Lighthouses and Giant Squids: A Debate about Libertarianism

[Liberal]

This thread is for anyone who cares to debate libertarianism.

My assertion is this, that allowing peaceful honest people to pursue their own happiness in their own way is a good and reasonable ethic.

Rebuttals?

[KidCharlemagne]

That’s a bit of a loaded assertion don’t you think?

[Neurotik]

Sure, it’s fine in theory. But the theory falls apart when we find out that people aren’t always peaceful or honest in the real world. Sort of like communism.

[Liberal]

But I’m not talking about people who aren’t peaceful and honest, am I? I’m not asking that they be allowed the same freedom. Do you need me to reprint the assertion?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Ah. Thanks, Lib. Though I’m sort of embarassed to be in a thread with such a name.

Some background: I vote libertarian when possible though I disagree with many of the more extreme views espoused by the candidates (and yourself). You would probably call me a ‘statist’ as I’ve heard you call other Libertarians candidates ‘statists’. OTOH, my democratic friends refer to me as a ‘bomb-throwing anarchist; (no foolin’…one of the Press Corps called me that on the Hill once).

To the questions:

1. You seem to assume that for libertopia to exist you need a citizenry that is peaceful, rational and honest. Upon what evidence do you assume that the average human fulfills all three of these requirements? In my experience, Homo Sapiens is the single most ego-driven and selfish species yet seen.

2. Above I said you might refer to me as a ‘statist’ because I believe that scratching the whole governmental system is impossible. Given that you had to choose to work within the current system what one single legislative action would you place at the top of the priority list? Something you could get people to rally around and begin the incremental formation of a libertarian governmental form in the United States.

I ask the above because, even though I hold a version of libertarian ideals, I find most of the proponents of the libertarian philosophy are impratical in the extreme. They would rather shout that they’re ‘right’ than attempt to actually cause change. And that makes me believe that most libertarian proponents are doing nothing more than masturbating. I find it to be ethically bankrupt to believe that you have a better way of governing without attempting to bring it to being.

More later, but I’m truly interested in your answers.

[Liberal]

Jonathan

1. You seem to assume that for libertopia to exist you need a citizenry that is peaceful, rational and honest. Upon what evidence do you assume that the average human fulfills all three of these requirements? In my experience, Homo Sapiens is the single most ego-driven and selfish species yet seen.

No, you’re mistaken. I agree with you about the nature of most people. If I didn’t, I would advocate anarchy. What need is there for a government at all if everyone is going to be peaceful and honest?

But I do not advocate anarchy. I advocate a government as big and strong as it needs to be to supress coercion from people who are NOT peaceful and honest. That is the natural advocacy that derives from the assertion I made in the OP.

2. Above I said you might refer to me as a ‘statist’ because I believe that scratching the whole governmental system is impossible. Given that you had to choose to work within the current system what one single legislative action would you place at the top of the priority list? Something you could get people to rally around and begin the incremental formation of a libertarian governmental form in the United States.

Dang!

I was all prepared to offer a Constitutional amendment, and then you threw in your last sentence.

I suppose that the most important priority at this point in our nearly outright Fabianist state is to dismantle the Total Information Awareness behemoth before it’s too late.

Regarding this:

I find it to be ethically bankrupt to believe that you have a better way of governing without attempting to bring it to being.

You make a good point. I just don’t want to be disingenuous and pretend that I advocate one thing when I in fact advocate another.

[Liberal]

Jonathan

Clarification:

When I said, “No, you’re mistaken,” it was about this:

You seem to assume that for libertopia to exist you need a citizenry that is peaceful, rational and honest.

and not this:

In my experience, Homo Sapiens is the single most ego-driven and selfish species yet seen.

That statement I agree with.

[Gadarene]

My rebuttals may be found in part in the OP and subsequent posts here:

Libertarianism: the baseline problem

This Land is Your Land, and I Don’t Have Land

Curious George Goes to Libertaria

And from my posts on another thread:

The libertarian philosophy necessarily predisposes itself to absolutism–i.e., for a libertarian society to function, it must be possible to easily distinguish the peaceful, honest people from those who aren’t always peaceful or honest, or those who are peaceful and honest to varying degrees. Our current context, despite your protestations to the contrary, is based not on the idea that we’re all “selfish, evil reprobates,” but that such absolutism is inherently impossible–that some people are dishonest, and some people act irrationally, and that we need a social framework to deal with those eventualities in light of a greater good.

Why irrationality matters:

The fact that people do act irrationally changes the nature of the whole equation. . . . Listen: Not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time. Not even most of the time. Some people act out of short-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the longer term, and some people act out of long-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the shorter term. But not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time, and being occasionally irrational in no way automatically removes someone from the ranks of peace and honesty.

Basically, I feel that positing the existence of a peaceful, honest, and (implicitly) rational populace is assuming your own conclusion. If the populace is peaceful, honest, and rational, then pretty much any consensual government/system/context is going to work darn well. Even if you agree, as you surely do, that not everyone is peaceful and honest (which is not the same, by the way, as saying that everyone is not peaceful and honest), a libertarian society is still predicated on the assumption that people who are not sufficiently peaceful and honest may be easily identified and excluded to no practical ill-effect.

Which is where the ambiguity of words like “peacefulness,” “honesty,” “initiation,” “force,” and “coercion” comes in. Everyone agrees that the first two are good things, and the last is bad. But if these terms were reliable, cognizable, and identifiable, then presumably the features of our society decried as non-libertarian would have sorted themselves out long ago.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Thanks, Lib. Maybe we can nail this sucker down. Though I warn you, Lady Chance and I have a date to see The Two Towers tonight (no baby!) so I won’t be around!

A follow up, if I may.

You reply that you agree with me that people are selfish etc (I could quote Lex Luthor here…but I won’t). But wouldn’t this Libertarian government be comprised of such individuals? Doesn’t that make any government at all inherently coercive as it’s made up of the sum of its parts?

And if your reply to question 2 you mention that your top legislative priority would be the dismantling (or rather stopping) of the Total Information Agency. Fine. How would you then, using the current system, go about making that happen?

And I don’t understand your final statement:

I just don’t want to be disingenuous and pretend that I advocate one thing when I in fact advocate another.

I’m not understanding that in context of my statement about ethical bankruptcy. Could you elaborate on that for me?

[KidCharlemagne]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
** You seem to assume that for libertopia to exist you need a citizenry that is peaceful, rational and honest. **

I don’t want to nitpick but the use of the term “libertopia” DOES make it seem like you think that Libertarians expect the world to be a perfect place if some of it’s ideals were enacted. That’s probably the case for some but it only has to be better than the current system to get my vote.

[Fear_Itself]

I submit that any form of government (monarchy, socialist, dictatorship, democratic republic or theocracy) will work fine if all the governing and governed are peaceful and honest. Since this, in the history of the world, has never happened, all forms of government, including libertarianism, are flawed. All we can do is adopted the form of government whose flaws annoy us the least.

[Jurhael]

Fear Itself:
“All we can do is adopted the form of government whose flaws annoy us the least.”

Well, in my case, that would be Socialism. Democratic Socialism to be exact as I don’t quite support Cuba. heeheh

[Scylla]

How do you define “peaceful honest people.”

Once you’ve defined them, how do you identify them?

Once you’ve identified them how do you ensure they stay that way?

Is there such a thing as “peaceful honest people,” or is it really just a question of degree?

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**But I’m not talking about people who aren’t peaceful and honest, am I? I’m not asking that they be allowed the same freedom. Do you need me to reprint the assertion? **

As I said, feel free to talk about a nice, theoretical world. But don’t assume it has any relationship to the real one.

And don’t get so snotty when someone points out that you have yet to prove that your assertion is realistic. And without your proof that this is so, you are just talking about make-believe.

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne *
**I don’t want to nitpick but the use of the term “libertopia” DOES make it seem like you think that Libertarians expect the world to be a perfect place if some of it’s ideals were enacted. That’s probably the case for some but it only has to be better than the current system to get my vote. **

Well, ‘Libertopia’ has been used often enough in this forum (and others) that I feel I have the right to use the word as the name of our eventual land.

Substitute whatever form you like. Makes me no never mind.

[Ulterior]

Something closely related to Gadarene’s post:

What does “peaceful and honest” mean? How does one assess whether a given individual is peaceful and honest? Whose job is it to make this assessment?

If it’s the government’s, then who checks the government so that it doesn’t arrive at a bad definition of “peaceful and honest?” I would assume “society” would be the check; if the check were “peaceful and honest people” then we’re going around in circles. So society as a body defines what “peaceful and honest” means. How?

In effect, you’re talking about a lot of government: a lot of lawyers, bureaucrats, officials of various stripes. These people make laws for the preservation of peace and honesty; they interpret these laws in legal decisions; and they enforce these laws at the level of the citizenry. This means that somebody spends a lot of time, and a lot of money, doing these activities. To arrive at any functional definition of “peaceful and honest” requires interference with peaceful and honest people, because of the effort involved and thus the necessity of getting people to contribute to these efforts. Further, no definition of “peaceful and honest” will be perfect, therefore there will be mistakes along the way, and people who are truly peaceful and honest will be interfered with again. Since defining “peaceful and honest” means interfering with peaceful and honest people, libertarianism as Libertarian has presented it is impossible.

A huge caveat: None of this means that Libertarian is wrong. It just means that his principle can’t be applied to the degree that he would like. To the extent that it is sensible, I don’t think that government should interfere with people’s private lives. However, I am not willing to be any more forceful than that in the application of principle, because the project of government must, simply because of the ambiguity of words and values, be flexible.

-Ulterior

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Well, I’ve brought up several issues, some of which either haven’t been addressed or haven’t been fully addressed. I refer you here and here for the details. I present some of them in abbreviated form:

1. Ownership of deep-water ports: how is it established? Can I own New York harbor? How about the Atlantic Ocean?

2. Is the committment of a mentally incompetent person who, left to his own devices, would be a danger to himself an initiation of force against that person?

3. How is consent to government established in Libertopia? Is it only by express consent, or can it be implied by conduct? If it can be implied, what degree of conduct is required to create the implication?

4. Can a Libertopian state deny its services to someone unable to pay its fees? If so, doesn’t this create a situation where (for example) criminals can prey on the poor with impunity because they cannot afford police protection?

For the record, I’m a conservative with a strong libertarian streak. I don’t object to libertarian thought in general, and I think it has much to add to public discourse on various issues. However, I am very skeptical of the “pure” libertarian state advocated by Lib.

I’m going out of town tomorrow, and have plenty to do to prepare tonight, so I may be absent for awhile, just FYI.

[Gadarene]

Ulterior: I would guess Lib would respond that no one needs to define peacefulness and honesty; that people define themselves through their actions. Those people that don’t initiate force or fraud are peaceful and honest; those that do, aren’t. Which makes it a problem of defining “initiation,” “force,” and “fraud.” Who makes those determinations? Dunno.

[KidCharlemagne]

I think an actual assertion about Libertarianism needs to be made before any constructive debate can take place. Something along the lines of, “There is nothing the public sector can do that the private sector can’t do better” or anything actually related to libertarianism and not fallacious rhetoric.

[Gadarene]

Dewey: I hope Lib doesn’t mind me taking a crack at a couple of those as well (Lib, let me know if I’m misrepresenting your view in any way).

#1: If you can purchase it, you can own it.

#2: Yes.

#3: Consent to be governed must be express.

#4: Presumably, the market would take care of this: service providers would arise who would charge low enough fees for the poor to afford and, thus, be granted some police protection. But yes–if you can’t pay the fee, you don’t get the service.