# questions about libertarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2000, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790 "2000-08-02T03:50:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/121 "2000-08-07T06:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > On the matter of defining terms, it is not uncommon for a philosophy to use words in a very narrow and specific way. Libertarianism is no different. Giving words and terms specific meanings makes it possible to discuss and understand the philosophy. It happens in these sorts of debates that multiple meanings of the same term are used. This causes confusion, but does not necessarily mean that we are trying to equivocate. > \*\* Rxcept these words already have perfectly good meanings, and the attempt is to change that meaning, so that it can be used in a semantically laoded context. See, NOBODY wants 'coercion", coercion means using force, and few want to resort to that. So the Libt say they have a “coercion-free” society, by redefinng “coercion” as something I do, but they don’t. Let me say it one more time. Forcing someone to adhere to the terms of a contract, no matter how wilfully signed, IS coercion, and all the “is nots!” in the world is not going to change that. If we were going to “tighten up” the meaning of a word, without using semantically loaded word, I could agree. But there is no attempt here to give a word a more exact meaning. The idea is to propagandize the listener, to make him agree that HE is a “statist”, and the Libt govt would not use “coercion”, and that “taxation is theft”. I went to college, too, guys, I can figure out what you are doing. Why don’t we cut out these games? We have asked a query- How would a Lib’t govt work? Not how would it solve “all the problems in the world”, but how it would take out the garbage, put out the fires, etc. You Libt explain how it would work. We point out the inconsistencies, holes, and paradoxes involved. You explain them. We… etc etc etc, You… etc etc etc. Now, what is wrong with that? Why can’t you do this? Now, you know we are gonna attack your hypotheses. Good, we are all out in the open. I will try to keep the sarcasm down. You stop the semantic propaganda. See, we will all learn something. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/122 "2000-08-07T07:03:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > Forcing someone to adhere to the terms of a contract, no matter how wilfully signed, IS coercion, and all the “is nots!” in the world is not going to change that. \*\* I could be mistaken but I didn’t think Libertarians thought that the use of force was always wrong. Certainly in the case of someone breaking a contract with you they have used force first. As such you’d be within your rights to “force” them into honoring the contract. You’d most likely do this through the civil court system, or in the case of fraud, the criminal court system. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If we were going to “tighten up” the meaning of a word, without using semantically loaded word, I could agree. But there is no attempt here to give a word a more exact meaning. \*\* Yeah, they should make it clear that the initiation of force is what is wrong. Retalitory force is perfectly ok though. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Why don’t we cut out these games? We have asked a query- How would a Lib’t govt work? Not how would it solve “all the problems in the world”, but how it would take out the garbage, put out the fires, etc. You Libt explain how it would work. \*\* Honestly I don’t know how to fix every little problem we have. I vote Libertarian because they come closer to my own political philosophy then anyone else. I do worry about things like pollution and I believe the government does have a place in making sure things stay safe. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/123 "2000-08-07T07:19:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > Yeah, they should make it clear that the initiation of force is what is wrong. Retalitory force is perfectly ok though. > > Honestly I don’t know how to fix every little problem we have. > > Marc \*\* And just what is the difference? Why do the Lib’t accuse the Constsitional form of Gov’t with “initiating” force, while their force is “retalitory”? You break the law, we can use force. You break a contract, and the Libt allows force. Why is one “initiated” and the other only “retalitory”? It is the same thing. But, by calling the Govt force “initaited” and the Lib’t use of force “retalitory”, you folks use semantically loaded words for propaganda. Neither use of force is “initiated”. See how that goes? By redefining the terms, it is made to look like “Gov’t force =BAD” “Lib’t force= GOOD”. And, for the (now), 8th time, we do not want you to explain how to fix 'every little problem", just the normal, everyday ones, every Gov’t faces. Please stop saying this, Libts, we are getting a bit tired of that excuse, OK? And I thank you for your honesty. Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with VOTING Libt, even I do so, sometimes. With a minority party like the Libt party, even if its eventual “goals” are unrealistic, it will begin to attract diaffected voters from other parties. Once you get enuf, one of the Big parties will notice that, co-opt one of “your” ideas as its own, and get the voters back. That’s why the “2 party system” works so well. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/124 "2000-08-07T09:19:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > And just what is the difference? Why do the Lib’t accuse the Constsitional form of Gov’t with “initiating” force, while their force is “retalitory”? You break the law, we can use force. You break a contract, and the Libt allows force. Why is one “initiated” and the other only “retalitory”? It is the same thing. \*\* Initiated force and retalitory force aren’t the exact same thing. If I attempt to steal an apple off your cart then I am initiating force. If you smack my hand to stop me that is retalitory force. Retalitory force is a response to the initiation of force. The only people I’ve ever known who thought the two to be the same were pacifist. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But, by calling the Govt force “initaited” and the Lib’t use of force “retalitory”, you folks use semantically loaded words for propaganda. Neither use of force is “initiated”. See how that goes? By redefining the terms, it is made to look like “Gov’t force =BAD” “Lib’t force= GOOD”. \*\* Not at all. Some government force **is** good. Take for example law enforcement. When the government locks up someone for assault and robbery that is a good use of force. When the government locks someone away because of a consensual activity that is a bad use of force. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And, for the (now), 8th time, we do not want you to explain how to fix 'every little problem", just the normal, everyday ones, every Gov’t faces. Please stop saying this, Libts, we are getting a bit tired of that excuse, OK? \*\* Well everyday problems faced by government are quite a bit. Where would I even begin? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/125 "2000-08-07T09:38:51Z")
**Gadarene** > [@](#): > > I remember reading a thread once in which Libertarian averred that a libertarian constitution would have a single purpose, expressed in a single line: that people were guaranteed protection from the initiation of force and fraud (the non-coercion principle). That’s not quite right. I said (something like) that regarding the Constitution of Libertaria, but not about a libertarian constitution in general. Libertaria represents that government which in my view is ethical, and to which I personally would give my consent. I had said that only one law is **necessary**. Remember, we’re talking about _libertarianism_ here. You are free, if you wish, to sign over your liberty lock, stock, and barrel to a government with millions of complex contradictory laws, if that’s what makes you happy. What scares us about you (the general Fabianist y’all) is that you want to make our decisions for us. You’re so used to that mind-set that you do not stop to consider whether we have no intention of doing the same to you. If we say that we prefer so-and-so, it is _not_ to say that we believe you, too, should prefer it. Give your consent (or not) to whomever you please. It’s _your_ consent, after all. And leave people who are peaceful and honest (like yourself) to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/126 "2000-08-07T14:39:46Z")
**Daniel** : > [@](#): > > And in answer to you question: how MY life? Me. In releation to other people? I’m gonna ask them, I’m not arrogant enuf to assume that I can decide what other folks want out my my relationships with them, without some input. Great. Perfect answer. So then why do you assume that your decisions are my decisions? If you want yout government to hold your hand and make decisions on your behalf, why must you assume that I want the same thing? > [@](#): > > What DO you do with someone who lives in Libertaria, but won’t sign the contract. If he doesn’t sign the contract, he doesn’t live “in” Libertaria. For the last goddamned time, Daniel, and I know you are smart enough to handle this concept, Libertaria is **not a nation state**. It is **not a mass of land over which the government can and does claim eminent domain**. Libertaria is the agreement between the government and the people who agree to be governed by it. Can we please, _please_ stop mixing the metaphors. The Vatican is “in” Italy, but it isn’t Italy. Does that help? > [@](#): > > Can any citizen shoot him down, like a dog? I’m not going to dignify this with an answe. > [@](#): > > Can he burgle with impunity, as long as he is not caught redhanded? Good Christ Almighty, no. What part of “the government protects your right to make decisions with respect to your property” is the part that you don’t understand? If someone steals from you, and you have engaged a government to protect your rights, they will act on your behalf. If you have not, you are on your own. > [@](#): > > Can he leave the country? What country? Libertaria is not a land mass. He cannot travel across other people’s property absent their permission. > [@](#): > > How does he do so without a passport? Or do they say, he can leave all he wants, but he can’t, as he doesn’t have a passport? What passport? A Libertarian government does not conduct diplomacy unless asked to by its citizens. > [@](#): > > Can he still use the other “pay-as-you-go” sevice? He can do business with anyone he wants if they are willing to do business with him. Please remember that a Libertarian government does not provide road-building, fire-fighting, utilities, schools, etc. **for citizens or for noncitizens**. Everybody is free to seek the best solutions on their own. > [@](#): > > What happens if he does not pay? What happens to you now if you don’t pay your electric bill? > [@](#): > > How do you sue or penalize someone you have no authority over? If they’re doing business with me, I do have authority over them. > [@](#): > > How about sociopaths? How about them? > [@](#): > > " society, by redefinng “coercion” as something I do, but they don’t. Let me say it one more time. Forcing someone to adhere to the terms of a contract, no matter how wilfully signed, IS coercion, and all the “is nots!” in the world is not going to change that. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Forcing someone to adhere to the terms of a contract that they signed when of sound mind and body is not coercion. I don’t know why you don’t see this. > [@](#): > > How would a Lib’t govt work? Not how would it solve “all the problems in the world”, but how it would take out the garbage, put out the fires, etc. A Libertarian does none of those things. You can hire whoever you want to do those things. **Arnold** : > [@](#): > > You’re assuming that the corrupt, inept and dictatorial government officials (the same ones criticizing the ecologists’ lawn in the example above) will be entrusted to head the corporations with which I will be doing daily business, and that they will become benevolent and fair? I assume no such thing. However, the difference lies in the fact that, unlike with the government (at least **our** government), _I am free not to do business with them if I so choose_. **Jeff** : > [@](#): > > The United States had what might be considered the closest thing to a Libertarian government early in its history. That got us rampant discrimination, a severly oppressed worker class and the rise of robber barons. The United States had no such thing. The poor have rights, too–the same rights as the rich. At the very least, the rights to their own bodies and lives, and the things they own, even if all that is is the shirt on their back. Any government which does not protect those rights is **not** Libertarian. Plutocratic, maybe. **Gadarene** : > [@](#): > > Likewise, libertarians seem not to acknowledge that most people like the existing social contract. Well, of course they do. Most people are convinced that roads, schools, police, fire and garbage are free, and that the government cares what you think and will take care of you. Not that I’m claiming him as a Libertarian, or to be in agreement with anything I say, but how about someone in the position of Jonathan Chance. a poster here? He lives in rural Virginia. He pays his taxes. He has no library, no local schools, no police to speak of, no fire, no EMS . . . how about his situation? > [@](#): > > They like having a safety net, Let’s see . . . each paycheck, I put a percentage of my income into my 401(k). I get to choose what funds it goes into, and I can change it at anytime. Each quarter, I receive a detailed statement as to the performance of my money. I can never lose it all, for the most part. Each week, the government takes a portion of my check for something called “social security,” which has no real money in it, instead being an entry in a ledger somewhere which represents an imaginary sum being frittered away. Which situation is better? > [@](#): > > they like the minimum wage, Not everyone likes the minimum wage, I’m afraid, and there’s still an economic argument to be made that increases in the minimum wage lead to increased unemployment. > [@](#): > > they like having public agencies which ensure safe food and clear water and clean air. You’re making me laugh, here, Gad. Those agencies do no such thing. They are corrupt and inefficient, and guarantee nothing. Their conclusions on important issues vary between being for sale to the highest bidder or biased by political motivation. Superfund is a failure. The EPA cannot be trusted not to bow to political expedience. Don’t even get me started on the FDA, and its complete powerlessness in the face of beef, poultry and dairy producers and their lobbies. One of the most successful pollution-reduction measures of recent years was a **market-driven** solution, allowing corporations who decreased their pollutant level to sell “pollution credits” to other companies. Given a motivation to make money and defer cleanup costs by being cleaner and essentially selling their old pollution seemed to work pretty nicely. > [@](#): > > But it does most things pretty well, and I have confidence enough in our system to believe that needed reforms can be enacted without tearing the whole damn thing down. By whom? Do you have a million dollars sitting around to buy yourself a Senator or Representative? I don’t. > [@](#): > > Y’all believe–and I’ll address your comments more substantively later tonight, Phil–that it’ll be okay without free public education, See? You actually believe it’s free. Amazing. > [@](#): > > or federal unemployment benefits, or federal food-stamp programs, or federal worker safety and consumer protection programs, or federal anti-trust laws. I believe that there are market-driven solution to each and every one of these problems. > [@](#): > > Look, people keep pointing to the late 19th century and early 20th century as a possible harbinger of conditions under in a libertarian society. Such concerns are usually dismissed, and I think that’s a mistake. At the risk of being accused of relying on the “true Scotsman” dodge, a government which only protects the rights of the rich at the expense of the poor is, as I said to Jeff, **not** Libertarian. If you’re going to get away with letting oldscratch tell us why America is not socialist, at least grant me that. > [@](#): > > Absent minimum wage laws and public education, what’s preventing the formation of a permanent underclass? I thought we had one of those now? At least that’s what I’m told on umpteen thousand other threads. In fact, there are strong economic argument, some of which are even subscribed to by noted non-Libertarians like **RTFirefly** , that the current systems is **responsible** for the formation of a large underclass. > [@](#): > > Absent worker safety laws, what’s preventing another Triangle Shirtwaist fire, or conditions from Sinclair’s jungle? Absolutely nothing. Just like now. > [@](#): > > Absent anti-discrimination laws, what’s preventing the second coming of Jim Crow in certain regions? Absolutely nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790/127 "2000-08-07T14:57:33Z")
**Phil** > [@](#): > > The EPA cannot be trusted not to bow to political expedience. An interesting aside: 20/20 recently did a special on the EPA’s headquarters building in D.C. In 1992, dozens of their employees complained of symptoms that fit the EPA’s own [Sick Building Syndrom](http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/sbs.html) guidelines. Eventually, the EPA headquarters was forced to close and relocate. Talk about “Physician, heal thyself!” 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-libertarianism/27790.md?page=6)