Wrong. Libertarian would no doubt want FEWER laws than is typical, but those laws which do exist would indeed be inforced. A libertarian government would consider coercive acts to be illegal. Killing someone, hitting someone, slashing someone’s tires, or hitting striking workers with a baseball bat are all good examples. It would NOT be illegal, however, to hire someone to work for you for $.02 and hour.
That doesn’t even deserve comment.
I asked Sam for a cite as to Libertarians being for a “strong rule of law”. Yet, as you correctly point out, compared to every other political philosophy, save anarchy, Libertarians want fewer laws. This raises the question, “Strong rule of law relative to what?”
Well those things are illegal in Iraq. The laws just aren’t being enforced effectively. But are you saying that Libertarians are in favor of more law enforcement? I would say no. Libertarians consistently oppose taxation. How do you fund increased law enforcement without any money? You claim that you want the people to be protected from coercive acts from other citizens, yet when it comes down to it, I have never heard a Libertarian endorse anything other that a reduction in government action in these areas.
If your objection is simply to the use of the word “strong”, then I’ll let **Sam **explain what he meant. I don’t know of any political philosophy that espouses a “weak” rule of law, though. The “strong” is probably superfluous.
But your claim that libertarians oppose any legislation that controls people’s actions is wrong, per my earlier post. Libertarians oppose legislation to control actions between two or more people as long as those actions are VOLUNTARY. I might want to chain your leg to the floor, but unless you consent, it’s not a voluntary action and would not be legal in a libertarian system.
That’s not a cite; that’s just a vague philosophical platitude.
It’s one thing to say you are for these things, but quite another to explain how your philosophy would bring about those things. I could say I’m “for” peace, but if I support aggression, my words have no meaning. I could say I’m “for” equality, but it doesn’t hold if I support discrimination. Just saying your political philosophy engenders a certain thing doesn’t mean it’s true.
When did I say “it’s anarchy”?
I don’t see an argument here. In effect, all you’ve said is: “Iraq isn’t Libertarianism, because Iraq is bad and Libertarianism is good.” But you’ve provided no reasoning as to why they are different.
And where am I going to get a ‘cite’ from? There is no official institute of Libertarianism.
And you’re the one that made the assertion that Iraq is Libertarian. It’s not my job to do research on that. You made the assertion, YOU back it up.
In order to refute an argument, an argument must first be made. All you offered for evidence is that Iraq has no functioning government. If you can demonstrate that “no functioning governmnent” = “libertarianism” then we can start the debate. I’m not going to disprove your baseless assertion, and I doubt **Sam **will either.
Define conservatism.
As long as the laws include such items as people being prevented from having sex in unapproved ways, or putting unapproved substances in their bodies, pretty much NO libertarian is going to vote for more enforcement. A lot of the freedom that remains to us is a due to the impossibility of enforcing every one of the outrageous laws on the books. In other words, if someone wants to, they can find something illegal that everyone on this board has done–even if they have never hurt another human being. Who would want MORE enforcement under those circumstances? For myself, I’d rather entrust myself to the “goodwill” of others than such an overzealous state.
-VM
There are indeed some Libertarians who would oppose all taxation. But that doesn’t mean they oppose the government being able to pay what they consider legitimate functions of that government.
I don’t necessarily endorse the following example, but it is one example of how this could work: Whenever two parties draw up a contract, they can opt to pay a fee to have the government “sanction” that contract. The fee goes to funding the court system. If you opt out of the “sanction”, you cannot take the other party to court if they default on the contract.
Now, that is a VERY simplistic overview, just to demonstrate the CONCEPT of funding a government function without the use of taxes.
Similarly, the goverment could fund the building of ports solely thru user fees. In the case of the US, the federal government might fund the military by an assessment levied against each state, leaving it up to the state to determine how that assessment is paid.
The real issue, though, is deciding what are the legitimate functions of a government, not so much how those functions would be paid for. One might conceive of any number of methods to pay for those functions, including taxation.
The reason you hear Libertarians clammoring for LOWER taxes, is that most Libs would see an ideal government being much smaller in scope than what we have at present. The simple act of lowering taxes forces the government to focus on a narrower set of activities, with the hope of jetisoning some functions that Libs consider to be illigitimate.
The official institute of Libertarianism (with a capital L) is www.lp.org
I have a FOAF who is an almost extremist Libertarian and he says that the only functions the government should supply is a military (purely for defense) and a post office. I’m not sure if you forgot the post office or if he just subscribes to a different “strain”.
I actually quite liked libertarianism and considered myself a borderline Libertarian until I started finding out more about our healthcare system and how corrupt it is.
I wish there was a party in America that was a good mix between the Democrat party and the Libertarian party.
I doubt many Libs consider the Postal Service to be a legitimate function of government. It would not be at all hard to imagine that function being privatized.
Cisco: lp.org is the U.S. Libertarian party. There are Libertarian parties in many other countries. There are also libertarians who don’t agree with the party. There is no ‘official’ cite that can describe libertarian thought, just as there is no official cite that can describe liberal thought, or conservative thought. The only way to gain insight is to read from a broad spectrum of libertarian writers and history, and try to weave common threads through them.
Oh, and the current health care system is one of the most highly regulated, government-involved industries around. There’s very little you can glean about libertarianism in action from that. Instead, you need to find the least regulated. The Internet, for example. Or the computer industry as a whole. The virtually unregulated homebuilt aircraft industry might be another good one to contrast against the highly regulated manufactured aircraft industry. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.
I don’t follow you. We were talking about law enforcement, specifically your claim that Libertarianism supports “rule of law”, and my challenge to you to explain how such laws would be enforced under Libertarianism. Are you suggesting that private citizens would draw up individual contracts with law enforcement entitites, and that criminal matters would be resolved by arbitration, funded by the parties themselves? So if I were murdered, and I had failed to draw up a contract with the police before my death, my killer could not be prosecuted?
O.K., I understand that it’s simplified, but I’m not seeing how that could be very well applied to law enforcement.
But that’s just shifting the tax burden from federal to state; it’s not really eliminating taxes.
Isn’t that pretty much the situation right now in Iraq? Aren’t people pretty much subject to whether their neigbors are going to demonstrate “goodwill”?
I’m not a conservative.
Sorry John, the “rule of law” thing was from Sam. I mixed you two up. My apologies.
I don’t mean to but in, but I do like this formula for funding governments so I will. I think the idea is that the money thus raised would also be used for law enforcement. Not merely for contract disputes, but also for police, courts, and possibly a home defence army.
I just have to ask: What possible connection could there be between the clusterfuck that is the American healthcare system and libertarianism?
Surely you know that socializing services is not the only way that gov’t can royally fuck something up, right?
-VM
I would say, yes AND no. Staying with the spirit of your example, I would say that–as far as I know–Iraqis aren’t running around randomly killing each other. Instead, there are organized gangs of thugs running around killing people (e.g. Al Quaeda). In terms of “goodwill”, I would say that your average Iraqi is no likelier to hurt me than your average American. At the same time, I would say that the organized thugs in Iraq aren’t much different from the DEA here–only Iraq hasn’t invaded us in order to flush out the DEA and do heroin in “safe zones”.
If you remember, the Muslim extremist violence was a lot more confined before we headed over there to do battle with them. In both cases, everyday people like you and me wind up sorely in need of someone to protect our rights from “religious” zealots.
FWIW
-VM