Look, I’m not trying to ignore your points but perhaps I owe you and apology. Would you support or not support food stamps and the Pell grant? I am kind of getting the idea you would support them…
By the way, one issue offers a good look at the difference between the rational libertarians of the 20th century (which I was glad to label myself) and those bearing the “libertarian” label in the century of bizarre political thought:
Cap and trade. A market-based solution to account for external costs! Rational thought! Cap and trade passed Congress via an alliance of environmentalists and libertarians.
Today’s libertarians, both in Washington and here at SDMB? “Costs the unfettered dog-eat-dog don’t see ain’t real” … “If teh guvmint’s involved it’s teh eeevul. Get your guvmint hands off my Meidcare.”
There was a time in American history when criminals, the poor, the retarded, and those suffering from mental disorders were sterilized. It wasn’t the libertarians doing it though.
The main problem with libertarianism is they actually are for state sanctioned violence. They just call it property rights. Most don’t recognize it as social engineering, instead seeing it as some sort of law of nature that just happens. Once that pillar is knocked down the deontological lines for state responsibility re: improving the general welfare are all over the place. You can also call it the fever dream of middle to upper class white men, or painfully American in its parochialism, but that’s below the belt.
Another practical problem is how you circumscribe the state’s power after giving them a monopoly on violence. Other ideologies have answered “ya don’t, suckas.” Libertarians wish upon a falling star, or start talking revolution, watering the tree of liberty, and so on.
The term is muddled by people who don’t want to call themselves Pub/Dem, though it’s not just Pubs who want to smoke up. Sometimes it’s a lib who wants to show off their guns.
You remember the most awful ones more vividly, that’s all. It doesn’t follow that “put the poor in camps!” is a mainstream libertarian idea.
Not the case, the problem with countries like Uganda isn’t lack of regulation, but rather corruption. Regulations mean nothing if economic opportunity hinges on political connections and bribery (see also: the United States, at times).
“Conservative” and “libertarian” are not synonyms, not even close.
To be fair, when the thread is about the specific charge that libertarians want to shoot poor people or put them in camps, those charges must be addressed. Other points have been raised, such as increased economic opportunity, or a guaranteed basic income.
Does this apply to all political philosophies? This requirement of lockstep conformity doesn’t seem to apply to any other group, so this sounds an awful lot like “shut up and go away”.
Not at all. I just think it would be convenient to know what someone means when they say they’re a libertarian.
I gave one example of confusion. Twenty years ago, it was the libertarians who enacted Cap-and-Trade. Now it’s the libertarians who oppose it most vehemently. What do you think of Cap-and-Trade, Human Action ?
Another political self-description which makes it difficult to take the self-describer seriously is “fiscal conservative.” A 20th-century dictionary would suggest the self-describer favors balanced budgets, but in post-rational America a “fiscal conservative” advocates deficits to Starve the Beast.
ETA: I asked the question in another thread and a self-described Libertarian referred me to libertarian_party_platform.com or some such. I figured he was being snarky (“You libtards cain’t even use teh Google?”) but I clicked, and reported the very eccentric views at the webpage. The “libertarian” who’d recommended the page then confessed he hadn’t read it. ::whack::
Property rights are pretty much the cornerstone of civilization and protect everyone from a billionaire to a homeless man. Are am I misunderstanding?
Yes, property rights often derive from civilization (i.e., organization) which in turn depends, almost by definition, on government. It’s the libertarian notion that government and property rights oppose each other which makes rational thinkers laugh. Property rights depend on government.
But, it might be informative if you’d expand on your notion of the rotection that property rights offer to a homeless man.
Sorry if I overreacted. While it would be convenient, I don’t think it’s likely to happen, with “libertarian” or any number of other terms (“socialist”, “progressive”, “conservative”, “environmentalist”, etc). The terms remain useful, even it they are imprecise.
I’m in favor of it. The free market works amazingly well to solve some problems, and not others, depending on whether certain criteria are met. The cap-and-trade program meets those criteria, and has other advantages (such as scalability / adjustability).
In some cases, sure. The balanced-budget, surplus-in-good-times-deficit-in-bad-times, fiscal conservatives still exist, though (me, for one), so ceding the term entirely to the radicals isn’t a concession I’m prepared to make. Similarly, I self-describe as moderate libertarian. I also advocate for a basic income (via a negative income tax) and universal health care. To me, those are libertarian values. Other libertarians disagree, but I’m not ceding the term to them.
What are the property rights of the homeless man? What of his is protected?
Property rights do not depend on government. They depend on force. Government is the best way of providing force but it is not the only way. The purpose of government is to protect property with as little force as possible.
Homeless people have possessions and the law protects those possessions just as much as anyone else. Since homeless people generally have fewer possessions it is imperative for them that what little they have is protected.
The sole purpose?
Well I agree with you that property rights depend on government, and that it is laughable to see them as opposing each other.
Even a homeless person has some personal property, possessions etc.
I was just assuming a belief in property rights are pretty universal. :smack:And I’ guessing marshmallow was referring to taxation when bringing up property rights in relation to libertarians.
A right that depends solely on personal force to protect it isn’t really a right.
So there’s no right to equal protection under the law?
Looking at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, there are several that depend on force to be upheld:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
And so on…
You have a severe misunderstanding of how libertarians think and why they think that way. You then use your misunderstanding to bash those libertarians.
That is a rather stupid thing to do, especially in this day and age where we have this wonderful tool called Google.
Read something. Hereis the party platform.
Here is one proposal:
and
Note, I am not a libertarian and don’t speak for them. And there are also other libertarian view points out there.
However, you seem to be working under an assumption that a whole lot of people do when it comes to political thought that they don’t agree with. That assumption is “I believe we should do X because it will help <insert group here>. Group Y doesn’t want to do what I believe we should do and therefore they hate <insert group here>.”
In fact, the vast majority of the time, what is actually happening is that the group you disagree with has a different idea on how to resolve the same problem. There is no hate involved*. The issue isn’t 'We should help the poor" vs. “Let them DIE!!!” Rather, it is “We should help the poor” vs. “We think this is a better way to help the poor”.
Slee
- Yeah, its the internet and you can always find some nutjob, who claims to be a member of any party you wish, who will spew some crazy hateful bile. But that in no way means that anyone else believes the same crap.
ITR, if you were to check the correlation between the rankings on this list and the states ranked byper capita GDP growth 2010-2013, what would you expect? Would there be a positive or negative correlation? Would it be statistically significant?
FYI, North Dakota looks pretty good on both lists, which is, I think, where you live now, but it may be an outlier.
So you would agree that none of the donations of rich people or liberals towards museums, operas, symphonies, etc., count as “charity”.
Regards,
Shodan
I would support government helping poor people get food if it’s actually necessary. However, I think there should be more studying the methods by which we accomplish that. For starters, “food stamps” haven’t been actual stamps for decades. They’re now provided by a card that functions similar to a debit card. Two of the left’s favorite corporate villains, Citibank and J. P. Morgan Chase,make billions of dollars for running this program.
The best thing for poor people who want to buy food would be lower food prices. (I hope that folks of all political stripes can agree with that much.) Right now, the government works to raise food prices, thus making it harder for poor people to eat well. For example, there’s the Raisin Administrative Committee, whose job is “control prices” of raisins. (This is a euphemism for raising prices.) Each year they take thousands of tons of raisins from farmers by force, thereby limiting supply and raising the price of raisins. Similar bodies exist to raise the prices of almonds, apricots, avocados, cherries, cranberries, dates, grapes, hazelnuts, kiwifruit, olives, onions, pears, pistachios, plums, prunes, tomatoes, walnuts, &c… The government also puts protective tariffs on a number of crops: 30% on cantaloupes, 21% on asparagus, 131% on shelled peanuts, 168% on unshelled peanuts, and so forth.
So a libertarian might ask, if we want to help the poor eat, why not eliminate all government actions designed to raise the prices of food? This would benefit the poor and everyone else who buys food.
“We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.”
In other words, let them eat cake!
Note that this is from the platform for the Libertarian Party. They don’t speak for all libertarians, and they don’t own the term.