# libertarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663 "2005-09-27T13:51:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/181 "2005-10-08T19:30:48Z")
You said that “everyone has seen what a canard that mantra is.” I was disagreeing with this. Take it or leave it. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![syriana\_fx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@syriana\_fx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syriana_fx)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/182 "2005-10-09T23:22:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I completely understand the argument for apportioned fees, and for me to live in Libertaria, that would not be a deal breaker. I love it when my argument is completely understood without me having to go to the trouble of typing it up! Thanks for your answers. I was indeed mistaken in my assumptions about what you would say. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/183 "2005-10-10T00:18:15Z")
> [@syriana fx](#): > > I love it when my argument is completely understood without me having to go to the trouble of typing it up! Thanks for your answers. I was indeed mistaken in my assumptions about what you would say. You’re welcome. This thread seems to have petered out, but I see that you’ve joined the discussion about rights. I enjoyed reading your post there, and have commented on it. I think I’ll concentrate on that thread going forward. See you there. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/184 "2005-10-10T01:34:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > On that note, I’m giving you the last word. When it has gotten to the point that you don’t even care whether you’ve typed the exact opposite of what you meant to say, it means that whatever you’re saying doesn’t matter. …the hell? By “proofing,” meant, well, proofing – checking for grammar errors and typos and coding mistakes and the like. I stand by everything I wrote, substance-wise, and I’m really not sure why you would think otherwise. > [@Liberal](#): > > If you want to spin this into some hollow victory, as my ignoring you or not answering your questions, feel free. I’m sure you will, and everyone has seen what a canard that mantra is. Heh. It isn’t a canard if it’s true. > [@Liberal](#): > > Now that you have filled your gut, you can beat your chest. _thump_ _thump_ (The pizza was good, actually, if not up to New York standards.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/185 "2005-10-10T01:44:26Z")
> [@syriana fx](#): > > Isn’t the vast majority of accountancy related to tax codes? I honestly don’t know. > > Since there are no taxes in libertaria, how would that affect the overall complexity of these kinds of issues? Tax accounting is actually a subset of accounting. My wife, a Big-4 CPA, for example does not do anything related to taxes – she audits the books of publicly-traded companies. Accounting is, essentially, the act of measuring economic activity for a given enterprise. Sometimes that is done for tax purposes, sometimes for investors, sometimes for internal management purposes, sometimes for other reasons. Indeed, Priniciples of Accounting 101 deals pretty much exclusively with the very basic aspects of double-entry financial accounting in accordance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) – the sort of accounting that yields those nice, glossy financial statements sent from, say, GE to its shareholders. Debits, credits, and assets = liabilities + equity are the order of the day. Tax accounting comes later in the curricula. Libertaria would most certainly still need accountants. Business enterprises need to understand how they are doing, and accounting is the way in which they determine that. That’s true in virtually every economic and political system. > [@syriana fx](#): > > That is interesting. I suspect search and seizure would remain verboten, but passive surveillance doesn’t strike me as coercive at first blush. Even more interesting is that it seems less of a big deal in libertaria. For once the old fallacy, “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide,” has a hint of truth. Indeed. Although you might see some convenient, ad-hoc redefinition of “coercion” to encompass such surveillance. Which is why all that “one law” stuff is silly and unworkable out in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/186 "2005-10-10T01:55:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think you’re wrong. The very reason that he posted so hurriedly, “Hurriedly”? That post took a long time to compose, man. That’s part of why I declined to proof it – I had already spent a silly amount of time writing it up. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/187 "2005-10-10T22:40:22Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Which is why all that “one law” stuff is silly and unworkable out in the real world. I think this statement is incorrect which might indicate why you are missing the point of Libertarianism. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose criminalization of victimless acts (or as the ancient common law maxim says: Volenti non fit injuria --to the willing person, no legal wrong is done). This opposition to coercion also extends into the economic realm. They oppose government intervention in the economy (other than to forbid businesses from engaging in coercion or fraud); while some oppose all taxation, most support only enough taxation as they believe necessary to protect individual liberty. [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) I believe this refutes in broad terms your statement that Libertarians want a “one law” system. Libertaria would have a government, just smaller and non-coercive. Libertaria would have more than one law, just fewer laws based more on logic and scientific reasoning than religion and tradition. Libertaria would have government oversight on the economy, with much less influence on the market, fewer regulatory laws, fewer taxation types(income, tarriffs, etc.) and less taxation in total(due to smaller government.) Until you understand these things your arguments against Libertarianism fail to even pass go. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/188 "2005-10-11T14:28:25Z")
> [@GreyMatters](#): > > I think this statement is incorrect which might indicate why you are missing the point of Libertarianism. > > [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) > > I believe this refutes in broad terms your statement that Libertarians want a “one law” system. > > Libertaria would have a government, just smaller and non-coercive. > > Libertaria would have more than one law, just fewer laws based more on logic and scientific reasoning than religion and tradition. > > Libertaria would have government oversight on the economy, with much less influence on the market, fewer regulatory laws, fewer taxation types(income, tarriffs, etc.) and less taxation in total(due to smaller government.) > > Until you understand these things your arguments against Libertarianism fail to even pass go. And until you understand that I was discussing one particuular permutation of a libertarian system with a person who proposes the “one law” system as both sensible and viable, _your_ post will fail to even pass go. (As I said several times in this thread, libertarianism is a fractious movement, which is why I focused on **Lib** ’s particular vision of a libertarian world, as he as espoused in many threads for quite some time now.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/189 "2005-10-11T14:35:54Z")
In fact, let me take you to task on each of your statements… > [@GreyMatters](#): > > Libertaria would have a government, just smaller and non-coercive. But **Lib** does not want a government, at least as commonly understood. **Lib** is not a minarchist. He wants to smash the state entirely, and replace it with wholly-voluntary entities that one can simply opt out of entirely. > [@GreyMatters](#): > > Libertaria would have more than one law, just fewer laws based more on logic and scientific reasoning than religion and tradition. Not in **Lib** ’s utopian vision. Sure, there may be “laws,” but in **Lib** ’s mind, all of those laws can be derived directly from his noncoercion principle. Effectively, it is a “one law” system. > [@GreyMatters](#): > > Libertaria would have government oversight on the economy, with much less influence on the market, fewer regulatory laws, fewer taxation types(income, tarriffs, etc.) and less taxation in total(due to smaller government.) Again, not in **Lib** ’s vision. The notion that **Lib** would tolerate taxation (rather than a voluntary exchange of money for services) is particularly laughable to anyone who has engaged him on the topic in the past. > [@GreyMatters](#): > > Until you understand these things your arguments against Libertarianism fail to even pass go. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I like libertarianism as a critique of modern government. I’m quite libertarian in my particular world-view, actually: I believe in a smaller state with fewer restrictions on free enterprise. What I oppose, vehemently, is re-inventing the world based on the view of radical utopians. That is true whether it is a communist system or a libertarian one such as that proposed by **Lib**. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/190 "2005-10-11T15:34:15Z")
There is a wide spectrum in Libertarian philosophy regarding the role of government and application of the non-coercion principle. I apologise for assuming too much from that one sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/191 "2005-10-11T15:41:58Z")
> [@GreyMatters](#): > > I think this statement is incorrect which might indicate why you are missing the point of Libertarianism. Actually, my experience has been that his misunderstandings are more profound than that. He attacks libertarianism not from principle, not from reason, but almost from the point of view of madness. The coy pretend inquiries, allegedly born of mere curiosity, that turn out to be ambushes for the purpose of creating agitation and argument. Denials that his questions have been answered when in fact they have been answered directly and repeatedly. Boss Hoggs scenarios that morph over time until they are practically unrecognizable from their initial states. The holding of different standards for himself than he holds for others, such as his refusal to acknowledge that the well documented failings of his own system matter, while what he perceives as failings in libertarianism doom it as a philosophy. His conflation of my personal preferences for a libertarian implementation with libertarian theory as a whole. His bizarre and inexplicable misrepresentations of my position — for example, “Lib does not want a government” — that he has made up out of the clear blue, or by completely lacking comprehension of simple statements. These are not the methods and effects of a reasonable man. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/192 "2005-10-11T17:46:40Z")
> [@GreyMatters](#): > > There is a wide spectrum in Libertarian philosophy regarding the role of government and application of the non-coercion principle. On this I completely agree. Indeed, there are libertarians having more modest reforms in mind that I am totally on board with. > [@Liberal](#): > > Actually, my experience has been that his misunderstandings are more profound than that. He attacks libertarianism not from principle, not from reason, but almost from the point of view of madness. Hi Lib, good to see you’re still participating. Tell you what: if my viewpoint is “madness,” let’s poll a random sample of SDMB’ers and see if they reach that same conclusion. Sure, sure, I know, logic and reason aren’t won by popularity contests, but we’ve got some smart folks over here, and I’d bet they can fairly evaluate whether your statement is in fact true or whether it’s bourne of your own emotional attachment to your stated worldview. > [@Liberal](#): > > The coy pretend inquiries, allegedly born of mere curiosity, that turn out to be ambushes for the purpose of creating agitation and argument. Denials that his questions have been answered when in fact they have been answered directly and repeatedly. A refusal to answer – or, indeed, to even consider the question – is not an answer, **Lib**. > [@Liberal](#): > > Boss Hoggs scenarios that morph over time until they are practically unrecognizable from their initial states. I don’t think my scenarios morphed much, if at all. I cited parallels to the real world to demonstrate that the statements I was making were reasonable, but those parallels did not change the facts of the hypothetical. > [@Liberal](#): > > The holding of different standards for himself than he holds for others, such as his refusal to acknowledge that the well documented failings of his own system matter, while what he perceives as failings in libertarianism doom it as a philosophy. This hasn’t really arisen in this thread, but I’ve dealt with it in discussions with you in the past. Namely, the issue isn’t that the status quo is perfect – no, far from it, it has many flaws – but rather that your system would make things a lot worse. > [@Liberal](#): > > His conflation of my personal preferences for a libertarian implementation with libertarian theory as a whole. Well, no, I don’t, actually, which is why I focus on your implementation. I actually don’t have much problem with libertarian theory writ large – indeed, as I’ve stated, it informs much of my own view of the world. I do have a problem with certain proffered implementations of libertarianism, of which your vision is one. > [@Liberal](#): > > His bizarre and inexplicable misrepresentations of my position — for example, “Lib does not want a government” — that he has made up out of the clear blue, or by completely lacking comprehension of simple statements. These are not the methods and effects of a reasonable man. Perhaps you missed the qualifier “at least as [is] commonly understood” in my sentence. I know it must have been a simple mistake, and not a deliberate distortion, because that would, indeed, be quite _unreasonable_ on your part. I stand by my statement. Your vision of government isn’t really a traditional government, but a collection of services offered at a price by private enterprise, unbound from any kind of geograpic political unit. Indeed, your whole worldview is bound up in dislike for traditional government – that is, after all, what you seek to do away with. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/193 "2005-10-11T19:07:20Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I’m not “nixing the bag of cash.” My point in citing to my own drafting experience is that methods of payment are common provisions in commercial agreements – whatever those methods of payment might be. “Suitcases full of cash” might be unorthodox, but there’s nothing stopping me from making that my payment method (in libertaria, anyway; money laundering laws in the real world might make it tough). As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing legally preventing you from paying someone with a suitcase full of money. There’s a reporting requirement on all transactions above $10,000. But so long as you file the paperwork, you’re in the clear. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/194 "2005-10-11T19:29:58Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing legally preventing you from paying someone with a suitcase full of money. There’s a reporting requirement on all transactions above $10,000. But so long as you file the paperwork, you’re in the clear. My point exactly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663.md?page=9)