Knock it off.
Take insults to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Maybe libertarianism is natural, though.
Maybe we’re all born libertarians, in that we are lawless in the ignorance of infancy. Society has religion, education, and law to get us past that lawlessness, and to where we can be tolerable neighbors to each other.
You know, I can respect some aspects of libertarianism. For example, I like some of what Milton Friedman said (although I notice his contemporaries seemed to think he was a disingenuous weasel). His kind of libertarianism I could substantially agree with in practice, I think. (Then again, I think Pinochet was a disaster, so maybe not.)
I can support a broadly liberal society in many (most?) things, and tolerate it in other things.
My consequentialism isn’t so much diametrically opposed to libertarianism as it denies its major premise? Liberty isn’t a reason to do a thing, it’s a way to let people decide how and when to do things…or something. Liberalism isn’t necessarily all bad. I just think it’s a horrible foundation for a society’s political mores.
What sticks in my craw is when “libertarianism” is used to denounce a program that might actually be useful, because government spending is supposedly so coercive!
It’s an appeal to a supposed non-authority of the state, as opposed to considering the actual practical consequences of a decision.
And I think that’s just as foolish as a hypothetical despot who insists on a policy on the grounds of his authority rather than the policy’s merits. Also, maximal libertarianism is possibly more chaotic and harder to reverse than a bad despotic policy.
Freedom is pleasant more often than not. But sometimes the public good requires laying down the law, and having a law to lay down. That may mean removing riparian water rights in a water crisis. Or it may mean outlawing the practice of medicine without appropriate certification. Or it may mean progressive income taxes, with criminal penalties for evasion.
But hey, you want to let same-sex couples adopt, yeah, I think that’s OK. But writing that into law does warrant a discussion of its consequences. Libertarianism wants to short-circuit all such discussions in the name of “rights.”
He wasn’t a bad guy. The problem was with Parliament and the British gentry. The DOI does not mention Parliament because the American people had no sense of superstitious reverence for it, but many had such reverence for the Lord’s Anointed and that was what Jefferson needed to address.
You have a point. Although it’s in vogue to see children as being altruistic, innocent and pure most children are naturally extremely selfish. I think libertarianism, Nazism and Deep Ecology are all similar in the sense that they reject kindness and civilization as values and think we should just “do what we feel” and let the food chain take care of things. Which of course naturally means that cruel and predatory people get to call all the shots and kind people are the prey.
Oh yeah - Part of the reason Hitler hated the Jews is because they had a tradition of caring for others.
Another thing is that libertarians believe people only deserve liberty from the government, but are A-OK with employers being as discriminatory and abusive as they want because they naively see getting a job as a consumer choice. They are too privileged to realize that some people are forced to work terrible jobs because the only other option is homelessness or their children going hungry.
Discrimination by the government is prohibited by law, and when it occurs, the victim has recourse to the courts. Discrimination by private charities isn’t, and its victims have no recourse. So, your anecdotes notwithstanding, depending on private charity ensures that benefits will be administered in a patchwork and discriminatory fashion.
Do “most” poor third-world residents receive such aid? Remember, my point was that private charity can’t be relied upon to cover everyone equally.
I respect their motives (such as the preamble), but not the means through which they’d carry out their ideas. A world in which each person is (reasonably) sovereign over their own lives is desirable, but the Libertarian Party evidently only recognizes taxation and certain government actions as being threats to that personal sovereignty. Dying in the street because you can’t afford treatment for your illness, or growing up uneducated because your parents can’t afford school, to name two examples, are far graver threats to individuals being sovereign over their own lives. I conclude that the Libertarian Party doesn’t actually have libertarian values.
Their ideals would either lead to 1) the complete chaos found in parts of Africa 2) a corporate military dictatorship or 3) an inverted totalitarianism in which there were many private fiefdoms and plantations, sort of a neo-feudalism.
I disagree. The basic ideas: that people should control their own lives, that the government should leave people alone unless they are harming others, that different individuals want different things out of life and require different means to fulfill themselves; these are quite sound and reasonable. Some folks, like the Libertarian Party, believe that they are best achieved by a minarchist (or even no, as in anarcho-capitalism) government and private charity. Others believe that the government has a crucial role to play in putting those ideas into practice, such as universal healthcare and a basic income. The ideals are the same, the tactics differ.
Well, I don’t usually equate Deep Ecology with Social Darwinism, but I haven’t read much in that school. (Daniel Quinn stuff, sure, but he’s actually some kind of “anarchist,” apparently.)
I may have been half-paraphrasing a big speech from Forbidden Planet at one point. 
The Mercatus Center, at George Mason University, is funded by the Koch family.
As a small-L libertarian, I’ll answer: The Libertarian Party has been a monumental disappointment to me. I thought it was formed to promote libertarian ideas (in spite of the fact that they admit to being a political party). I am now convinced that it was created to help identify and distract crazy people who call themselves libertarians. Of course, if we say that out loud, then the game will be up…
MY understanding of libertarian beliefs is not a wish for some kind of anarchy. Rather, the focus is on maximum freedom for everyone. However, there’s a key point that keeps being left out: Freedom to make your own choices also means living with the consequences (and taking responsibility for violations of other people’s freedom). It doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily shoot the Jehovah’s Witness at your door. Well, unless they’re REALLY asking for it. It does mean a much smaller role for government in our daily lives and finances.
This charity thing always comes up…libertarians have never been against the idea of people helping each other out. We just don’t think we should be FORCED to, and we don’t trust the government to choose who gets helped and who doesn’t. In case you haven’t noticed, governments tend to fuck things up.
But there’s a little more nuance to it than that. People who believe in helping those less fortunate should. People who don’t believe in it, shouldn’t be forced to (and shouldn’t be surprised if people remember this later when their circumstances change). Ah, but then maybe not enough people will be willing to help…and if that were true, why would be having this conversation?
The point is that when people make their own choices, then the result will reflect society’s values as a whole. Rather than one decision that supposedly fits the group, you get millions of decisions that (in sum) perfectly reflect the values of the individuals–even the ones that are different colors. Is it a little utopian? Well, yeah. Can we make this country into Libertopia? Probly not, but we could make it MORE libertopian (i.e. better).
So, does that mean that we should abolish the tax code and dismantle the government tomorrow? I already told you, the Libertarian Party is for the crazy people.
-VM
Really? Anyone who’s been denied a job or a spot in college because of affirmative action might not agree. Indeed, they might think that in some cases the government makes unjustified discrimination mandatory. And they’d be right.
At present, we have plentiful reason to believe that the government causes unfair discrimination; affirmative action is merely the most obvious example. We have no reason to believe that private charity discriminates on the basis of race or anything else.
Neither can the government. People in the USA, Canada, and Germany can purchase plenty of almost any imaginable food at a supermarket. Many people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, and India starve because the governments in those countries prevent their people from working for their own self-betterment. That’s the inequality that really matters.
The thing you’re ignoring, here, is that the reason we created social welfare programs i in the first place was because private charities were failing spectacularly at providing for the needs of the disadvantaged. We’ve tried the libertarian approach to helping the most vulnerable in our society, and it failed. Big time. What do you think has changed since the early 20th century, that will make it work if we tried it again?
Irrelevant to welfare and aid programs.
Please cite examples of government programs that are equivalent to charity, in which discrimination is practiced.
Oh, please. Are such charities staffed by human beings? Then we have reason to believe that they discriminate.
I wasn’t proposing a basic-income program for North Korea, Zimbabwe, or India; I was proposing it for the United States. North Korea’s government being a basket case doesn’t magically cause other governments to be basket cases. That’s some sloppy reasoning, there. This guy embezzled millions of dollars from a private charity, is the concept of private charity thus discredited?
That’s incredibly simplistic and not necessarily true. Maybe not even often.
I would say that the thing you’re ignoring is that the welfare approach is failing pretty spectacularly as well.
However, what bothers me more is this notion that there is some one thing that you can call “the libertarian approach”, and it’s been tried and has failed. Based on the discussion in this thread, it seems that “the libertarian approach” is to rely on private charitable organizations.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarian beliefs. The libertarian approach is to assume that there is no one best answer (or if there is, we haven’t found it). Every person/group is free to try different approaches to solving problems. Donating/participating in private charities is one of those approaches. If they don’t work, there is–hopefully–no entrenched government organization to keep them from being dropped. So, the libertarian position, is NOT “private charity is the answer to poverty”. The libertarian position is that “government welfare is not the answer to poverty, but if we all care enough about the problem to keep trying different things, we will come up with a good answer.” And if we don’t, then, apparently, society in general doesn’t care about the problem as much as you apparently do. Maybe, society cares more about curing cancer, or sending people to Mars. But if we’re each choosing how to spend our time/money, then the result WILL reflect ALL of our individual values, and not just yours.
If government welfare really worked, then most libertarians would find a way to accept it. However, we know that government programs in general don’t work, so we want to limit government to those few things that can’t be addressed any other way. And I understand that you’re saying that poverty is one of those things, and I am disagreeing. And even if we were both libertarians, we might disagree on this point. But we probably *would *agree that the current government solution is a boondoggle.
That is to say, I don’t have a solution that works, and neither do you. The difference is that I’m not in favor of creating a massive government bureaucracy as part of my failure to solve the problem.
And, by the way, if it turns out that we (as individuals, not a political body) don’t care enough about things like poverty to actually take action, then I would say that we will fully deserve what we’re going to get.
-VM
Fair enough. But the more power and decision-making is centralized, the less chance that the result will reflect our values. Well, it might reflect yours, but probably not mine.
The libertarian dream is for all of our values to matter. To be clear, I would say that this is an ideal to strive for, as opposed to a definitely achievable goal. To my way of thinking, creating more big, intrusive government “solutions” is striving in the wrong direction.
Much like the NCAA, the stated goals of socialism are admirable. However, the results are disastrous.
-VM
Which is what? We fully deserve other people dying?