Libertarians vary by degree. Some are moderates, albeit firm supporters of Reagan’s “Starve the Beast” approach of building up debt so that Ds, when back in control, cannot afford major investments. But some libertarians are quite extreme: perhaps even akin to the shrieking SovCit driving her RV without a license we saw on YouTube recently.
By now, plain “conservatives” are rather right-wing. Anyone still adhering to a “libertarian” label — unless it’s just because they like to smoke dope — are surely pretty radical.
Let’s first ask
(1) Was it proper and intelligent to coerce the population into smallpox vaccines?(Some Libs answer: Coercion is despicable. Liberty encompasses the Liberty to not have a jackbooted statist stick needles into my child. Sure, the bug might have been eradicated. So what?)
(2) Is it right and proper for a country dependent on a large rice-growing basin to tax citizens (perhaps at gunpoint) and build a system of dams and reservoirs for flood control?(Some Libs answer: There are so many alternatives preferable to seizing private wealth for Stalin-style central planning. Villagers could build levees on their own land when adjacent to the River. Chicago BOE will trade rainfall futures that can be used to hedge against floods. Why haven’t these squatting farmers moved to the hills, anyway?))
(3) Which came first historically, property rights or coercive governance?(One Libertarian chose Medieval Ireland as his best example of ideal governance. I mentioned that payment of a tithe to the church was almost mandatory. “I wouldn’t pay”, he sniffed.)
Some libertarian(s) here have given wrong answers to all three questions, IIRC> I think we first need to move past that.
Libertarians have been discussed before, e.g. in this short Pit thread.Mods: Please delete the link if linking to a Pit thread violates a rule.
I would also like to ask Libertarians who profess to admire the elegance of free market solutions: What do you think of ideas like Carbon Tax, which improve free market economics by assessing otherwise unafforded external costs?
I’m not a libertarian and have significant differences with most people who call themselves libertarian. I call myself an anarchist, and think libertarians are basically wishy-washy wannabe anarchists.
Anyway, if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, I’m willing to call it a duck, and oppose it with my anti-duck friends. If you steal, imprison people, and make war, then you’re a government, and I’m against you. “Private citizen” or no.
That said, why would you oppose private individuals who oppress, while defending the public institutions that oppress on a far greater scale? “We can’t eliminate governments, because rich guys would just become governments in all but name”. To that I say, “anti-government” doesn’t mean “pro government in all but name”. I oppose rich, strong guys acting like governments just as much as I oppose the currently fashionable bureaucratic style of government. I also say, rich guys with company scrip and goon squads are far easier to fight (and avoid, and stymie) than the leviathan governments we currently have, with enormous tax bureaucracies and million-strong professional militaries with fighter jets and nukes. And a free populace gives a further edge to the masses in that fight.
You know that seat belt use rose and was over 50% before a law was ever passed mandating them? You know that smoking is down from 50% to 14%, and it’s still not banned? Laws tend to reflect existing societal mores rather than push new rules on an unwilling populace. It’s possible to change society and culture without using violence to force it. Anarchy, or even just minimalist government, is possible without violent revolt. It’s possible without private warlords stepping in to fill the “power vacuum”. It may take awhile, but the non-violent or minimally violent approach is my preferred way of getting there.
Capital controls the vast, vast majority of economic activity, and the result is a nearly permanent underclass with the top 1% owning half of everything. I guess we should give capital even more power, eh?
That’s not very basic, and presupposes a framework of ownership. Who determines the proper ownership of property, and the time at which it’s established and where changing ownership by taking becomes ‘stealing’? Most of the land in the US was seized by force from its original inhabitants and a large portion of it worked by slave labor. For that that wasn’t worked by slave labor, the majority of it was worked by using seized wealth and the threat of either direct government violence or government approved violence. The story is similar in Europe, though the history of seizure runs back longer. I’ve never heard a good libertarian explanation of why people who own huge amounts of land seized from it’s original owners, money made by forcing people to work at gun/sword point, and the like should be considered legitimate property owners, but the ‘don’t steal’ admonition seems to apply to them. That means that what Libertarians are saying is “The stuff I stole is mine now, but don’t do any further stealing, and that includes taking back what I stole from you, or things that I bought with money I stole in the first place.”
Similarly, does it count as ‘stealing’ if I operate a factory and use your land to dispose of my waste by polluting it? But how does one address this stealing without things like broad anti-pollution laws, as the harm from pollution tends to involve an accumulation of small, distributed, long-term damage, not something easily addressed by an individual within their lifetime. (And especially by an individual before irreprable harm happens). I’ve never seen a good Libertarian solution to this issue, and the general comments from Libertarians on issues like secondhand smoke run contrary to their being one.
Slavery was abolished in a lot of states and nations before the civil war, usually via passing a law in the legislature, a court decision or the drafting of a new constitution.
In each situation slave owners were given a choice after the law was changed. Let your slaves go, or we will send people with guns to take your slaves.
Granted it wasn’t nearly as violent as the civil war, but it worked.
And the south in the US is so morally backwards that they never would’ve voluntarily abolished slavery, at least not until the 20th century. Relying on them to do what the rest of the civilized world did and abolish slavery via a new constitution, or a legislative act, or a supreme court as wasn’t going to happen.
Our society functions because we have a balance between two power centers. They each keep the other in check. An absolute government, unchecked by any private enterprise, would be terrible. And absolute capitalism, unchecked by any government, would be just as terrible.
I think we may have the root of the problem here. If libertarians could indeed make people not steal, kill and rape, but instead respect each others freedoms, it could work quite well. Much like communism, or a host of other utopian movements.
I suspect it starts with debates in a circle of like-minded people, and never actually incorporates the fact that in a real-world situation, the “people” would be made up of just as many individuals from the more unsavory biker gangs as individuals from the debates. (Actually the relative percentage of the biker-archetypes would probably be rising quickly). And with the greatest number of people somewhere in-between and looking out for number one.
Well, the CDC says that seat belt laws accelerated seat belt use.
I don’t know what you think you’re proving with this statement. That society will accommodate 14% of its people acting completely recklessly? Well, sure. But the CDC also says that smoking bans reduce smoking rates.
I don’t know why a millionaire would bother settling a dispute with a poor person in whatever kind of court might exist in Libertopia when having him killed with impunity would be a lot cheaper.
Most statists assume that force must be used to compel widespread behavior changes. My point is that people will change behaviors all by themselves if they’re convinced to do so through valid reason and evidence. My cite is most of human history. Laws, where they exist, are lagging indicators of social change, not leading. Most people change their minds and behaviors first, and then pass laws to mandate those changes to the remaining stragglers.
If you can’t convince people to change, it’s probably not the best idea after all, and you should reexamine the logic and evidence used. If you can convince most people, but a few stubborn holdouts refuse to change for their own good, that’s their business, not yours.
Governments and their goon squads are not required for social progress. Yes, they might accelerate it in some instances. So what? That doesn’t outweigh the downsides.
You realize governments are made of people right? What happens when the state gets too much power? Things like Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR become vastly more dangerous to humanity than things like PepsiCo.
Also there are ways to prevent a democracy from falling apart. Ensure a certain standard of living, address income inequality, ensure checks and balances to keep democracy stable, etc. If nations had this then the nazi & soviet revolutions would not have happened. These revolution happen in desperate nations with weak governments.
Getting rid of government is not the only, or even the best way to address authoritarianism. Better ways are building stable democracies with checks and balances, creating an involved middle class, building a social safety net, economic growth, etc.
As already noted, Britain abolished slavery in 1833, not just in Britain, but throughout the British colonies. Prior to that, however, what was then Upper Canada passed an act in 1793 to limit slavery, and subsequently, court decisions later in that century and in the early 1800s effectively ended slavery altogether through a combination of legislation and case law, enforced by government. IOW, slavery was ended by force of law, the libertarian’s nightmare. So your statement was ludicrously wrong, just like every single other thing you’ve said throughout this thread. Others are doing a fine job of disproving all the other incorrect statements, I just thought I’d clarify that one a bit further. Cite.
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?
Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).
This is not a secret. Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard believed that a plantation should have been given to the enslaved workers of that land. Perhaps there is some disinformation floating around about Libertarians. Seems like all anybody has read is Ayn Rand.
No libertarians believe that.
This is a complicated issue but in brief, law is in shambles because it has been monopolized by the state. There is no adequate recognition of property rights. If there were, all unpermitted pollution would be forbidden. For some reason people believe libertarians, who champion property above all, believe anyone can pollute another’s property with impunity.
Ok so I guess, since government is doing the vast majority of stealing and imprisoning, capital must be strengthened in relation to the state. This is abundantly clear given the facts. When capital stops clothing me and feeding me and housing me so cheaply, and starts taxing me and harassing me based on my peaceful behavior, I will favor a stronger state.
If you want to argue with substance, you are more than welcome to. But if you continue to resort to pithy pejoratives, you will not be allowed to continue.
If you don’t intend to engage with substance either, feel free to continue with the JAQing in the Pit. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
Private law and private police competing for customers would be much better than monopolized state law and police. There are already more private police than govt police and the govt police imprison and kill far more frequently.