If it’s a “good idea”, it’s a good idea. Why the need for cite?
But that’s not serving “the people” it’s imposing an action upon a person. I believe in individual liberty. So I don’t think the government should get involved in issues like healthy eating habits or drug use or gay marriage - these are individual issues. But government has a legitimate voice in issues like flood control, highway building, and pollution standards which affect the community in general.
And while I wouldn’t want the government telling me what I can eat I don’t want my employer or my insurer or some other private business telling me what I can eat either. I want a government that will protect my individual rights and is strong enough to do so.
You are absolutely right. On that note, if the government decides to kidnap our children and sell them to evil slugs from the center of the Earth in exchange for a lifetime supply of Rice-A-Roni(the San Francisco treat), should it be done without arguing?
Somewhat simplified, but the way I see it is libertarians support good business and bad business and oppose bad government and good government. And I suppose a socialist is somebody who supports good government and bad government and opposes bad business and good business.
I support good business and good government and oppose bad business and bad government. And I think that good government is a useful tool in opposing bad business and good business is a useful tool in opposing bad government.
Ah but they are not “individual issues”. If you don’t eat healthy, you’re increasing the total medical spending which affects everyone. Just like if you pollute, you’re increasing the overall level of pollution, which affects everyone. Right?
Yep. Except everyone differs on what “individual rights” are.
I think it is my “individual right” to consume whatever I want, including any drugs. Lots of people don’t think that’s an “individual right” because it has effects on the whole society.
I think it is my “individual right” to keep the money I earn. Lots of people don’t think that’s an “individual right”.
I think it is my “individual right” to keep and bear arms (and by “bear” I don’t mean hold it in my hand in my house). Lots of people don’t think that’s an “individual right”.
I think it is my “individual right” to give as much money as I want to any political candidate I want. Lots of people don’t think that’s an “individual right”. Etc. etc. etc.
Depends. Is “life time supply of Rice-A-Roni” a “good idea”?
Oh boy a libertarian thread!!!
You shouldn’t. There is business and there is government, where in theory business involves a voluntary interaction, while government is involuntary. That may sound odd to you at first, but remember the point of government is to enforce the rule of law first.
So where is the tool for opposing bad government?
There, that is what you should see as libertarian philosophy. Government has coercive power through use of force, which is a must in order to establish and maintain the rule of law. You have an example of pet projects you approve of, so you think government is good when it does those things. What about when government does things you don’t approve of?
So let’s put all this together for today’s cause du jour: flood control.
What happens if it’s a *good *government that plans to build the levee in 1965, but 40 years later a bad government reduces funding to the point the levees fail? That’s the issue of time. Human nature has a way of changing priorities, such that when flooding is really bad we get excited and throw a lot of public money at the problem. When it’s dry for a while we focus on forest fires and throw a lot of public money at that problem forgetting about the first.
But when considering flood control, different members of the community are affected in different ways. Flooding is a huge problem down river, not so much up river, and not at all in land. Three different groups of people served by one government.
Your arguments in all of these threads tend to imply a benevolent and infallible government, but instead consider flood control from the point of view of the Three Gorges Dam. It’s easy to make a case for flood control when thinking about the victims down river, but harder when you consider the implications for those up river.
The TGD created a massive reservoir that displaced 1.24 million residents, how do you think they feel about flood control? Building the Hoover Dam created Lake Mead, which I guess is fine if you don’t give a shit about people that owned land up stream of the dam. Flooding is also an important aspect of the river ecosystem, attempting to manipulate it for the benefits of a few ends up screwing those way down river that depend on the tributaries.
Lastly, consider how you fund these projects, focusing on the three groups of people. Those down river are the ones that directly benefit, those up river are the ones that are directly hurt, meanwhile those in the rest of the country probably haven’t even heard of it.
Libertarian philosophy is not about “I’ve got mine you can go to hell.” The people in the rest of the country aren’t unsympathetic to the plight of flood victims. It’s about removing coercive forces. In this case, we have the government taking land from those upriver, and money from those inland, all to subsidize the lifestyles of the few downriver. Another way of viewing this is that those choosing to live in the flood plains should choose to pay the costs associated with it. Those that chose to live up river shouldn’t be punished and FORCED to move so that some people can live in a flood plain. And those that chose to live inland shouldn’t be FORCED to fund the project.
But remember, this isn’t to suggest that the costs aren’t there. All of society is impacted by the floods. The point, right or wrong, is to let those costs go to those that choose them. If we remove the coercive forces, we can’t build a damn that would flood land upriver. And we wouldn’t have the funding from those inland.
Living in a flood plain would therefore cost more, so the land would have lower value. That means land upriver would be worth more, and the food produced from the flood plains would cost more. In the end, everyone actually pays the same thing. Those upriver may not be able to afford that land and be forced to move. Those inland, instead of paying taxes, will pay more for food.
The end result is the same, neither better nor worse. But each player was given the choice. This is where market forces provide a conclusion that may or may not be better than what the government arrives at.
You brought up flooding in Thailand, how would you feel if the US Taxpayer was the one that had to spend billions to build flood controls for them? Who do you think pay for it? What if instead the US government felt those people shouldn’t live in a flood plain, declare the land unfit to live on, then forceably removed everyone?
You took the issue of flooding, and viewed it entirely from the people downriver, and made the assumption that what’s good for them is good for society has a whole. So when you hear libertarians bitch about government and taxes, what you are actually hearing are those upriver pissed that they government is forcing them to move, and the people inland being forced to fund the project. All the while, you are ASSUMING that flood controls are both a good thing, and something the government can control. Neither are universally true, and while you may find examples of good flood controls, there are also examples of bad flood controls. You have taken an example that plays well to the bleeding hearts, but you have deliberately ignored the negative externalities that go along with the project.
Consider Boston’s Big Dig.
This is what we all want, and it’s what libertarians want. The key point here is that government is a coercive force, if it decides that drugs are bad, it can enact a War on Drugs™ and spend trillions to imprison millions. If your employer or insurance company decides drugs are bad, you do have the freedom to work somewhere else, or change insurance companies. After you quit, there is nothing your former employer/insurer can say or do to you.
But notice the eventual conclusion: if the majority of employers/insurers end up deciding drugs are bad, you end up with exactly the same result; a defacto ban on drugs. Or, if it proves unprofitable, drugs will be allowed.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in a Libertarian Society?
The ballot box. Tyranny by the majority is no vice.
I don’t agree with the idea of somebody owing their personal well-being to society. I think an individual owns his own health and well-being and can abuse it if he wishes. But I don’t think an individual has the right to abuse the health and well-being of other people.
So, in my opinion, the government doesn’t have the right to impose good eating standards on people but does have the right to impose pollution standards.
Very true. Here’s my personal opinions on the issues you mentioned.
I agree with you. I think any adult should be able to use any drugs he wishes.
I assume your talking about taxes here. My opinion is that you’re part of a society and you’re obligated to do your share to support the society you live in. And that includes paying a share of taxes.
In theory, I have no problem with the abstract idea of people “bearing” firearms. But you can’t separate the bearing of firearms from the use of firearms. And if person A shoots person B, then it’s no longer an individual issue - it involves two people. So I feel firearms are not an individual right and can justly be regulated by the government. (I’m talking in theory here. In the United States, I think the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own and carry firearms.)
I agree that you as a individual can contribute your money and other resources to any candidate you wish. But I don’t think people have the right to contribute money and resources that don’t belong to them personally to candidates or political campaigns.
Ensuring that the duly ratified and amended, unambiguously Libertarian constitution is strictly adhered to, as defined by the text. Anything not specifically installed as an element of the Constitution is none of their concern, however “just” a given circumstance may seem.
And every article of the Constitution is so damn clear that no interpretation is ever necessary?
Riiight.
I’ll just do a drive by post and mention that, AFIK, most libertarians think that most Libertarians are nuts. Hope that helps 
Could you please describe this “unambiguous” Libertarian Constitution here?
If it requires significant interpretation, it gets bounced back to the legislature; the courts don’t get to resolve ambiguity, they only get to point it out. “Significant” is key, obviously, since any written words must be interpreted, and it won’t be perfect, like all human endeavors. I don’t expect perfection, however, despite the fact that progressives tend to insist that I do.
Anyway, like furt suggested, I’m retro-fitting my “small l” libertarian perspective onto our existing structures. Not sure how I’d build something from scratch. But I can easily picture the SC playing a legitimate role in a society I considered libertarian.
Unless you’re in the minority, like those living upriver about to have their land turned into a reservoir, or those inland about to have their wages reduced to fund the project, or those in a less sexy flood plain that the government doesn’t care about.
Or black people in the south, who Libertarians don’t think should have to be served at restaurants.
Or black people in the South where the *government *didn’t think they should go to the same school as whites. Note the last one, government involvement in schools kept them segregated. If you scroll up you’ll see a lot of discussion about what it means to have government involvement in schools. Was George Wallace a Libertarian?
Government involvement works both ways: it can be the Federal government forcing schools to desegregate (something we think of as good) or it can be the State government opposing those efforts (something we think of as bad). Government can be either good or bad. It is common place in these threads to simply assume things done by government are good, and things done by corporations are bad.
You also grossly an deliberately misrepresented the issue by suggesting Libertarians “don’t think [blacks] should have to be served at restaurants.” The Libertarian position you are referring to involves the government FORCING restaurants to serve people, regardless of race. The idea is that restaurants are free to server or refuse anyone they choose. I’m pretty sure you knew that, but for some reason chose the dishonest approach of accusing Libertarians of being racists. Well done, you’ve managed to reach a new low.
You’re off track. The government wasn’t the root cause of segregation. It was asshole racists.
They installed the government and wrote in those laws. You seem to think the government is some kind of creature that lords over us, it is us.
But the fact of the matter is that in Libertopia, there would be zero laws requiring to serve black people in restaurants. In Libertopia, if laid as a template over America, racist communities would still be a place where you couldn’t get a meal if you were black.
So it would seem that your ideology would make a world with much, much more institutional racism than we have today.