Another moment of your time, Libertarian (plus: musings on Libertopia)

The BBQ Pit
1

Lib, over in this thread you wrote regarding minty’s inquiry:**

You’re clearly referring to me. Which requires me to ask: WTF?

In the thread you reference, I was asking how a purely Libertarian society would react to a given fact pattern. IMO, that’s a good way to examine the nuances of a given philosophy.

And while my naked man question (admittedly, partially chosen so I could work in some bad puns) may have been lighthearted, I hardly think it represents obliviousness. It raises good questions: are there literally no public spaces in Libertopia? How does that work, exactly? Do you, absent a contractual relationship and outside of refraining from physical harm to property, owe any duties to your neighbors? What if I play my stereo cranked to 11 at 2:00 a.m.? Am I free from reprisal so long as I’m within my own house? Or can my fellow contractees stop me (assuming we don’t have any preexisting agreement on this matter)? What if it’s 2:00 p.m.? What if I am a contracting party to a different (and more music-friendly) government than my neighbors?

At any rate, I hardly think my posts indicate “obliviousness.” Disagreement over fundamental axioms does not equal obliviousness.

I also frankly don’t see the connection between your “frustration” over our discussion and your comment in minty’s thread that “If you’re not a lawyer, judge, or legislator, your opinion about the Constitution is worthless. It’s a private club.” I don’t think I (or other posters sharing my view) expressed anything of the sort. Indeed, I explicity stated that recognition of rights at law was but one way of generating rights.

Anyway, there were some good questions in that thread that I’d still like to hear answers to. Such as this:**

Or this refinement of one of my points by Stricker:**

And I’m also curious as to whether a government can turn away a party who wishes to contract with it if, say, they cannot pay what the government is charging. In Libertopia, can one wealthy neighbor hire a top-of-the-line government, providing the very best in police and fire protection, while his poorer next-door neighbor has to buy bargain-basement government services?

In the other thread, we had briefly discussed Jews in Nazi Germany. You suggested that the Jews might become contracting parties to Libertopia, and if they did so Libertopia would come to their aid. But what if they can’t afford it? Will Libertopia take them on a pro bono basis? Who decides this? Wouldn’t that be a massive subsidy?

Lib, I respect your views. I don’t think you are a “wild man who lives in the wilderness on locusts and honey” with “eyes bulging, arms flailing, blow[ing out] snot and spout[ing] doomsday rhetoric.” And while I may find Libertopia “impractical” I hardly think that is “condescending” – one needn’t accept the workability of a pure libertarian state to recognize the contributions libertarian thought makes to political discourse. Even if such a pure state is unworkable, it can give us a framework to examine problems and generate solutions in real life.

2

I am always delighted to discuss my views and hear the views of others when those others are genuinely interested and the discussion occurs in a context of mutual respect. But you and I have a ways to go before that can occur. I intend to put your sincerity to the test, and you may take this as an opportunity to mend our relationship or you may trash it as you please.

First off, don’t be coy with me.

You say you respect my views, but that is hard to believe. In the cited thread, you said in your very first post:

You can understand how “bleating” might be associated with an animal more than a man, and how it could be interpreted that my views about natural rights are not respectable.

And then immediately this:

You can see how I might take the image of me “ranting” to mean that I am wild and rhetorically flailing about.

And soon thereafter, this:

You can understand that it appears to me that you are not seriously discussing, but are playing to the crowd, and have selected Libertopia as an intentionally pejorative term.

And then this:

Sad indeed. Because of your presumption about so-called public spaces, you painted me as evasive. And things went downhill fast from there.

So, yes, I felt very much a general condescension, disrespect, and disdain for me and my philosophy.

I’m not a fool, Dewey. If your intention is to rationalize away all those remarks by recontextualizing them, please spare both you and me the time and bother because this conversation will stop dead in its tracks.

But if you’re prepared to take responsibility for getting us off on the wrong foot and offer a sincere and unqualified apology, then I am willing to put the matter behind me, forgive you unconditionally, and renew what you might find to be an interesting discussion about Liberteria. I have many years of research and analysis in this.

Your call.

3

Ok, I’m going to ask a dumb question here, but I’m sincerly curious. What’s wrong with the word “Libertopia” to as the name for our hypothetical libertarian country? Why is it worse than “Liberteria”? I mean, you’ve got Thomas More’s book about his hypothetical country, “Utopia” (and the whole genre of books about fictional, better countries, is called “Utopian literature”), you’ve got that book about the island where dinosaurs live with people, “Dinotopia”, and so on. So, why not Libertopia?

4

Since you ask sincerely, I’ll answer that way. A “utopia” originally was intended to imply “An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects”. That’s definition number one in American Heritage.

Unfortunately, it has come more and more to mean “An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform”. That’s definition number two.

And it’s usually the second definition that is intended by people who are using it in a context wherein they believe their opponent to be bleating and ranting.

5

Lib, you have a point about there being potential for civil debate, but you are taking offense a bit too easily here. That bleating comment may have been intended to evoke certain feelings, but it wasn’t specifically directed at you, nor the OP. It was just a comment. Same goes for the original bit of running around naked absurdium.

Surely you must know that you are not the fulcrum of every discussion you enter.

And I like Libertopia. I know there is irony intended, but it is not offensive. It is merely a subtle way of stating a point.

6

“Libertaria” reminds me of Liberty City from Grand Theft Auto.

7

What point?

I take offense at the notion that I am some intellectual cripple who does not know that the philosophy he advocates is impractical. Practice. Practical. What you practice determines what is practical.

And I might be a bit sensitive. But that’s me. I’m not selling anything. Nor do I think I am the center of every circle jerk. If I’m worth yielding a bit of leeway, then fine. If not, then fine.

8

I know this is probably not in the spirit of the Pit, but I am genuinely curious what your stance on this issue, the “bleating” characterization aside, is. As I’ve indicated in a couple of other threads in the past few weeks, I haven’t been around here much the past couple years until recently, so I apologize if you’ve outlined your position on this somewhere else.

I frankly will admit that I don’t really know that much about the Libertarian philosophy, but I’ve seen several of your posts now on various “legal” type threads, and I’ve been wondering the same general thing that the above quote asks. Without a mechanism, such as the law and courts, etc., to make sure that our rights can be enjoyed without penalty, how do we, from your philosophical standpoint, give meaning to those rights?

Standard, non-Pit type, legalese disclaimer: I honestly intend nothing anywhere in this post to be offensive to anyone, but rather seek an honest answer to an honest question.

… if you have set this forth somewhere else, just pointing me in the right direction would be great. Then this thread could return to the fiery nature of the Pit, I suppose.

9

Realhoops wrote:

It should never have been assumed that there is no mechanism. The government of Libertaria has an enforcement aspect and an arbitration aspect, but there is no legislation. There is a single law (or statue), stating that every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.

For your convenience, here is a brief introduction to the libertarian philosophy.

10

The very point you just took the trouble to look up. Libertopia conveys the idea that the concept is well intentioned but impractical. It’s an opinion, however, not a statement of fact, and certainly not an insult. If you feel it would be improper to use the term yourself in any reply, simply don’t use it.

A little leeway? Sure, I don’t see why not, so long as you allow for the same. However, I hope none of us would be so bold as to ask for special handling.

11

I don’t think that courtesy and respect ought to be withheld as “special”. And dammit, libertarianism IS practical — UNLESS you are practicing tyranny.

12

Yikes! This attitude of ‘I won’t answer the question until you apologize’ seems, well… very childish.

It’s a legitimate question.

So, I’ll ask again, plus another quesiton later:

And my own very basic quesiton:

How does ownership of roads get parceled out?

13

  1. “Bleating” – read the thread. That was a response to the OP, not to you. Furthermore, you’re reading a wee bit much into that word. I was using language to make a point: that words claiming that rights are innate are just that, words, without real-life substance. Using “bleat” helps emphasize this point more than if I had simply used “said.”

  2. “Rant” – In this case, I was trying to evoke an image of someone slightly off-kilter. But not you. Read the rest of the sentence – I was talking about someone claiming that he had an innate right to trot about starkers in public. That is a silly view, IMHO, but it has exactly as much empirical support as an “innate” right as those rights commonly called innate.

  3. “Three legs” – well, I did admit I wanted to use bad puns…

  4. “Libertopia” – is not an offensive characterization, as CA points out, and is an accurate shorthand for what we’re describing: an imaginary place where a given ideology holds sway in its purest form. It is the vision Thomas More would have had were he a libertarian.

  5. “public spaces” – re-read the thread. I was presuming that courthouses would still be run by the Libertarian government – in the same post where you castigate me for suggesting you were evasive, I asked you about this in good faith. And frankly, I still don’t see how this private justice system you envision would be workable. “Evasion” may have been a poor choice of words, but I still think it’s an issue you ought to address more fully.

You can consider the foregoing a “recontextualization” if you wish. I assure you that is not the case. And I’d like to believe that we can have a productive discussion without walking on eggshells. Certainly I’ve seen worse than the comments you single out in GD, much less the Pit, within a productive discussion.

At any rate, there are good questions here, both from myself and other posters, and I think it would be worthwhile if you would address them.

14

Lib,
I think the practicality of Libertarianism is one of the topics up for debate, no? What happened to courtesy and respect here? Certainly poisoning the well and accusing any dissenter of practicing tyranny is not evidence of such.

And no, of course I’m not suggesting respect be withheld as a special privilege, what I’m not willing to do is say, “Oh, insert poster name just flew off the handle again, but that’s OK. That’s just the way they are.” I don’t think you are any more willing to make such allowances than I am, are you?

15

Then why two years of evasions and cross-climbing every time a substantive (and blatantly obvious) objection comes up?

16

Dewey

You believe that I have asked you to walk on eggshells?

I’m afraid you and I have not made progress. As I have demonstrated in this thread (and indeed in my three year history here) I will discuss these matters with anyone who is genuinely interested.

If you and Waverly would like to continue to bash me in my absence, carry on.

17

Well, yeah, actually. If you’re gonna get upset at the use of words like “bleat” or “rant,” you’re asking me to engage in an extraordinary degree of care to avoid offending your sensibilities – sensibilities which I think are quite a bit more sensitive than the typical SDMB poster. It isn’t like I’m Collounsbury over here.

Frankly, I don’t terribly much like being called a supporter of tyranny when discussing libertarianism, but I don’t get upset about it. To quote Chris Rock, sometimes you’ve just gotta let shit slide. I’d ask that you do the same.**

Do you think the points I raised to be insubstantial? Why?

I raised reasonable questions in good faith. And I am genuinely interested in your answers. Please note “genuine interest” != I will swallow whatever you say without question. I can disagree with your philosophy while still taking an active interest in the arguments behind it.

18

Waverly: Libertopia conveys the idea that the concept is well intentioned but impractical. It’s an opinion, however, not a statement of fact, and certainly not an insult.

Certainly, people who use terms like “authoritarian” or worse, “tyranny” as allegedly neutral descriptors of non-libertarian ideas have no business getting touchy over “Libertopia” as an “intentionally pejorative term.” If Lib is so concerned about “courtesy and respect”, he should use more courteous and respectful terms for non-libertarian views.

19

It looks like Lib just flew off the handle, but that is OK, that is just the way he is.

Seriously, if there is a consensus that I treated Lib unfairly in this thread and deserved an accusation of “bashing” him, I’d be happy to email him a swift apology. I could be wrong, but I’m sitting here in amazement thinking I was nothing but civil.

20

raises hand

I’m genuinely interested.

I asked 2 questions.

Please answer them.

I’ve never met or talked to someone with beliefs such as your, so I’m very interested in how to get around what I see as practical problems with the implementation of libertarianism.