the statement nevertheless makes the point I claimed, as do the other analogous ones, all equivalently opposed to any kind of regulation. No it does not make the point you claim, and it doesn’t become so just by your saying it does. You claim that the failure is in valuing ideals over outcomes, but it is actually a case of valuing different outcomes. > [@](#): > > He would? He seems much more concerned about principles than outcomes: And it fits in with the principle. I too am arguing on the principle, not the outcome. I’m not saying liberty of gun owners should be curtailed because outcomes for others are bad. I’m saying liberty of gun owners should be curtailed because it curtails the liberty of others, which is the principle that libertarians agree with. > [@](#): > > The [Libertarian Party agrees](http://www.lp.org/platform): “We … oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.” > > Sure sounds like “no gun laws” to me. In fact it sounds a lot like the rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ wild west before the sheriff comes to town. Sure, because, like I said, they’re not convinced that gun ownership has externalities. If you’re convinced of that, then gun control is perfectly in line with libertarian principles. It’s a problem of not being able to agree on premises. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/285 "2014-04-14T18:27:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Taking your ball, turning over the game board, and going home I see. That certainly is consistent with your approach in this thread. Right. No doubt everyone has noticed how I’ve stopped posting in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/286 "2014-04-14T18:39:04Z")
> [@furt](#): > > If that’s all too hard for you grasp … well, I couldn’t figure out calculus, either. We all have limitations. It’s not at all hard to grasp. One of the failings of libertarianism is it’s too simple. It’s too simple to actually work. That’s why most informed people aren’t libertarians. We understand the limits of libertarianism. Libertarians are the ones who fail to grasp those limits. I can’t imagine anyone’s too dumb to understand libertarianism. But there are obviously people who can’t get beyond libertarianism. To use your math metaphor, libertarians are the people who only know basic arithmetic and are mocking other people for using calculus. They’re saying those calculus people must not grasp how arithmetic works. But the calculus people do grasp arithmetic - and they also grasp how calculus sometimes works better. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/287 "2014-04-14T18:59:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s not at all hard to grasp. Strange then that after so many people have put in so much effort, you still haven’t been able to get your mind around it. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/288 "2014-04-14T19:02:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s not at all hard to grasp. One of the failings of libertarianism is it’s too simple. It’s too simple to actually work. > > That’s why most informed people aren’t libertarians. We understand the limits of libertarianism. Libertarians are the ones who fail to grasp those limits. > > I can’t imagine anyone’s too dumb to understand libertarianism. But there are obviously people who can’t get beyond libertarianism. > > To use your math metaphor, libertarians are the people who only know basic arithmetic and are mocking other people for using calculus. They’re saying those calculus people must not grasp how arithmetic works. But the calculus people do grasp arithmetic - and they also grasp how calculus sometimes works better. Yep, you’re the smart one. And all the non-libertarian people in the thread telling you you’re the one with the facile understanding, why, they’re\* all\* wrong. :rolleyes: Have a nice one. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/289 "2014-04-14T19:23:08Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > You claim that the failure is in valuing ideals over outcomes, but it is actually a case of valuing different outcomes. My claim that libertarianism values ideals more than outcomes is based on the fact that one or more of its supporters in this thread have stated or implied it at least three times. One also gets the strong impression from the Libertarian Party platform that they, too, are obsessed with principles – there are few if any statements of social or economic objectives, only statements about “Freedom!” But if what you say is true, then it does constitute a legitimate debate. My argument there would be that all historical experience seems to show that the kind of anti-government non-regulation proposed by libertarians ends up causing social strife and instability and great injustices, in labor markets, in health care, in the social safety net, in the ability of small businesses to compete fairly with giant multinationals, and throughout society. There is, for example, as has so often been pointed out, no possible rational justification for running the most expensive yet one of the least efficacious health care systems in the world except the justification that says “Choice! Freedom! Rah!”. It’s one of several libertarian principles that have indeed gone mainstream, to the benefit of no one except enormous and entrenched health insurers and many providers. This is not a matter of political ideology, it’s a fairly objective matter of health care economics, an objective specialized field of economics that demonstrates the value of a broad-based universal collective approach to such an essential service. Libertarianism would never allow such a compromise of its sacred principles, no matter what the evidence, no matter how beneficial the outcome, and no matter how much money it saves. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > To use your math metaphor, libertarians are the people who only know basic arithmetic and are mocking other people for using calculus. They’re saying those calculus people must not grasp how arithmetic works. But the calculus people do grasp arithmetic - and they also grasp how calculus sometimes works better. To use the math metaphor, libertarians are like those who stick with arithmetic despite the fact that it’s been shown again and again that it cannot solve certain kinds of problems, but they stick with it anyway because they like the rules and are impressed as hell that it _ **does** _ solve certain categories of simple problems. So they don’t care that the answers they get for more complex problems lead them to design bridges that fall down and airplanes that can’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/290 "2014-04-14T19:36:44Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Strange then that after so many people have put in so much effort, you still haven’t been able to get your mind around it. You could put a lot of effort into explaining why one plus one equals three. But the fact that I don’t accept your explanations doesn’t mean I have a problem. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/291 "2014-04-14T19:39:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But if what you say is true, then it does constitute a legitimate debate. My argument there would be that all historical experience seems to show that the kind of anti-government non-regulation proposed by libertarians ends up causing social strife and instability and great injustices, in labor markets, in health care, in the social safety net, in the ability of small businesses to compete fairly with giant multinationals, and throughout society. If you want to talk outcomes, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the government closest to libertarian ideals was that of the US in the 19th century, and several similar systems in the western world, and it’s hard to argue against the success of the model. The governments furthest away from the libertarian ideal were that of the Soviet Union and several similar systems in India and China, and it’s hard to argue against their failure. Personally, I chalk that up in favour of the capitalist/libertarian models. > [@](#): > > There is, for example, as has so often been pointed out, no possible rational justification for running the most expensive yet one of the least efficacious health care systems in the world except the justification that says “Choice! Freedom! Rah!”. It’s one of several libertarian principles that have indeed gone mainstream, to the benefit of no one except enormous and entrenched health insurers and many providers. This is not a matter of political ideology, it’s a fairly objective matter of health care economics, an objective specialized field of economics that demonstrates the value of a broad-based universal collective approach to such an essential service. Libertarianism would never allow such a compromise of its sacred principles, no matter what the evidence, no matter how beneficial the outcome, and no matter how much money it saves. This is an entirely different debate, with considerable merit on both sides, but you can’t put down the American system as being the fault of libertarian ideals. The biggest distortion in your markets - insurance companies funded by employers - exists because the government favoured employer provided health insurance in their tax code. Government attempts to improve outcomes entrenched large distortions into healthcare - which is already a very imperfect market to begin with. I don’t know if market solutions could work in healthcare. It may not be possible, although given recent technological developments, it _might_ be. But to say that your current problems are because of libertarian ideals at work is just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/292 "2014-04-14T19:43:04Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > If you want to talk outcomes, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the government closest to libertarian ideals was that of the US in the 19th century, and several similar systems in the western world, and it’s hard to argue against the success of the model. Would you mind if I started a new thread based on this paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/293 "2014-04-14T19:52:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would you mind if I started a new thread based on this paragraph? No, I’d be interested in seeing how well it holds up to scrutiny. I would rather that you include the next sentence too though? It is the flip side of the coin after all. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/294 "2014-04-14T19:54:50Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > No, I’d be interested in seeing how well it holds up to scrutiny. I would rather that you include the next sentence too though? It is the flip side of the coin after all. Of course. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/295 "2014-04-14T19:57:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There is, for example, as has so often been pointed out, no possible rational justification for running the most expensive yet one of the least efficacious health care systems in the world except the justification that says “Choice! Freedom! Rah!”. It’s one of several libertarian principles that have indeed gone mainstream, to the benefit of no one except enormous and entrenched health insurers and many providers. This is not a matter of political ideology, it’s a fairly objective matter of health care economics, an objective specialized field of economics that demonstrates the value of a broad-based universal collective approach to such an essential service. \*\* Libertarianism would never allow such a compromise of its sacred principles,\*\* no matter what the evidence, no matter how beneficial the outcome, and no matter how much money it saves. (my bold) So all it would take to refute this claim would be for a self professed libertarian to support some form of universal health care and/or other social safety net, right? [Like here from **Sam Stone** :](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16489628&postcount=61) > [@](#): > > Now, outside of that basic formulation, there are other levels of government action that some libertarians will accept. For example, most libertarians I know believe that the state has a role in regulating externalities, on the principle that forcing an uninvolved party to pay part of the costs of a transaction they had nothing to do with is a form of coercion. Hence, you have no right to pollute the air that I breathe or foul my drinking water. And since externalities are by definition a problem the market cannot solve, there is a role here for government regulation. > > That said, libertarians are generally hyper-vigilant about the growth of state power, and such regulatory bodies would be kept on a very short string and not be allowed to mission-creep their way into being general ‘safety nazis’ or inventing externalities or exaggerating them in order to increase their power. > > Going even further, many libertarians, myself included, believe that a democratic state cannot exist without a civil society, and a civil society can not be maintained without some sort of social safety net. We cannot let people starve in the streets or die for lack of medical care in a wealthy first world nation. Not only is it wrong to do so, but on practical grounds a state so callous would not long survive until there was a popular uprising. Therefore, as a practical matter we need a welfare system and a system of basic universal health care. I see the cost of health care on society to be a valid externality that government has a role in. Obviously the details matter, but on principle there is nothing inherently objectionable about universal health care. Health care in this country is so fucked up I’m open to lots of different ways to try out. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/296 "2014-04-14T20:02:07Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > No, I’d be interested in seeing how well it holds up to scrutiny. I would rather that you include the next sentence too though? It is the flip side of the coin after all. [It’s posted.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=720912) Please come over and expand on this when you can. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/297 "2014-04-14T20:39:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I can’t claim to know all the changes that would need to be made to qualify as a libertarian ideal. \*\*John \*\*mentioned some already which I agree with. I’m also not very good at crafting legal language, so here’s some of the changes I would support through constitutional amendment (and making amendments overall more difficult) if necessary: > [ul] > [li]Prohibit the regulation of commerce other than areas that affect fraud and externalities.[/li][li]No more illegal drugs[/li][li]Much lower taxes[/li][li]Much lower governmental services[/li][li]Replace education funding with voucher based system[/li][li]Essentially a limit on government to essential duties, defense, infrastructure, law enforcement.[/li][/ul] On the topic of starting new threads: would it be more appropriate to start one to discuss this list, or talk about it here? Because I think that’d be a good topic to jump off on. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/298 "2014-04-14T21:53:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > . . . A man owns a house. He happens to be a staunch Falconist, a hypothetical religion. Concerned about his neighbor’s possible lack of faith, he assembles a 2,000 watt stereo system . . . > > But wait, you might say. The freedom of religion doesn’t, in fact, give anyone the right to do what I’ve suggested it does. There is, in fact, no dilemma between rights here. > > Pointing that out isn’t evading the question. Sure. But you have to point it out! It isn’t enough to say, “The question is wrong and I refuse to answer it.” To be of any use here, you have to go further and note why and how the question is wrong. We weren’t always getting that here. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/299 "2014-04-14T21:59:11Z")
The “why” was given in post #3 and post #10. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685/300 "2014-04-14T22:32:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > On the topic of starting new threads: would it be more appropriate to start one to discuss this list, or talk about it here? Because I think that’d be a good topic to jump off on. I’m thinking that the best way to discuss libertarianism to to do a series of threads on individual topics. I’m planning to do that today. Will try and make that topic relevant to some current events. Working on my first OP as we speak (or write). I can see that **Czarcasm’s** new thread devolved into SOMALIA! on the very first reply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-libertarian-debate-thread/685685.md?page=16)