How many people in Europe are slipping through the cracks on health care compared to how many Americans are, or indeed would be if libertarians really their way?
I don’t want to sound too cynical, but charitable giving is more about maintaining a sense of self-righteousness than seeing to it that a system is put in place that is well-funded enough to tackle the full extent of the problem.
<meaningless drivel and pathetic insults snipped>
Libertarian “philosophy” is juvenile, naive, unsophisticated and if one is feeling particularly kind, simply unrealistically optimistic.
And you have a nice day too.
Do you think one needs to read Karl Marx in order to criticize China’s political system?
It’s no accident that “civil libertarians” are held out as distinct from “libertarians.” Your generic, self-described libertarian rarely (if ever) speaks on issues of civil liberty (gay marriage, the drug war, the surveillance state, etc.). They’re primarily focused on economic matters, and those economic matters just so happen to resonate most strongly with rentiers and the already wealthy.
..
Nope. But to criticize intelligently one does need to have a real understanding of it beyond what one gets by watching Fox/MSNBC or reading blogs that reinforce your prejudices.
There are plenty of intelligent critiques of libertarianism to be made, especially of the more extreme versions. But one gets tired of hearing the same slogans bleated by people who don’t even understand what they’re talking about.
It’s especially grating when they cease to be criticisms of an idea and become personal attacks on character – e.g. “It’s a fundamentally selfish “fuck you, I have mine and I’m keeping it” philosophy.” Grating personally, given that I’m a libertarian precisely because I am a social liberal who is deeply concerned about human welfare and the increasing power of large corporations.
Right, because “let’s just create a new government program to fix anything I think is a problem” is such a mature, sophisticated, and realistic position.
This attitude never ceases to amaze me: “I want what you have, and if you won’t give it to me then you’re a selfish asshole!”
Somehow I’m not viewing the person with money as the selfish one in this exchange.
Secondarily, I think the attitude of most people whose pocketbooks the left wants to raid is more along the lines of “I’ve got mine, you need to get yours too”, rather than anything with “Fuck you, I couldn’t care less about you/I want to see you suffer” in it. I realize that such demonization is part and parcel of the liberal political arsenal, but it’s highly dishonest just the same.
We live in a society. You will be taxed. Part of your money will be taken away to be given to the plebes. This is how it should be; it’s entirely right and proper. You get services, infrastructure, and the warm, glowing fulfillment of civic responsibility in return.
You are not a Lone Wolf being parasitized by the lowly, squirming masses.
You are part of a very prosperous, well-organized society.
No, that would be a straw man of the “liberal” position.
furt, this is the sort of fellow traveller of Libertarianism that I object to, not your take on Libertarianism.
It sounds like you’re defending an actual* libert*arianism. A “libertarianism” about liberty rather than about property or privilege. Of course liberty is a value of some worth. But in a country where we used to put Liberty personified on the money, “libertarian” has gained different meanings. Which liberties are we talking about?
I would like to, for example,
[ul]
[li]decrease the proportion of the populace incarcerated;[/li][li]to de-felonize some “drug crimes”;[/li][li]to have open borders;[/li][li]to delink health insurance from employment through universal single-payer.[/li][/ul]
In this sense I am libertarian.
I believe in
[ul]
[li]environmental regulations, OSHA, food quality regulations, regulations on raising livestock, regulations on breeding pets–without assuming that all conceivable regulation is right or necessary, I can accept that some regulation is;[/li][li]limits on full-auto firearms, high-powered handguns, explosive ammo, concealed carry, without trying to remove all gun use;[/li][li]taking away the ability to sell deadly weapons to non-licensed persons whose mental health and criminal history are not remotely certified;[/li][li]allowing police to confiscate weapons taken into public spaces where a riot is considered a risk.[/li][/ul]
In this sense I am authoritarian.
Am I “a” libertarian? “An” authoritarian? Probably not that much.
In my foreign policy views, I accept the world could use a policing power, but worry at the implications of national governments taking that job while also pursuing their own particular interests. So I’d like to move some international peacekeeping functions to “superpowers” like the UN instead of putting so much weight on this country. I think there’s a good parallel there to Bastiat’s argument about not serving the interests of one sector over the whole. Does that make me libertarian? Does it make me not-libertarian?
Most of our military-industrial complex at this point is a mix of low-value-added pork and shoring up a US hegemony which is reasonably seen as self-serving and corrupt. (I say, “low-value-added,” because we are deep into redundant capacity and diminished returns.) I would keep the pork capacity, because I accept that public works can help the economy, but look at domestic infrastructure & medical services training over the present low-value-added excess of war matériel and highway construction. And I think this should be at the federal level. For this, libertarians will say I hate freedom; but is it any more anti-freedom than stuff we do today in the name of “protecting freedom”?
I think there is a maximum amount of freedom in the system, and at some point you’re just moving freedom around–concentrating it, spreading it, pushing it up or down the supply line or the hierarchy of authority, not increasing nor decreasing it. Is it better to have lots of freedom in a few hands, & very little in other hands? Or to have a moderate amount of freedom for everyone?
I believe in equality of liberty. I am an egalitarian.
I have no problem with taxes to pay for intrastructure, defense and to assist those who are truly disabled. I am opposed to a general governmental policy of taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. And to the extent it does happen, those to whom it is given should be expressing gratitude and thanks rather than “If you don’t give me more, you’re a selfish asshole!”
I totally agree with SA (so far–I’m outa here if the glory days come up).
Also, EP, what makes me a “fellow traveler” as opposed to a “real libertarian” or whatever?
If you want to call personally Rand Rover an asshole, I won’t argue. (And I’d suspect he’d like it if you did). However, that isn’t even close to what you said.
I don’t see how those two are divisible. Many of your liberties are, de facto, dependant on property rights. (e.g. freedom to travel functionally requires the ability to save money to buy the ticket. Freedom of the press functionally requires the capital to publish. Etc.)
If those are your most authoritarian positions, you’re not very authoritarian. Many, maybe most, small-l libertarians would agree with a lot of things in your list. Most would agree that there should be environmental and firearm regulations; they’d just argue that they should be fewer than we have now.
The true anarcho-capitalist types are a distinct minority – and I say that with confidence, as I work in a DC think-tank with libertarian ties.
The issue there is that the the UN is unelected and unaccountable, and tends to be a vehicle for national governments to pursue their own particular interests. From a libertarian POV, you’re moving from bad to worse.
I don’t know any libertarian that would disagree.
I don’t know any libertarian that would agree.
The question of whether or not public works actually help the economy in the long run (especially given that the money to pay for them must be taken out of the economy, sooner or later) is a hotly debated one among economists.
Not really; that’s much more a Republican line. Libertarians would just say you’re pissing other people’s money away, and you’ve no right to do so.
From the Libertarian POV taxing for truly needed public works (of course defining what’s “truly needed” is another issue) is fine. Taxing to build the J.R. McPolitico Memorial Thingmajing because you think you have the magic formula to “create jobs” and “stimulate the economy” is not.
So the government has just as much claim on rights as people do? Your human rights must be balanced (by whom?) against the equally-valid claims of the state, and equilibrium found?
:dubious:
Ok, then.
I don’t think that’s what I said.
I think this is sort of where the disconnect between libertarians and non-libertarians is. You take it as a given, and that it is entirely right and proper. In general, libertarian thought disputes that. I don’t think most libertarians are opposed to taxation for things that, either the government should do (like defense or courts) or is simply in a better place to do (like roads), nor do I think that most non-libertatians think that taxes should pay for things that the individual should do or is in a better place to do (non-essential items), but there is a huge grey area in the middle and drawing that line is extremely difficult. No matter where that line is drawn, you can’t make everyone happy.
And the biggest part of drawing that line is how you value certain things. Imagine a situation where you can provide a service relatively cheaply, but some small percentage of people fall through the cracks, or you can provide it to virtually everyone but it’s a lot more expensive. Which solution is better? Either one takes from one segment of society to give to the other. If you favor a best possible service to the most people possible, you might be more inclined to go with the former, and if you favor raising the minimum standard of living you might prefer the latter.
Either way, I don’t think painting such a simplistic idea of society and simply saying this is how it is because this is how it is is a reasonable counter-argument.
I completely agree here, but a free society depends upon a social contract and it’s the terms of that contract that are important. Some might argue that rights only exist in the context of a society, others would argue that rights inherently exist and are willfully given up for the benefits of society, still others might argue something in between that some rights are inherent and some only exist inside of a society. Regardless of how one looks at it, we as a society have to decide which rights we have and which ones we don’t, and those perspectives color how we see which issues as rights.
Being part of a society doesn’t mean that social contract is set in stone. In fact, I would argue that it is best that it is not and that we ought to continue to negotiate it as society and technology changes. If someone isn’t happy with the society, they should make an honest effort to improve it.
Yes, that was the question I asked, do you have an answer for it? I suppose you are defining the US medical system as libertarian and the European medical system as the opposite. Even though neither is true.
So does anyone have an answer? How many fall through the cracks in the “European system” vs the “American system?”
[double post]