1. The initiation of coercion and force is immoral.
There is no such thing as morality in a Libertarian government. Morality is within the confines of religion. What force is to a Libertarian is unethical, if I can even call it that but for the sake of this conversation it is. Coercion means invading upon the rights of another being.
If I force you to do something against your will it is coercian.
2. Government is an institution which maintains a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force in a given geographical area.
No, government is run by the people to defend and protect against aggression. My stronger fellow Libertarians believe that open borders are a good thing. The people in the Libertarian society still maintain their complete and full rights to protect their property and help the so-called government in the time of crisis. Being run by the people as opposed to what we have now, a monopoly is wrong. It is not run by the government as it stands now it is run by the people in my eyes. It is mostly voluntary or by vote.
3. But to maintain a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must initiate coercive force to exclude competitors.
Since it is not run by a monopoly as you suggest, the Libertarians don’t intiate nor do they condone coercive tactics or force. It works to keep it’s citizens free of coercion, nor more, no less. Again, there is a small system of government that must be maintained but it run through the people. Unlike today’s society, if we were a Libertarian govt, we would not have gone to Vietnam, Korea etc. Those issues may have been brought to the table in a diplomatic environment but not once would our government participated in the deaths of our people or theirs if our own people are not threatened directly.
4. Hence, to exist as a legal monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, a government must employ immoral means.
Again, it’s not a monopoly. Again, since Libertarians in the political view don’t commit to immorality this statement becomes null and void. Since Libertarians don’t believe in force your “immoral” statement does not apply. If a country must defend its self then it is doing so for the rights of its citizens. To sit back and not defend is cowardly but to intiate force for the sake of force is even more so.
5. Government is thus intrinsically immoral and self- contradictory.
Now what you are getting at is an anarchy. Libertarians understand the need for a basic government to provide basic services like defense but at no time does a government have any right to decide that you or I should pay for abortions, education, or anything else that does not directly affect each and every person in the county. In otherwords, and I am going off my own beliefs, protecting the safety of its citizens is the main goal. Other than that each person is there to do as he or she pleases provided you do not stomp on the rights of others.
OY! I see this heading to Great Debates soon!
No, everybody has equal freedom under Libertarianism.
The main idea here is that government exists only to protect the basic freedoms of the people. That means a judicial system, a law enforcement system, and a defense system. Extremist Libertarians believe in the complete elimination of taxes altogether and the privatization of all services. (Instead of everyone paying taxes to support a multitude of services, you pay user fees for the services you want/need.)
I take a more moderate view; I believe in public education and environmental laws, for instance.
A good way to think of Libertarianism is Capitalism applied to Government.
I believe techchick did an excellent job responding to your other points.
BTW: I DON’T think this necessarily belongs in GD, though it might end up there.
I, for one, would like some libertarian to tell us how a “libertarian” government/country would be run. How would they run/pay for the army, police/fire, roads, schools, welfare, etc. What would happen if someone did not want to pay. How would laws be enforced, and would there be any. Who & how would any Govt be picked, who would run the army, police, etc. If there were any taxes, what & who would be taxed, and how would they be collected.
I will say here & now, that being as there has been exactly ZERO libertarian countries up to now, and beirut/lebanon has been the closest thing yet, I am not certain if the questions can be answered.
Libertarians believe that the government exists only to protect your basic human rights. Obviously, that includes having a police system, a judicial system, and an army. These would need to be supported through minimal taxes. (When I say minimal, think about 5% of what you pay now.)
Everything else, including social services, should be privatized. If you want something, you pay for that thing. Charities would still exist, but they would be private charities.
Now, I consider myself Libertarian but I don’t take such an extremist view. I believe states need much more autonomy and about 80% of the federal government should be done away with. But I understand the importance of other things that should be provided by the government, such as free education. Maybe if we got rid of all the unnecessary stuff we could give socialized health care a go.
And now I will quote my friend Bob: “There’s a very fine line between Libertarianism and Anarchy, and one of these days, I just might cross it.”
I forgot to mention in my last post, about paying for services you want: Many people ask, well what about the poor who can’t afford those services? The answer is, since they aren’t raped by taxes and social security, most will be able to afford things. For the rest, there will be private charities who can afford to take care of them, because the rich people who donate to them are themselves not being raped by excessive taxes.
Libertarianism can be seen as an extreme form of Republicanism without all the stupid “morals.” Give the money back to the people and let them spend it how they see fit.
People can take care of themselves, and they will, if you let them.
I believe pre-depression America was an extremely Libertarian country, though I doubt it was called that back then.
I will do my best – Manny has already been emailed about this thread as I can see it as another round of Libertarian debates.
Yes this is all voluntary. But a free people are willing to pay for freedom. They are not forced into paying for services they don’t believe in. Personally, if my nieghbor wasn’t paying for national defense I would not care to be around them. It’s not an easy task but patriotism is crucial in my eyes to get people to the task. It wouldn’t take a great deal really. Hell, I do support what some of the government is doing to defend us, I just don’t appreciate the excess within the government. As a citizen, if I had a choice I would draw back my funds and let them know that certain programs don’t warrant my money. They are a monopoly now.
Same goes here. I am more than willing to put in my fair share to support my police and fire. I will not pay for my fire chief or my police commissioner to go to fancy meetings in Vail and waste my money. If he has a particular event to attend, it must be spartan in nature. Most of these people are voluntary in nature but do get a salary we think is fair. Not what some central government think is fair. BTW, without drug laws and other such laws the police services are limited solely to policing rights violations.
Unlike some of my fellow Libertarians that go solely based on this (no offense my friends) there has to be a common denominator with this. Yes, right of ways must be considered etc…but in this world we must have a peaceful means by which to set up traffic. We pay a toll though. If you, through bargaining, gave up part of your land for a road, it would be your decision. The govt can not force you to give up your land as they do now for right-of-way. If it means that much to the residents in question (and quite honestly that’s what it comes down to in our area) then those that use that road pay back the land owner each time they use it. But there is never a forcible way to obtain land like it is now. If you don’t like the toll a land owner enforces, go around…there are a lot of fair people out there.
Schools are privately run. You get to keep your money and choose which school your child is in. You get to have the education you want for your child. Then, I know your next question; “What about the poor people.” You have little faith in humanity don’t you? First of all we are not all born of equal means even if we are born with equal rights. This I understand but you have to consider that those with economic means are more than willing to support those without. I know it personally. Hey, I don’t want kids so let me keep that little bit (what little I have left over) to support me and my nieces and nephews if I so choose.
There is no welfare in a Libertarian society. If you want to help your neighbors you do, if you don’t you don’t. But time and time again social programs funded by our taxes are not benefiting those that need it. It creates a system of govt. that is fat and over bloated. Charity, and yes it can and does happen, far betters the people that need help. More financial resources are used than in the system of the social govt. as we know it in addition with charity comes the actual human caring.
People are doing it now. They live off the govt, er our taxes free and clear. But in a Libertarian society you put into it, you get out of it. If you don’t, in my eyes then you don’t benefit. If you need help, you can help yourself but you will not sponge off others. I will not be forced to pay for programs I don’t believe in. If I had those thousands of dollars or so I paid last year in taxes then I would be more than happy to donate it to the programs I feel benefit me more. In turn I might actually have a decent retirement income from my investments.
OY!!! People keep going back to this Utopia/Anarchy thing…something that drives me up a wall! Anyhow, if a basic Libertarian Government used the Constitution as a basis I think it is livable. Yes there would be a few changes with regards to taxes etc but over all I think it is a doable thing.
Again, this goes back to the basics of the Constitution, voting and the people. I don’t know how some of my fellow Libertarians feel on this subject but I for one feel this is a good starting point to get there.
Please explain this one to me, I need to understand where or what you are thinking with this.
Much of the same stuff I hear on this board all the time.
I guarantee, this will be refutted from conservatives and liberals alike. Hence my intuition that this will be pushed over in Great Debates.
Now come on now, you really havn’t answered the questions. maybe somebody who is more of a mainstream libertarian can, tho.
See, it is easy to say all that “good” stuff, ie “your taxes would be 5% of what they are now”, without telling us who IS going to pay for all the other stuff Govt pays for. And that 55 is bogus anyway, the military alone eats up some 25%, and locally fire & police eat up some 40 %. So taxes might be 25% of now, at best. But overall, you would pay the same, as the other stuff the gov’t provides, you would hafta pay a private source for. See then, if you wanted to get your kid thru school, YOU would have to pay for all of it. There would be tolls on all the roads. Many seniors would simply starve to death.
But, at a FEDERAL level, the USA was sorta libertarian pre CIVIl war, as the military was about the only thing it ran. But the states still did taxes for roads, canals, schools, and other such things (as a %, state & local taxes were higher). The federal taxes were done by high tariffs (bad by modern day economists, and libertarians) and ‘sin’ taxes, ie alcohol & tobacco (if booze was taxed now at the rate it was then, the price would triple, at least). So, what you would like is a return to the old “states rights”, ie the state & local gov’t make most of the decisions and taxes. I wil admit, the “new deal” was a socialist movement, and made the feds our “caretakers” to a great extent.
BTW according to our govt. our income tax has gone from 8% of a person’s income in 1902 to 47% in 1994.
Imagine that. 47% or more of your income has gone towards a big corporate machine called government. How did humans survive before this?
No war on drugs, no prohibition, schools were funded locally, the poor were taken care of locally, the entire federal government is so swept up in social causes and crap projects that we as tax payers are paying a serious price for this.
If you would like I will get you the specific resource this was taken from…which BTW was brought up in one of my debates over Libertarians before.
What it comes down to is you are responsible for you. The government is not your nanny to tell you right from wrong or to tell you that you are are required to give up that which you earn for those that have no respect for themselves or life.
It’s all about responsibility.
I have enough trust in humans to know that if I am down and out, I can get help from someone no matter how hard it is to ask. I have been without and my family and friends helped me, I never asked for a dime from the government. It was my responsibility to seek out help from those near me not a big entity like Uncle Sam.
I will address the Opening Post, and then leave it at that. What is wrong with the logic is that you have not allowed for a government that governs by consent only. Such a government is ethical; any other is not.
I’m not “mainstream” libertarian but IMHO, techchick is.
The first question you must ask yourself is whether “all the other stuff” is vital to each and every individual. If it fails that test, out it goes.
If you can’t handle the first question I suggested, an alternative question (which I would consider “mainstream”) is whether “all the other stuff” is enumerated in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 addresses this directly. If you don’t see it listed, it’s unconstitutional, therefore, out it goes.
The military, if used properly, could run on a much smaller budget. As just one small example, imagine the savings realised from closing down a hundred or so US military bases in foreign countries; involvement in foreign wars, and UN, NATO “adventures”. That alone should boggle your mind.
What is the problem with that? Did you not bring a child into the world and/or choose to raise a child? It is your choice and your responsibility.
I’m not certain of that, however, I have encountered a number of tolls myself. It is not exclusive to a libertarian type government.
And you base that on… what; hype fed to you through the media? Would you allow a senior family member starve to death? I wouldn’t. For those seniors who do not have any surviving family members to assist them, church congregations and private charity could.
I would say flavoured with libertarianism, but it was first diluted when the Constitution was written. And, frankly, no I wouldn’t be one to advocate the “old states rights” if that would result in the same type of tyranny.
It’s heartening to see that you can recognize the taint of our current government. There are far too many citizens oblivious and apathetic.
Look, Oh wise and certain libertarians- I don’t wanna hear how our Gov’t is morally bankrupt, or how we are paying 47% of our income in taxes (which we are not), or how wonderful libertarianism is, so much so that our wallets will be fat, our taxes will be zero, world hunger and world peace will both be solved, AND everyones acne will be cleared up. I want you to tell us EXACTLY how such an oh-so-perfect governmant would be run. In other words, I don’t want to be baffled with bullshit anymore, but dazzled by your “brilliance”. All those things you are saying that would happen if we had a libertarian govt-- I can SAY all that will happen AND more if everyone just decides to make me God-Emperor of the World. So, tippy-toe back up to my earlier posts here, and answer the specific questions, or - just admit it is completely impractical and a pipe dream. In other words, I’ve called; time to show your cards or fold.
Since there are as many types of libertarianism as there are libertarians, I do not want links, but their personal takes on what a for real libt. gov’t would operate like. I have gone to links before, and pointed out sections that are impractical, just to have the person say “well, in my form of Libt it doesn’t work that way”.
Speaking for myself, bring forward one that you think is “impractical” and it can be discussed. If you find that unreasonable, then I’m going to side with Phil.
I have a resource for you to prove the 47% of our income goes to taxes – our wonderful US Census. If you would like specifics I am more than happy to list the source and you can run to the library and check for yourself. There is no link on the net about it that I know about.
As for your comment:
I am with Edlyn and pldennison on this. If you have specific questions about Libertarianism, then ask it. Go do some research, specifically with http://www.lp.org and http://www.libertarian.org. Both are excellent resources.
Don’t sit here in this forum and be whiney about it. If you have specifics then bring them up. Otherwise you are just being whiney and don’t really want to get to the bottom of it.
Use a point by point, if you want to know why I think this or that, then ask us directly don’t throw it out there as a general view for all Libertarians on this board. That’s not how a debate goes.
you ask me a question
I answer it
you don’t understand or need clarification you ask or you provide a counter point
I do what I can to clarify or answer your question or counterpoint your answer
