Anarchists who want to be sure theft only goes their way?
I must admit, I’ve lost any ability to remember why there needs to be a government, if we accept libertarian arguments for removing government interference in all the others spheres of human existence.
A rquote I’ve always found apt (and, in fact, was apparently said by someone interested in the SD)…
My point was that, carried to an extreme, it can be rather “wacked out,” but that so is every political philosophy. Many libertarians do not in fact hold to the extremist vision of “no regulation ever” that the extremists do, any more than all liberals are socialists.
I believe that obtuseness is the basis of this whole thread, but I was being sincere — an option which your false dichotomy did not allow.
But that was not my argument. As you can see, my argument was that government must secure a social context of peace and honesty. That positively requires intervention and regulation. The difference is what is regulated — intervention and regulation are for the purpose of suppressing initial force and deception, but not for carrying out the whims of politicians and political majorities.
I have. Neighborhood had a homeless problem, got a church to volunteer a basement, passed the hat to raise some funds, opened a homeless shelter and hired me to run it. No governmental involvement needed.
I 've also heard rumor that some private schools are nearly as good as public ones.
More than your smug ass, I’d reckon.
I’d bet that never once in my adult life, which has been spent working with the homeless, with runaways, and as a teacher have I ever made half of what you do squeezing doctors and lawyers for money for Stuckup U. I sure don’t right now, since I’m unemployed. 10% of what little money I do have coming in is going to a poor kid in Mexico.
Tellya what, chuckles: when you start inviting homeless people in to share your studio apartment, making $8 an hour as a runaway counselor and volunteering to clean toilets and empty bedpans at an AIDS hospice, then you can tell me about how morally superior you are. Until then, you can cram it.
I was responding to the suggestion/implication that a libertarian nation had never existed and would surely collapse if it did; while the pre-new deal US was by no means perfect, neither was it some sort of complete disaster. I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that what we have now is the best of all possible worlds?
To deal specifically with what you mention: Slavery is, by its definition anethema to Libertarians. If a monk shoplifts, we don’t blame Buddhism, we blame the monk. Similarly the fact that slavery was allowed it does not mean the ideals of the founding fathers were lacking; just that early America lacked the moral resolve to live up to them.
As has already been pointed out, Libertarianism does not need to mean no regulation anywhere; Child Labor is a perfect example of why.
And as for company stores, I see no problem with them, unless people are coerced into buying there, in which case we’re not talking about a libertarian system.
Furt, I’m afraid you’ll find that that is a rather common tactic of the chronically disengenuous. Conceive the most horrible coercion possible, call it “libertarianism”, and then complain that its implementation would be the ruination of mankind. You can point out the obvious strawmen until you’re blue in the face, and it will make no difference. Clearly, anyone wishing to research libertarianism has a massive amount of data available using the same tool — a web browser — that he is using here. The OP might intend not to learn at all, but merely to incite, to rant, and to flash his tail feathers. After all, even when I advise him to abandon the philosophy, he continues to argue.
Actually, I’m sure you have made at least half. This ain’t a high-paying job, you know. And insofar as “Stuckup U.”–we pay for any student who gets accepted here. Really. Just one question, though: If we don’t “squeeze” (nice term for charitable requests, eh?) people for donations, where will the money come from? Yep, the government. You think that’s preferable?
I commend your work and your charitable spirit. I took up my job because I was given educational opportunities in life that I wouldn’t have had otherwise, and I wanted to give back. And I’ve seen students who came to college with almost nothing, sometimes less than nothing, go on to great careers and productive lives. That’s what I think private education can be about. Don’t condemn my life because you think I’m living in the lap of luxury–I assure you I’m not. Encourage more libertarians to give back, to devote their lives to giving back. Encourage more libertarian orgs to give back, like the ones Liberal linked to. I’ll move a lot closer to your cause, and so will many others.
Liberal, I don’t understand. The whole point of libertarianism, and what drew me to the movement in the first place, is reasoned debate, that one can talk freely about ideas. One can bring up anarchic concepts, run the gamut of questioning how one can live life. If that’s “continuing to argue,” that’s a good thing. What is the opposite of libertarianism–totalitarianism–but a suppression of argument?
Much as I’d like to continue this debate, I am going to be away from the Board for a few days. My girlfriend from Illinois is coming to visit, and, sorry–companionship trumps political debate, at least for me.
Several years ago, after growing tired of both the Republican and Democratic parties turning their backs on the traditional American values of individual freedom and state’s rights and heading down the same globalist path, went in search of a third party, one that espouses both a strict adherence to the original intent of the Constitution and an America first philosophy.
The Libertarian Party seemed to be the party of the individual and of the principles that made America the greatest nation in the world. I became a dues paying member. It was all a facade that came crumbling down when I received my third edition of the Libertarian Party Newspaper.
The party that claimed to have both the nation’s and the individual’s interests at the core of its philosophy, was trumpeting their newest member of national prominence, Irv Rubin, of the Jewish Defense League. A domestic terrorist organization. And the Libertarian Party was embracing Rubin with open arms.
I resigned post haste.
All you Libertariam Party members have been duped just as much as any Republican or Democrat that you keep trying to sell the Libertarian Party to.
Read the perversion for yourselves: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0003/jdl.html
What a minute…
Libertarian is now Liberal! I was wondering where this new poster came from with such a high post count. Anybody got a link to a thread explaining this change?
Quick, Robin! To the Pitmobile!
Start here.
How does this square with the belief that your body is your property, with all of the rights and responsibilities that this entails, and can be seized if you ‘default’ on an obligation? Or the ‘right’ you would have to sell yourself into slavery, since your body = your property?
If your body = property, then both of these are possible outcomes.
Full disclosure- I am a very liberal person. I believe that the government’s position is to maximize liberty for everyone- and that entails curtailing the liberties of others. Specifically, I think that the liberty of one person to eat/ have shelter trumps all other rights, as I do not see how one can exercise any rights if these basic needs are not met. I do not agree with the Libertarian definitions of either coercion or force, as I do not think that they recognize the fact that a person can be coerced by a combination of circumstance and external, private pressures, to do things not in their best interest. Libertarianism is a pet peeve of mine, and despite the high caliber of discussion that I find on this board by its adherents, I have generally found it to be totally unworkable.
Most of the services and waste in government that are complained about evolved to serve the needs of the people. I don’t see why, assuming we started over from scratch as a Libertarian society, that they would not be voted back into existence in the course of a generation or so.
As you can imagine, we’ve discussed the merits of libertarianism on these boards many times. Thus, I give you…
THE SDMB LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY
Oct. 2002
Short Story: Riboflavin the Murderer, by Libertarian.
Nonfiction: Libertarianism and Coercion, by Riboflavin.
Humor: Blue-Skinned Libertarians, by Milt.
Nov. 2002
Nonfiction: Libertarians and the Electorate, a collaborative work.
Dec. 2002
My Foray into the Nuances of Libertarianism:
A play in three acts starring Dewey, Lib, and several other Dopers.
Act I – BBQ Pit
Act II – IMHO
Act III – BBQ Pit Revisited
Epilogue – GD
Short Story: The Freedom Paradox, by Blaron
Jan. 2003
Nogginhead the Inquisitive:
A one-act play with the usual cast.
Prequel
The Play
Nonfiction: Libertaria and the Environment, by Gadarene
Short Story: Culture Asks Some Questions, by culture.
Feb. 2003
Short Story: Libertarianism and the Children, by drachillix.
The Sucks Cycle:
Riboflavin Sucks, by Libertarian.
Dewey Sucks, by Libertarian.
Manifesto: Practical Libertarianism, by Jonathan Chance.
Obviously, the library is a little out of date, so if anyone wants to add to the collection, post a thread link. Also, it goes without saying that in the above Libertarian = Liberal.
Dewey, a favor please… I had posted a short story in MPSIMS called “Sarah’s Gold”, and used to have it referenced as my profile’s web page, but lost the reference due to the changeover to paid registrations. I can’t find it now. Would you see if you could try? Thanks.
July 2000
Short Story: Sarah’s Gold, by Libertarian/Liberal
Oddly, you show up as Liberal in the thread, but Libertarian on the search results page.
John Mace, I suspect that you’re just not getting basic enough when you ask about a person’s starting premise. Rather than ask what the point of government is, I’d suggest asking for a definition of freedom.
There are two different definitions that might be relevant:
Under the first definition, libertarianism does not maximize freedom: many people, by virtue of no longer having access to such basic needs as medical care and food, find their desires thwarted.
Under the second definition, libertarianism still may not maximize freedom: if I keep you out of an apple orchard by proclaiming it my private property, I thereby actively thwart your desire to fill your belly with apples.
This gets at what I see as the major failing of libertarianism: it considers property rights to be inviolable, as ends to themselves, rather than as malleable means to achieve the end of satisfying desires.
Take the following example of behavior that could happen under a libertarian system:
At no point in this process did Bob initiate force or fraud against Ann, but at the end of the process, through no fault of Ann’s she’s faced with a lifetime of servitude or death.
This kind of thing could be all too common under a libertarian situation. People are much less mobile than money is, and so folks with money can manipulate folks’ mobility and thereby exploit them.
Modern day capitalism and socialism both blur together and mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism unbridled. Libertarianism, far from presenting real choices to everyone, concentrates decisionmaking power amongst the few. Advocates of libertarianism are, in my experience, motivated either by a naive idealism or a crass selfishness.
Daniel
Thank you, Dewey! Thank you very much. 