Not sure what you mean. I happen to agree with what Smartass says directly above. You seem to be the only one in the thread who isn’t getting the concept that we cannot ALL have absolute freedom at the same time, because our absolute freedoms would conflict with each other.
Of course I DO disagree with Smartass about guns, but then that just reinforces my point that people will always disagree on the exact degree to which society should regulate our activities. I don’t believe that one necessarily has to eliminate ALL threats of harm before one can eliminate ANY threats, as Smartass suggests. In Smartass’ society, we ostensibly could not regulate ANY weapon ownership unless we also eliminated ALL fear from the society. This would lead to the absurd conclusion that we must either allow ownership of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons by private citizens, or eliminate all fear. Surely that wouldn’t be the case in a utopian Libertarian society?
But again, you WOULDN’T be defining your philosophy as “freedom to murder”; you would be including as part of your philosophy that you are not allowed to murder. You can’t just pretend that murder doesn’t exist as a concept.
All you’re doing here is perverting ideas by wording them in the strangest way possible. I think what you’re missing is that “absolute freedom” is something we CAN’T have, whereas you are treating it as something that you think ought to exist. You want to say that if it ought not to exist, then it shouldn’t even have a name. That’s not true. We can acknowledge that an idea exists AND say that that idea isn’t included in our concept of what a society ought to be.
The problem is, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to do whatever you want, AND have everyone else do whatever they want, AND pretend that there will never be any conflicts between the two. You want to define those conflicts out of existence. That can’t be done.
Right. That’s precisely my point. There has to be some sort of tradoff between what I am allowed to do and what you are allowed to do, so long as we both live on the same planet. And at some point, someone must decide where the tradoff occurs. It’s not written on stone tablets. To believe otherwise is to ignore human nature and the natural laws of the universe.
I don’t see how you can say that. By necessity, the society must enforce that “social contract” as you call it. An individual member of the society cannot opt out of the contract. It doesn’t matter what you call it, the fact is that, by necessity, you are not allowed to do certain things that you might otherwise want to do. You can call it a “social contract” instead of “impingement of freedom”, but it still adds up to “you don’t get to do anything you want if you live in a society.” You can’t get rid of a concept just by re-naming it.
The reason I am saying this is that there are fundamental differences between some things “I might want to do” and other things I might want to do. The problem is that when you lump all possible actions together and call them potential freedoms, you get a moral equivilancy which is not appropriate.
In some theoretical sense I might one day want to murder someone. But there is a fundamental difference between such a theoretical want and the desire to keep the property I create by my labor. Under your formulation preventing me from murder is simply a social whim and is not different in kind from taking my property. Since I have to give up some freedoms to be a member of society why not give up more if society wants.
The point I’ve been trying to make to you is that not getting “to do anything * want” is not the same thing as a restriction on my freedoms. I might want to become god, a whale, or even a kangaroo, for instance. Just because I cannot accomplish these wants does not mean my freedoms are limited in any sense of the word freedom. Similarly, there may be a sense of the word freedom ( a societal or political sense, for instance) for which some other wants may be denied without actually restricting freedom. In such a case denying my freedom to murder may be fundamentally different from taking my property.
I did no such thing. Please quote where I said all actions are morally equivalent.
It’s very easy to make it seem cut and dried when you self-select extreme examples. But not all actions differ by extremes. You already admitted that shouting in your ear with a bullhorn to the extent that it causes physical injury constitutes assault. But there is also a level of sound somewhere above zero that does not constitute assault. Are you contending that there is a qualitative difference (a “fundamental” difference, as you call it) between these 2 levels of sound? That there exists a decibel level of sound that is undisputably “immoral”, but which ONE DECIBEL less would not be immoral? And that each and every citizen in your utopian society would exactly agree on this “fundamental” difference?
Nonsense. I said no such thing.
This argument about doing things that are impossible made no sense the first several times you posted it, and it still makes no sense. We aren’t discussing impossible things; we are discussing possible things. The reason I can’t murder has nothing whatsover to do with the reason I can’t be a kangaroo. Why do you keep insisting on bringing up this red herring?
Certainly. If you will quote where I said that you said such a thing. I never did.
Let me answer this as simply as possible. Yes. There is a fundemental difference between one sound which does not harm the listener and another which does. Can you not see this fundamental difference? I agree that you may not be able to measure it on the decible scale. Other things like proximity and insulation come into play. But by measuring the effect you can establish a fundamental difference between shouting something over a loud speaker generally and doing so right next to a random stranger’s ear. Do you really not see this?
Fine, then explain the fundamental difference between a prohibition against murder and the taking of property by a society.
Because you continue to fail to understand the principle I am trying to hint at. There are reasons that some actions do not legitimately fall under the rubric of “freedom”. Even “absolute freedom”. I am hinting that such reasons are entirely dependant on the context of the discussion. If we are talking metaphysically, we could indeed formulate a definition of freedom which say the limitations of reality as impingements on our freedom. However, when we return to the context of “possible things” these other ‘freedoms’ simply fall out of the picture. I understand entirely that the reason murder is prohibited is entirely different from the reason that becoming a kangaroo are different. I am only suggesting that the reason they are different is due to different contexts.
You are the one who continually says that absolute freedom must include the freedom to “do anything one wants”. I am simply trying to get you to understand that this is a limited understanding of “freedom”.
Quote where I said you said I said that. Gee, that was fun, and pointless.
The difference is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. Hence, it is not fundamental.
Do you really not see that reasonable people might disagree on exactly where the line is drawn?
No. YOU’RE the one who made the point. YOU explain it. You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, or false dilemna. You are contending that either I must agree with you entirely, OR “preventing me from murder is simply a social whim”. Unfortunately for you, those are not the only 2 choices.
I would characterize it more as YOUR failure to elucidate.
But the reasons in the examples you gave have NOTHING TO DO with the reasons in the examples we are actually discussing. And I’ve explained that to you several times. Yet you keep using the faulty examples.
That makes no sense.
You STILL misunderstand. I don’t say it “must include” it, I say it is the definition of it. Are you being obtuse on purpose now? I said we CAN’T have absolute freedom, not that we MUST have absolute freedom. Why don’t you understand the difference between defining something and advocating that thing? How else can I explain it to you?
How Orwellian of you. You’re saying that the definition that is more inclusive is “limited”. No, in fact, YOUR definition is more limited than mine. You only include in the definition of “personal freedom” those things which don’t conflict with other people’s freedom. That’s a laudable goal for a society, but it’s not a definition of freedom. It’s like saying the definition of “student” is “only those students who behave well and get As.”
[QUOTE=blowero]
Quote where I said you said I said that. Gee, that was fun, and pointless.
I suppose, but I tend to see 0 harm in one case and significant harm in the second case as more of a fundamental qualitative difference. I suppose if you see all cases of actions which have 0 impact on others as merely quantitatively different from those actions which have significant impact on others that’s ok.
Of course. But you seem to be arguing that no line exists.
I have been explaining it. You keep saying that impinging on some freedom to murder is the same sort of thing qualitatively as the sort of impingement of freedom involved in property taking. In the last post you seemed to suggest that they are not. Ok, I’m up for understanding your position better. Explain to me how preventing people from murdering each other is an impingement on freedom imposed by society (not as a necessary condition of the context of political or societal philosophy), but not merely a whim of society.
That’s fair. I’ll cop to that.
And, again, I agree with you. The reasons have nothing to do with each other. It doees not change the principle that freedom can be defined and used in different contexts to mean substantially different things.
Allow me to elucidate again.
I am trying to suggest that physical reality places limits on the meaning of the word freedom. Specifically that limitations on “whatever one wants” do not constitute impingements on ones freedom if in the action in question is not included in the context of physical reality.
I am also suggesting that social or political philosophy adds another context which we have to consider when deciding whether or not limitations on “whatever one wants” constitute impingements on one’s freedom.
Really that’s it. We can debate whether or not a freedom to murder should be part of or not either context. As you said, and I agreed, people will draw these lines differently. All I am trying to say is that limiting “whatever one wants” in the context of political philosophy may not constitute impingements on personal freedom. There is some complexity in the concept. You have to hold different contexts in your head and see principles that apply to each. But the bottom line is that the context in which one is discussing freedom may alter slightly the types of actions which cannot be legitimately considered applicable.
I am not misunderstanding you. I am talking about your interpretation of the definition of freedom in all of those statements you quoted. You keep saying that absolute freedom is akin to freedom to do “anything one wants”. I am trying to explain to you that various contexts alter this. You ahve agreed that physical reality imposes limitatiions wherein some possible “anything one wants” are denied without violating absolute freedom. I am simply suggesting that the social or political context does a similar thing. Not, again, an identical thing, but a similar one.
No, I am trying to get you to understand that the same term used in different contexts will have slightly different meanings. I am trying to expand our useage of the word to other contexts. You are denying that this is possible. That is the way I suggested your understanding might be limited.
No, but it is like saying that the definition of student is “only those children who show up to class”. Analogically, your definition of student would include all children of the appropriate age. And as without discussion in a certain context you would be right. But in others you would not.
Again, you are choosing extreme examples, and pretending that no grey area exists between the extremes. I’ll give you yet another example. Let’s say Neighbor A points a loudspeaker at your house and plays extremely loud music all night, which doesn’t cause physical damage to your hearing, but keeps you awake all night and causes you to fall asleep at your job the next day, resulting in your being fired and losing your means of support. Would that be allowed in your society? But let’s say Neighbor B plays his stereo kind of loud, but if you put in some earplugs, you could probably still sleep. Is that allowed? And let’s say Neighbor C plays his stereo not loud at all, where you can barely hear it. Can you not see that there are an INFINITE number of degrees of possible harm that can be done to you? It is not on vs. off, yes vs. no, all vs. none, black vs. white, or no impact vs. significant impact. It is a matter of degree.
Nope. I’m saying that the line is not SET IN STONE.
I said no such thing; that’s another bastardization of my point.
I’ve explained my position many times. I can’t explain it in those terms, because your terms are non-sensical to me. A “whim” is a “sudden, capricious, or arbitrary notion or impluse”. Prohibiting murder quite obviously does not fit that definition. As for being “a necessary condition of the context of political or societal philosophy”, I don’t know what that means. It just sounds like you strung a bunch of big words together. I really don’t know what a “condition of a context” is supposed to mean.
The point was made earlier, but I can’t find it now, that being “free” to do something is not the same as being “able” to do something. I believe the example given was that a blind man is free to watch television, but he is not able to do so. So no, being unable to do something does not necessarily mean your are not “free” to do that thing. You’re simply mixing 2 unrelated ideas.
Again, you are confusing the definition with the philosophy. I define assault as “the threat of physical force”, but my philosophy includes the notion that I should not assault others. I do not have to change the definition in order to believe it to be the wrong thing to do.
This doesn’t make sense to me. The word “context” doesn’t seem to belong in that sentence. We are NOT DEBATING whether prohibiting murder should be a part of our political philosophy. We already agree that it should.
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. “Not being a kangaroo” alters nothing. You’re just being silly now.
I admit that I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I question whether the limitation is mine.
No, that wasn’t what I was saying at all. That would be a reasonable definition of “student”.
Huh?
Look, I’m going to explain this one more time, in very, very simple language. When you live in a society, you cannot necessarily do whatever you want, because there are some things you might want to do that would infringe on other people’s freedom. “Context” does not change this very, very simple fact.
One’s political philosophy will determine WHICH THINGS SOCIETY KEEPS YOU FROM DOING AND THE MEANS USED TO KEEP YOU FROM DOING THEM, but your political philosophy does not change the facts in the above paragraph.
You can name this whatever you like; it’s still true.
Well, then we can agree. I have never said that such a thing is set in stone. I am merely claiming that the line denotes a qualitative difference. Where exactly the line should belong is clearly up for debate.
Ok, don’t explain it in those terms. Explain it in some other terms which shows that the prohibition against murder is somehow different in kind from the taking of property. I’m really up for learning here.
Well, this is the position I have been arguing from for some time. My only point is that this prohibition against impinging on the freedom of others is not an impingement on my freedoms. At least not in the context of living in the society.
I limited this to these couple points. If you really need me to anser any of your other questions please point them out.
That doesn’t make any sense. You are either free to do a thing, or you are not. That fact is not changed only because you use certain philosophical buzzwords.
That was YOUR point. YOU are the one saying there are qualitative differences between all actions such that certain actions can always universally be called “freedoms”, while others can always universally be called “not freedoms”. YOU explain it.
Ok, fair enough. So you are back to saying that there is no qualitative difference between prohibitioins agains murder and other societal prohibitions. Why then is the prohibition agains murder not a whim? You seem to believe that it does not qualify for some reason. Can you explain that reason to me?
Now which one of us is claiming a binary value for these things? Freedom has different contexts. One can be physically free to do a thing (murder, for instance) but not morally free to do it. Are you saying that these two types of freedom are equivilant?
Let me put it this way. In the physical sense, society does not really make anyone “unfree” to commit murder. They simply impose sanctions if you do. In this strict usage of the idea of freedom, we are, in fact free to murder. But this strict usage, this limited context is not the appropriate context for our discussion. As members of a society we are not free to commit murder and remain members. Membership in society provides a context which alters slightly the meaning of the idea of freedom.
I tell you what. We’ve gone round and roung on this enough. I’ll give you that last word if you want it.
It depends on what you mean by “society”. If you mean “people who hang out together”, then you are right that this is not a good description. If you mean “people who are under the rule of the same government”, then this is exactly what society is. You are not going to be successful in redefining “freedom” in such a way that everyone can have it in an absolute way. And you’re not going to make any progress whatsoever debating non-libertarians because they will simply tie you in knots for trying to redefine words.
You need to take a closer look at where the disagreement really lies: The importance of freedom for individuals. Libertarians believe that we are all equally entitled to it, which means that restrictions on freedom are bad. As long as you can’t carry the argument any further, they can hold up to you the hypocrisy of claiming that freedom is the most important thing and saying that murder isn’t allowed. The key libertarian thought is in the equality of every individual in their right to freedom. Since we see freedom as the most important “asset” that a person can have in fulfilling themselves as humans, we want every human to have the most possible. Libertarian philosophy is not built on a misguided notion that everyone can have absolute freedom; it is built on imposing as few limitations on every person as are necessary in order to provide every person with as much freedom as possible, with no one person getting more or less.
That is very naive and idealistic of you. Nonetheless, a Russian czar was, in fact, free to commit murder. At this very moment, Vladimir Putin is free to imprison people that have committed no apparent crime. Absolute freedom for all means anarchy. What you are trying to do is redefine “freedom” in such a way that it has a built-in morality. I am begging you not to do this. Once you start defining freedom as “naturally” constraining you from murder (primarily because murder is bad), you are opening the door for someone else to tack on a freedom that naturally constrains people from skipping Church or becoming a Buddhist (because that is bad in their moral systems).
We don’t want to redefine freedom. We want to convince everyone that freedom is so important that it should be equally available to every human in society–even the selfish, unChristian ones.
Not if you understand what it is you’re arguing for. It is okay to admit that libertarians support some restriction of individual freedom. We do. That does not mean that we are devaluing freedom; it means that we value freedom and human dignity so highly that we want everyone to have a lot of it.
Before you do any more of this debating of freedom, I highly recommend you give it a close read, or at least the last 4 or 5 “rounds”. Some of the best thinking I’ve done in years is in there.
No, libertarians want to equally entitle everyone with the right to own property. It is the right that is equally distributed, not the property. There’s no fair way to distribute goods and services since each person values each item differently.
Only if you are under the misunderstanding that everyone must have absolute freedom in a libertarian society. Trust me, this is not the “war” we are fighting. The key issue is saying that we do draw a line and that there is a reason that we draw it.
Well, no. There is no sense in being absolutely free and not being free to murder. The problem is that you cannot distribute “absolute” freedom to everyone equally.
This isn’t something that rests on opinion. It is a simple fact that if I take a breath of air into my lungs and suck most of the oxygen out of it, you cannot breathe in that air and have that oxygen. Of all the breaths of air available in the world, there is now one less available to you. Your confusion is about the “value” of that breath of air. There are so many breaths of air around that you don’t “miss” the breath that I just took. You aren’t meaningfully aware of the scarcity. On the other hand, if there is only one woman in the world that you love and I marry her, you are acutely aware of the scarcity of women you love and the opportunity that doesn’t exist for you any more.
Nope. It just assumes that there is not an infinite supply of potatoes. There are, however, enough of them that you probably don’t care about that particular one. All this means is that the potato in question is not all that valuable to you.
And without a concept of individual ownership, it makes no difference what I did for the potato. Clairobscur would be quick to point out to you that “society” enabled me to grow the potato and helped me protect it from being trampled before it could grow. The right of individuals to own property is intended to “create” the kind of fairness to which you are alluding.
You can make this kind of statement to another libertarian, and they will probably have no quibble with it. But when you are talking to nonlibertarians, they may have a number of objections to it (once again, check out the inalienable rights thread to get a taste of them).
No it is not, but it employs an assumption that not everyone on this board shares: That I have the right to “own” a potato. In fact, granting individuals the right to own property is a very specific curtailing of everyone’s liberty designed to keep personal liberty at a maximum.
To phrase it this way is to misrepresent the argument. It is a limitation on your freedom to swing a knife in the space that I am occupying.
Sure it is. However, they are treated differently if you accept the “natural rights” that are at the core of libertarian thought. Again, you can have this kind of discussion with me, but not with non-libertarians. They don’t accept the natural rights of individuals and won’t let you make assumptions about what the “natural” limitations on freedom are.
It’s understandable. You’re trying to come to terms with what libertarianism is about. I think that you are one of the people who find the tenets of libertarianism to be intuitive (so am I), which makes it extremely disconcerting to try to debate someone who does not. Believe me, I have been round and round in the same circles you are running many times. I’m trying to save you some time, effort, and unnecessary pain. Maybe you can benefit to the thought I’ve put into these arguments and leapfrog me to something even more convincing.
You’re right around the core of it, particularly the part about “political will”. If you can muster enough political will, you can re-enact slavery, or re-start the Jewish holocaust. Would only take an amendment or two.
I think we all acknowledge that there is no way to reach total consensus. At some level or other, there has to be a line drawn, and on one side of that line are the ways in which society will keep you from pursuing personal fulfillment as you please. The key to the libertarian position is in our belief that no one person or group (regardless of political will) has any better access to The Right Way To Live than any other. As a result, we want to draw the line in such a way that enforces a very small amount of consensus, so that all people have as much freedom as possible.
I agree. And this is one of the reasons that I see no need to use the blunt force of government to tackle this issue.
See, here is where we really diverge. In present times, you are correct that there will be legislation, because you, like so many others, seem to think that legislation is the only way to address this problem other than “private charity”. This simply isn’t true. What also isn’t true is that legislation solves the problem that it is directed at. If it did, there would no longer be a problem, now would there?
Just as a mental exercise, try for a few minutes to stop thinking of “private charity” and “legislation” as the only two approaches to dealing with poverty. Better yet, imagine that it was unconstitutional to use legislation to attack the problem–even though a large majority of people want it solved. Try to imagine things that might happen as a result.
To my way of thinking, this is exactly untrue. For example, when you pass a law that entitles nonworking mothers to money, you are sending the market message that the government has a demand for nonworking mothers and is willing to pay for them. And anyone who understands markets understands that there will always be supply if the demand involves big enough sums of money. The outcome? More nonworking mothers than you had before, meaning you just spent a lot of someone else’s money in order to make a problem worse.
I would say that it is social welfare that is “morals” based at the expense of freedom AND outcomes.
I don’t know of anyone who claims it is the libertarian ideal, but it’s the closest the world has probably seen. The problem is that the constitution cannot defend itself and, over time, the majority (and/or its elected representatives) uses its power to undermine the limits on government that were laid out in the constitution. A fine example of this is the way the federal government has used the “interstate commerce” clause to basically usurp power over every business activity in the country–and no one could seriously believe that was the founders’ intent. This is a case of the majority deciding they know better than the founders. One of the fine results is the Supreme Court case being heard right now about the federal government’s insistence on its power to arrest marijana growers and users in California, in complete defiance of state law that specifically grants permission for certain users.
It’s possible that you see this corruption of the constitutional limits of federal power as a good thing. I, for one, do not.
Smartass, I appreciate your thoughts on this. I’ve read some of your other postings, and you have always seemed to represent the more reasonable, ‘reality-based’ version of libertarianism. That said, we need to agree to disagree, because we are approaching the issue with some very different assumptions.
I assume 2 things, really, in regards to libertarianism. Bear in mind that I consider myself an old-school liberal, maybe bordering on European socialist.
there is a fundamental disconnect between what people want ‘society’ to do and what they are willing to personally contribute. I think there are a lot of things that we can probably agree that are good outcomes for society as a whole- a healthy, well fed population, educated to at least literacy, where there are no unreasonable barriers to enter the workforce and apply their talents. Now, the question is how to do it. I submit that while there might be private interest in creating these things, private interest is not a)consistent, b)widespread, and c)value neutral (i.e. free from religious/ideological strings) enough to do an adequate job in any society of scale (beyond commune size). I also question long term viability of most privately-run projects of this nature, because I see no reason why they would have a lower failure rate than other private ventures. no one may lament the demise of the local falafel shop, but the local library? local school? Some things are too vital to society to be left up to the whims of private interest. To have a society of any size, we must have institutions that people can rely on. They don’t have to be the best the market can produce, but they do need to be reasonably consistent.
government is neither sinner nor saint. It is only as good as the citizenry underwriting it. There are things it is good for, and things it is not- but I do think that providing a safety net for the poor is one of those things that is it good at, if only because the alternatives don’t meet the criteria I set forth in assumption 1. However, it appears to me (and I am certainly willing to revisit it) that libertarians view government as the problem in pretty much every case. With this philosophy, government becomes a convenient scapegoat for pretty much anything, including the failure of libertarian ideas in practice, or the reluctance of people to embrace libertarian thought.
Now, I am certainly up for reforming all sorts of spending programs, but wanting to streamline government is a certainly different goal than minimizing it. While we all want government to restrain itself to those things it is good at, I think that there are much more things in this set than you do.
Fair enough. I’ll make a few comments, in case you want to dig deeper into these disagreements (the thread seems to be dying, anyway).
Actually, this statement is not very different from the what I would say, although I definitely see it from a different angle than you do. There has always been something a little ignoble to me about liberal pursuit of the common good. When I am personally contributing to a charity, I am saying, “Here is something I feel so strongly about that I am willing to pay money to achieve it.” When someone votes to create a social welfare system, they are saying, “Here is something I feel so strongly about that I am willing to spend everyone else’s money to achieve it.”
In fact, the list goes on and on. I’m sure we could fill several pages up with things that we think are good outcomes for society. And the more people we invite, the more pages we can fill. But let’s face it, not all are achievable, and certainly not all at the same time. The real question is, which are the most important? Health care? Food for the hungry? Cure for cancer? Teaching children math? Teaching children good values? Chances are excellent that you would rank these various things somewhat differently than I would. Which one of us is right? What does right mean, anyway? Once we start pursuing these various outcomes by way of government programs, there will be an imposed “ranking” on the value of each of these goals, and it may closely match your ranking, but I know from experience that it won’t closely match mine.
And where will we draw the line? Is there a set that we know to be the most important? I’m sure you would argue that food and “basic healthcare” are the most critical. At the same time, there are a large number of people in the US who think there is nothing more important than teaching good “values” to all of our children, which requires constant acknowledgement of God and prevention of a number of activities from being allowed anywhere at any time–including, oddly enough, gay marriage. I think that liberals and conservatives all assume that there are certain “outcomes” that are the most important for society, and that they know what they are.
Actually, there are two aspects of this that are really bothersome to me: One is this imposition of “values” on everyone, the presumption of knowing moral “rightness”, whether is it based on humanist ideas of helping the needy or Christian notions of family values. The other thing is the abdication of personal responsibility. You are saying, in effect, that these things are so important that it is the government’s responsibility to address them, which leads to a general attitude that some things are the government’s problem, not mine. Examples of the attitude I am talking about: I think that everyone should help the poor, and that’s why we have a government to take care of this; I don’t have to personally do anything at all. OR I’ve got a risky idea for how to make a living, but I don’t have to worry if I’m a failure at it; after all, the government is here to make sure that I don’t pay too much of a price for bad decisions.
This is a surprising complaint. I would say that this would be all the more reason not to put all your eggs in one basket. When private interests try to achieve something and do a lousy job, they are pushed aside by someone who can do better. When government does a lousy job, it just keeps on doing more of it.
Exactly what is the difference between “society” and “private interest” in your mind? Private interest is one of us or a group of us. Society is all of us. So, you are saying that somethings are too important to us for us to be trusted to realize it? In other words, I don’t know what’s best for me? Or, more likely, are you saying that some things are too vital to a group of us for the rest of us to not be allowed to participate?
What are your standards for “good at”? Am I missing the signs of success that are all around me? Like the people who are being educated out of poor neighborhoods? Or the undeducated adults who are learning valuable skills? The revitalization of the lower class?
If you think that libertarians are looking for scapegoats, then you have misunderstood libertarianism. We believe that liberals make government responsible for achieving their personal goals and use it as a way to shirk personal moral responsibilities.
I’m not sure what failures you are speaking of. From what I’ve seen, people tend to achieve whatever is most important to them, when they are free to try as they might. I can point to a whole lot of market successes and a whole lot of government failures. I can’t point to very many government successes–hardly any, if we ignore military victories. As for the reluctance of people to embrace libertarian thought, I’m not sure that I would say this was caused by government. Certainly, pandering politicians play a big part in this. The tendency of the both the liberal and conservative media to dismiss libertarians as moonbats has an effect as well.
