I suppose this is kind of where I get stuck. To my mind, that sentence contradicts itself. A much more limited government would really be a different “form of government.”
But…this is my opinion, and I can’t think of any way to debate it meaningfully. (I’ve cited the Articles of Confederation as a debate point.)
I don’t think anyone here held either of those opinions. (But, unlike Bone, I don’t think it is a straw-man argument. Much like my own phrasing, it discards an extreme position. I generally hold this to be a good thing, but more to the point, I find it a useful tool in debate, when one is searching for areas of agreement. “Okay, we’re all agreed, no anchovies. Now how do we all feel about olives?”)
(Grin! An open-discussion debate forum is a very highly libertarian venue! I can’t make you do anything! But nor is the SDMB an anarchy. Take a look at the political discussions on, say, 4Chan. That’s anarchy!)
We had a much more limited government 150 years ago. Did we have a different form of government then?
Well, it was an obvious exaggeration in order to provoke thought. Maybe that wasn’t clear. There are a lot of posters here who conflate Libertarianism and Anarchy, though.
Libertarians LOVE the internet. It make certain idea more practical than if the internet didn’t exist. Imagine what people would post on YELP if a restaurant served tainted food!
It’s important to keep in mind that, in Libertaria, the little guy would have to rely on private institutions (eg YELP) for protection, but the same goes for the big guy. Take the recent example of the governments of certain states prohibiting the sale of Tesla cars unless they are sold thru a dealer. Whom do you think that law is supposed to protect? And whom do you think the massive tax code we have is supposed to protect? Government regulation can protect the consumer, but it can alsoerect barriers to entry for the little guy to take on the big guy in business. And who has more power to lobby Congress to pass laws in their favor?
Now, one might argue that net/net we’re better off with those excesses in order to protect the little guy, but some will also argue that the only way to prevent the government from abusing power is to not give it that power in the first place.
How would a libertarian democracy work then? In a libertarian democracy can a majority of the people enact a law making abortions illegal? If they can enact such a law, it seems like you have a government which is democratic but not libertarian. But if you can’t enact such a law, then you have a government which is libertarian but not democratic.
I don’t figure to get much agreement, but, kinda, yeah. There were lots of things the government couldn’t do in 1864 that it can do today. Also some things the other way around. The Civil War was part of that.
I think the passage of the 14th Amendment really did make a meaningful change to our “form of government,” and especially the incorporation of the Amendments to apply to the states.
The passage of the 17th Amendment also changed our form of government. (I have talked to people who insist that the U.S. ceased to be a “Republic” at that point. I think they’re quite wrong, but the opinion is out there.)
If the changes in the ability of the Federal Government to legislate had come about without constitutional changes, I still think they are so profound as to be changes in the “form of government.”
(You might demand of me exactly what degree of change constitutes a change of form. I certainly can’t provide a strict delineation or discriminant.)
Little Nemo: one might argue that our system, today, is “libertarian but not democratic,” in that it takes a huge supermajority to amend the constitution, and thus some protections – the Fifth Amendment, for instance – are protected against being changed by the majority.
One view that is heard very rarely indeed is a cry for “pure democracy” and the unrestricted right of the majority to rule. I’ve never actually met anyone who favors that. (And, bloody hell, I’ve met the most amazing types of people! I know a couple of U.S. Monarchists! They want the U.S. to be ruled by a King, and not just a symbolic figurehead, but a real reigning King. I’ve met true anarchists. But I’ve never – till yet? – met an actual pure “majority rules” democrat.)
Well, I don’t know that we can do anything but agree to disagree about that. To me, the form of government is a Constitutional Republic with varying degrees of authority given to the Federal Government. It’s just a matter of degree. I would defer to experts in the field on that matter, and I’m not sure whether they would agree with me or you. But I’d be shocked if there was a broad consensus that you were right.
At any rate, what you call it is of little consequence relative to what it actually is. And like I said before, the exact crafting of how the government is structured might vary from country to country. What matters is the powers invested in it by the people.
I’d say the opposite. Under our system, a majority could do anything. A bare 51% might not be enough for big changes. But if enough people wanted to make Justin Beiber Emperor of America and give him absolute power, they could do so.
By contrast, my understanding is that some libertarians want to have certain laws just be impossible to be enacted by any means. They want a system where you couldn’t enact something like the 18th Amendment.
My understanding is that some left leaning poster on this MB want the same thing. As do some right-leaning posters. My understanding is that some <insert the name of any group> also want that.
Is this supposed to be some sort of meaningful statement?
But libertarians want to give the government that power. They give up the game on the first play. “No, really, you gotta promise! Don’t use your coercive power to grow and entwine yourself with business and make a clusterfuck that is a modern day mixed economy. No takesy backsy!”
Just my take, and the impression you’re giving. By defending faulty premises instead of acknowledging their weakness, you appear to be more interested in scoring points rather than actual discussion or debate.
And for the record:
That’s only a single question, not question(s). Even still it relies on your assumptions which are fine to start with (like a libertarian will pick property rights over all other examples), but when told repeatedly your assumptions are in error without any acknowledgement and doubling down on those errors, you appear disingenuous.
This isn’t as clever as you think it is.
Extending the thought that John offered, The libertarian ideal would entail at a minimum changes to the constitution (in the US).
It’s important to remember that the ideal libertarian government is just that, an ideal. Over time a government or system may change and occupy different places in the spectrum of libertarianism or authoritarianism. Laws and constitutions can change and there is no magic point that one ideal ceases and another takes hold. There are ideas consistent with libertarian ideals that can be implemented. These can also be modified over time. The libertarian ideal doesn’t require a static form of government.
If the ideal libertarian government existed, there is nothing inherent in the ideal that says it must stay a certain way. If or when laws change to move away from that ideal, it would be through the prescribed process. At the end of such process, it could be the government in place is further away from the libertarian ideal than it was previously. In that case it would still be the government chosen, just one that is less libertarian, less free. Theoretically if we were in the libertarian ideal, this would not happen, but just as Bieber could be our emperor, so could this come to pass.
A different way of starting this thread could have inquired in what ways to constitution should or could be modified to move closer to the libertarian ideal. It could have targeted specific circumstances and posited how things would be different in the libertarian ideal, and discuss the positives and negatives of that change. You see how that’s different than stating as fact that libertarians will pick property rights over voluntary association, political freedom, and individual liberty?
I think it’s the key difference. As I noted, our system is fundamentally democratic - nothing is beyond change by a majority vote. So making some principles fundamental law - law which cannot be changed by democratic means - is essentially the equivalent of a revolution. You would need a Constitutional convention at minimum to accomplish this.
Offhand, I can see two means by which you could do this. One would be to rewrite the Constitution and insert text that basically says: “The following proposals may not be enacted as potential amendments.” And then define what was unacceptable. Obviously, a lot would depend on the text here.
The other means would be to Constitutionally establish a new branch of the government - let’s call it the Council. This Council would have the power to veto any law, executive order, or decision made by the other three branches and thereby prevent the government from taking any non-libertarian actions (it might also have the power to veto state acts as well, depending on your views). Once again, the devil is obviously in the details. How would the membership of this Council be chosen?
I’ll admit I’ve pretty much lost my patience with you in this thread. I keep trying to bring the discussion back on topic but you seem obsessed with debating what you imagine are my motives rather than discussing libertarianism.
On that topic, all you’ve said basically comes down to “libertarianism is libertarianism” without explaining what it is - and then complaining that anyone who doesn’t agree with this is wrong.
I’m not a libertarian. I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian. So why do you keep insisting I’m somehow obligated to agree with libertarianism? You’re free to present your views on libertarianism. And I’m free to post mine - even if those views are negative. You’re just going to have to learn how to discuss a subject with people who disagree with you on that subject. Or not - I really don’t care at this point.
A libertarian government would require a libertarian electorate. If the people don’t want a libertarian government, they’ll elect a new one that isn’t. Banning abortion would be an indicator that the electorate wasn’t libertarian.
Democratic socialism is no different, the people are free to elect a government that will privatize industries and programs, and stop being socialist.
A key difference in what way? Do you honestly believe that this is something unique to Libertarians? Every group has people who profess to want democracy, but who advocate undemocratic actions. The fact that “some libertarians” do this tells us nothing about Libertarians other than that it is a group consisting of human beings. But I assume most of us already know that.
If I told you I vote only for Republican because some Democrats have taken bribes and refuse to vote for a party that has people who have taken bribes, what would your response be?
Do you believe that our current government in the US has unlimited power? If not, then what limits it and why couldn’t it be limited more? For instance, take away the Commerce Clause, and dozens of laws become invalid. (Whether that is a net good or not is another debate.)
I see a difference between the questions of “What would a libertarian government be like?” and “What laws would libertarians like to enact?”
To me, the first question is a discussion about what libertarianism is. The second question is just a collection of topics like legalizing marijuana or eliminating income tax which are not specifically libertarian.
I agree you could have the same question about other political systems, like communism or anarchism for example. But this thread is about libertarianism.
OK, so you brought up the undemocratic tendencies of “some” libertarians for the purpose of… showing everyone that libertarians are just like everyone else?
At any rate, you’ve been shown that a Libertarian government could be many different things, and that it could be structured exactly like the one in the US right now, except with more limited authority than it currently has (ie, no Commerce Clause). Do you accept that?
Just playing devil’s advocate here. I’m not a Libertarian. However:
That’s not what it says. It says, “No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.” That’s a very different thing. Parties may respond to force by using force.
With Libertarians in control, there would never have been a Bell monopoly in the first place. Of course, that means we probably wouldn’t have had much phone service for many decades after we did.
People often forget that the most common type of monopoly is a government granted one. Monopolies in the open market are very rare, and usually short-lived. The oft-cited Standard Oil example is a good case study. It was already in significant decline in terms of market share by the time the government stepped in to break it up. It’s very difficult to maintain a monopoly without the aid of a government, as people can usually find alternatives (unless it is illegal to do so).