And my expectations are already being met.
I pointed out I had already answered the question you asked. How I could move the goalpost under those circumstances is beyond me.
The answer to all your other questions is yes.
It would take roughly the same measures as we live by in the U.S. today except stronger. It only takes a strong Constitution to ensure individual rights over whatever preference the current majority has. We already have that in free speech, freedom of the press, and other rights enshrined in the main body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights but they are constantly being chipped away. However, it can be expanded and clarified. I freely admit I don’t know how the Founding Fathers originally pulled it off let alone how to make it stronger in the current climate but the idea does work.
There is a serious flaw in most people’s understanding of ‘libertarianism’ in this thread. To put it simply, the direct opposite of libertarianism is not social democracy or even Marxist communism. Libertarianism is just one representation of a political axis. The opposing side is authoritarianism and nothing else. There is no such thing as a true libertarian governmental philosophy and no revolution to be had because libertarianism is only something you can move towards or away from on one axis and it does not dictate any particular economic or social outcome. Libertarianism is usually associated with capitalism as its economic engine but it certainly doesn’t have to be. If communism worked at all, you could have communes or even whole societies that are libertarian as well as long as the individual members consented to it.
“But Shag you you said so little in so many words. That could mean anything”.
No it doesn’t. Libertarian ideals are focused on individual rights first and foremost whereas most other political philosophies are focused on whole societies or large segments of those. It is a really hard mindset to think at the individual level if you aren’t used to it but that is what libertarianism is all about.
This doesn’t look like any definition of “multiculturalism” that I’m familiar with.
Well, I’m obviously strawmanning here, but, to a racist, having black neighbors is “multiculturalism.” And they’re against it, so, if it happens, it’s “forced.”
The problem is that there actually are such people… Not as many as in 1965, thank goodness, but a few die-hard racists are still around. Some of them masquerade as libertarians, in arguing that shopkeepers should have the right to refuse service to blacks.
There’s nothing difficult or complicated about libertarianism. Its main problem is that it’s too simple to actually work.
You still haven’t answered my fundamental problem. In a libertarian society, who decides what rights individuals have?
Does everyone decide for themselves what rights they have? If so, can I decide I have a right to free health care? If your answer is no, explain why my taxes should pay for the police department that protects your property if your taxes don’t pay for the medical department that protects my health. I think health rights are more important than property rights. This being a libertarian society, who can tell me my view on what my rights are is wrong?
Or does everyone get together and decide what rights we have? If so, do I get to refuse if I don’t agree with the group decision? You guys may all think property rights are great but I don’t. I think all property should be available to anyone who wants to use it.
If you guys all get together and prevent me from using “your” property then you’re just another majority that overrules my rights as an individual. You Libertarians are no different than the Democrats or the Republicans or the Communists. If a bunch of Libertarians get together and decide to take away my right to walk on their property how is that any different from a different majority getting together and taking away my right to own a gun? Both groups are taking away my right to do something I think I should be able to do.
I don’t see the distinction between “group” and individual rights as fundamental. Why would anyone care about infringement of a “group right” unless it also infringed on an individual’s right?
Libertarianism isn’t a free for all when it comes to deciding the rights that people have. Like all political philosophies, there are a certain set of assumptions that all of the other laws flow from. Strong, almost absolute property rights are are one of those assumptions in libertarian philosophy although almost all other political philosophies have their own concepts of property rights too.
If you feel that strongly about sharing things with like-minded people under libertarianism, you would have to buy a sufficient amount of land to start your own society within a society or you could just wait for end stage Marxism or some form of anarchism to successfully take over through a revolution.
There are still many types of public property under libertarianism. Obviously the government needs some and only radical libertarians don’t believe in public roads but I think most libertarians are for things like National Parks and conservation land as well.
All individual rights are acknowledged in advance in libertarianism through a Constitution and a state with the ability to protect those rights for individuals. Libertarians believe that people are born with all of the rights they can ever have and government can only protect those inalienable rights or take them away. Libertarians don’t believe that laws can ever add rights except in cases of correcting laws that took them away in the first place (e.g., slavery). Other political philosophies believe that laws can be freedom positive (i.e.; the freedom from worrying about paying for food) but those aren’t real freedoms in the libertarian vocabulary. In fact, you are perfectly free to completely fail, starve, and even die through your choices or plain bad luck in libertarian philosophy. We hope that won’t happen much and the reverse of becoming very successful because of increased personal freedom will be much more common but some of both are expected.
The total list of rights strongly protected under a libertarian constitution is debatable and differs even among the subtypes of libertarians. It would include free speech even moreso than the U.S. Constitution, freedom of religion, the press, probably weapons rights, strong protections against unjustifiable search and seizure, a tightly defined government scope, and several others of that nature. The libertarian government would probably also have strong fiscal limits placed it such as a very limited ability to accumulate debt or run budget deficits. This is only a partial list.
Only radial libertarians would have no safety net whatsoever or try to privatize every possible thing. Moderate libertarians still see some valid uses for government outside of pure libertarian philosophy. Public health care would be a very borderline area and it isn’t ruled out under moderate libertarianism as long as it is viewed as an essential service like roads that can’t be covered any other way better.
Which means that libertarians have little clue how a large, integrated, complex, technological, modern economy incorporating large numbers of individuals works. Libertarianism would not only let millions of people starve without a safety net, it would actually bring about such conditions.
It is actually the opposite problem. Groups can interfere with individual rights. Just to give a simplistic example, under pure democracy, 50.1% of the people can trample the rights of everyone else in the name of benefit to the group. Under libertarianism, some rights are inalienable and can’t be taken away by the government or any number of other people.
It isn’t a radical idea. The U.S. Constitution set out to do the same type of thing with the Bill of Rights and it worked well in general for a long time until the government and others got good at finding loopholes or just ignoring it when it suits them.
But you’re still ignoring the question.
Who makes these decisions?
If it’s just the majority of people getting together and passing a law that says “Nobody can trespass on somebody else’s property” then what makes libertarianism different from any other political system?
Apparently no one does judging by state of the Euro and to a lesser extent, the U.S. and other large economies. It is really the subject for another debate but it may not be a bad idea to take another look at the absolute basics of running any economy responsibly before we say there is simply no other way to do it when we know that the current “large, integrated, complex, technological, modern economy” can turn to absolute disaster very quickly already.
What you say below doesn’t sound “opposite” to me at all.
That’s no different from run-of-the-mill liberal representative democracy. You just have to get together and rank the relevant rights.
It isn’t fundamentally different from any other political system except in details and degree. Who said that it was? The base set of rights in libertarianism comes from the values that libertarian philosophy places the greatest weight on. Those are individual and property rights and, under libertarianism, a set of those are locked in place and protected forever whereas a social democratic philosophy would start off with another set of values and allow changes or drifts over time as public opinion changes. Public opinion isn’t that important in libertarianism. You get your land and other property and rule over that in any way you see fit as long as it doesn’t directly impact anyone else. In case you are wondering, the definition of ‘impacting someone else’ is very limited. It would include things like polluting a river but probably not putting up a building that everyone else thinks is ugly.
Of course.
Libertarianism descends directly from the classical liberalism that created modern representative democracy. The people why talk about libertarianism necessarily entailing some sort of “libertopia” or “libertaria”, wildly different from existing democratic structures, are generally not libertarians, or if they are they’re far from the mainstream.
It’s why the OP is so silly; asking why “libertarianism hasn’t come to pass” makes as much sense as asking why progressivism or conservatism haven’t “come to pass.” They’re overarching political philosophies, not specific systems of government.
Right. That is what I keep trying to explain to these people.
That’s authoritarianism. Of course libertarianism is a kind of authority theory. You just want the authority to be tradition, and to a lesser extent the individual, rather than a government.
No, they aren’t. This is untrue. Personal rights have been expanded over time in this country.
So you admit you’re historically ignorant.
Hah! Wrong! The founding generation passed the Alien and Sedition Acts! We are not in fact degenerating from a Golden Age of perfect compliance with a Bill of Rights. It took 190 years to get those rights even respected in practice. Look up the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, etc.
Actually, our modern economy is doing better than the old gold-standard economy did in 1930. I would say neither “absolute disaster” nor “very quickly.”
Do you really not see how authoritarian and arrogant this sounds? You admit that your list of protected rights is not consistent in your own movement, that it’s just a matter of opinion, that most people don’t even agree with it, but you want it “locked in forever.” Really? What makes the cut?
If 90% of the people decide an absolute right to own one’s own weapons of mass destruction is actually inimical to liberty, can they “unlock” that right? If so, it’s not forever. The same goes for other stuff, like getting to sell poison to children.
Boom! Rothbardism! As mentioned above, no one is really acting in isolation in this world. Someone else will have to deal with that land after you’re gone.
For what it’s worth, I am reasonably liberal, and I support your right to have an ugly house. I do not support your right to ignore zoning, or build a house that plunges your neighbors into permanent shade, in the name of personal autonomy.
AFAICT, it’s deadly force, short of a monopoly on same (cuz cold dead hands and all that). Doesn’t make a lot of sense, really.
Then what’s a libertarian? Somebody who thinks we should have a system where we chose our government representatives and enact laws vie elections?
Okay, then we’re living in Libertopia. Barack Obama is a libertarian. So was George Bush and Bill Clinton. So every member of Congress and Governor and state legislator.
If that’s all that libertarianism is about, why do people make such a fuss over it? And I’m talking about libertarians here - they act like they stand for something. Is libertarianism just the continuation of the same political system we’ve already had for the last two hundred years?
What next? A political movement whose fundamental tenet is that the United States should declare its independence from Britain? A political theory that argues we should have a system of written laws? Or maybe an ideological belief that we should organize people into something called a “society”?
Yeah, quoting myself from post 75:
You’d think the last thing any modern political movement would want to do is invoke the founding generation’s ideas on the supremacy of property rights. They got a lot of things right but they dropped the ball on that one.