questions about libertarianism

Great Debates
101

There seems to be a consistent evasion happening on the part of PLDennison to Kimstu’s questions.

Kimstu is saying things (among others) such as:

And PLDennison responds to the effect of:

I don’t believe that Kimstu, Gad or anyone else is suggesting that Libertarians deliver a full treatise on the solution to the country’s woes in all regards via Libertarianism. You’d be right to say it’s ridiculous if that is what was being asked for.

Unfortunately the Libertarian ideal in this thread is asking us to accept that everything will just work out because non-coercion from a governement is just a really good thing. Everything will be fine, indeed better…why can’t others see that?

I’m sorry PLD but before I hand over the keys to this government I must have a better answer than that. A detailed map to utopia or even a promise of utopia is unnecessary but answers to my (our) concerns are.

The kicker is that we are not merely sitting here throwing hypothetical road blocks in the path of Libertarianism. We are basing our concerns on ALL of human history up to this point that tells us people probably won’t be so great to each other given half a chance. The argument that government will absolutely stop anyone from coercing anyone else doesn’t help. 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.

I believe what we (or at least I) am looking for is a logical walk through the theory of how certain concerns will be avoided in a Libertarian context. I.e. How does the very nature of non-coercive government lend itself to the fostering of a non-discriminatory society (or at least one that is less discriminatory than what we have currently)? So far anwers to that particular question have been along the lines of, “Would you patronize a business that you knew hired only straight white males? Do you know many people who would?” If the tables were reversed would you be satisfied with that answer to your concerns?

Prove to us, or give strong argument for, why Libertarianism will not lead to the strife and trouble that is endemic to the human condition (or at the very least how it would be superior to the current system).

You must see that statements by Libertarian such as, “There is really only one aspect to libertarianism; namely, its ethic of noncoercion. All libertarianism offers you is a context of peace and honesty. For those of us who love libertarianism, that single offering would solve the vast majority of our problems in one fell swoop.” just doesn’t cut it…not if you expect to hold the keys to the car that is the United States government someday.

102

Not quite, Flyer. In effect, what we’re asking is not “How will libertarianism solve all problems?” but rather, “How will libertarianism practically solve the problems currently ameliorated by the government?” Similarly, our observations tend not to be “It doesn’t appear that a libertarian society can effectively address every single hypothetical problem ever,” but rather “It doesn’t appear that a libertarian society can effectively address many problems which are currently (albeit imperfectly) being addressed within the context of a federal government.” Not “how will libertarianism make things perfect?” but “how will libertarianism make things better?” I trust you see the difference.

It amazes me that many libertarians act as if such questions are eminently unreasonable. As Kimstu says, we’re not starting from scratch here–there’s an existing social context within which libertarian solutions must be placed, or against which a new, more amenable social context must be devised. Any philosophy which presumes, as libertarianism tends to do, a social base markedly different from any which has yet existed is purely utopian.

Likewise, libertarians seem not to acknowledge that most people like the existing social contract. They like having a safety net, they like the minimum wage, they like having public agencies which ensure safe food and clear water and clean air. They like being able to pay for all public funds and services in one lump sum, even if they don’t utilize some of the services, or even agree with some of the funding. This is not to say that these people find the existing structure perfect–far from it. I realize that there is massive governmental waste. I’d prefer that my money be spent on education rather than pork barrel military products. In my opinion, the federal government is every bit as bloated and corrupt as most libertarians profess. 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. I don’t think most libertarians recognize the validity of that view. Y’all believe–and I’ll address your comments more substantively later tonight, Phil–that it’ll be okay without free public education, or federal unemployment benefits, or federal food-stamp programs, or federal worker safety and consumer protection programs, or federal anti-trust laws. You think that all these things can be dealt with through the magic of competition and charity. Forgive us, please, for not wanting to take that blind leap with you–not when we believe that the existing protections are too valuable to be risked; not when we believe that the existing protections, though imperfect, can be improved.
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. The contours of history can be really useful in formulating future policy, especially if we don’t want to repeat past mistakes. So absent minimum wage laws and public education, what’s preventing the formation of a permanent underclass? Absent worker safety laws, what’s preventing another Triangle Shirtwaist fire, or conditions from Sinclair’s jungle? Absent anti-discrimination laws, what’s preventing the second coming of Jim Crow in certain regions? I know we have problems, under our current system, with poverty, working conditions, and race relations. Make the case to us, please, that these things would likely be better in a libertarian society. I’m not asking for perfection; I just need something more than the invocation of peace, honesty, and non-coercion.

103

Simulpost, Jeff. grin

104

Simulpost…albeit Gad’s post is a bit more coherent.

Gad and I really have the same mother…she dresses us the same too…grin

105

Rather, mine would have been coherent, if I’d actually broken it up into readable paragraphs. Bah.

(Jeff, you’re wearing a propellor beanie and silver parachute pants, too? Mom promised she’d stop doing that! grin)

106

MOOOOMMM!

107

I looked through many of the 104 posts on this subject, and it left me feeling chilled.

At least one post I read described early American history as Libertarian. America wasn’t the only country to be close to Libertarianism towards the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But given the brutality of the period, I can’t imagine why anyone would regard this as a positive model for society.

Early America did nothing to discourage slavery. The Libertarianism of the West last century encouraged brutal child labour, horrific working conditions, lack of medical care, lack of education. Conditions became so awful, they produced a backlash. Europe and North America experienced workers riots, because in the absence of government control, coercion from private citizens becomes the problem. We’re not talking just about putting a gun to someone’s head and making someone do something, either.

Libertarianism looks great on paper, but it’s a simplistic solution to the problems of society. Lessen government control, and those with money in society hold all the cards. If jobs are eliminated through technology, for instance, the unemployment rate rises, and the remaining people have to accept poorer working conditions and lower wages. Libertarians usually suggest that anyone can get rich through intelligence and hard work. This is laughingly naive. Human fortunes are far more precarious and subject to chance than libertarians are willing to accept.

In other words, the homeless man bundled against the cold in a city may be protected from coercion from any law, but anyone who believes he is free to do as he chooses, and can lift himself above his state is deluding themselves. To prevent coercion from economic forces and the rich, society has to make a safety net. This makes real choice possible. If the person who pays your wages can take away your education and childrens’ education, your medical care, your home, and your food, by firing you and denying you a paycheque, then you really have no power. Welfare, universal health care (which we have in Canada), unemployment insurance, and similar programs ensure that I, as a poor person, have some defence against the coercion of the rich.

One more thing. To the person who used, several times, the words “raped by taxes,” I, as a voter in a democratic society, consent to be taxed, and I have no problem with paying them, even if that means I’ll have a far lower net income than Steve Forbes. I think any woman who has been raped would really be offended by your use of this term.

–Hamish

108

Any man who has been mugged would take offense at your flippancy. Any man who has had his dream taken away to serve your cause would be horrified by your disregard. And any man who yearns to be free from your coercion would be disgusted by your presumption that your consent implies his own.

109

Libertarian: *Any man who has been mugged would take offense at your flippancy. Any man who has had his dream taken away to serve your cause would be horrified by your disregard. And any man who yearns to be free from your coercion would be disgusted by your presumption that your consent implies his own. *

giggle Ahem, sorry. Welcome to Great Debates, Hamish. You’ll find you get used to the somewhat overblown rhetoric of Libertarians, though I agree it’s a bit startling at first. (Sometimes I like to envision the headlines from an imaginary Libertarian wire service: “Armed Thugs Extort Money from Peaceful 75-mph Drivers”; “Massive `April Blackmail’ Gang Discovered in Government Buildings”; “Elderly Disabled Woman’s Income Derived Entirely from Robbery of Honest Citizens”.)

I have to admit, though, that sometimes the tone of shock and horror at the existence of such well-known aspects of modern society as taxes and regulatory laws can get a little tedious. More importantly, it raises the suspicion that it’s primarily a rhetorical device, a sort of Newspeak intended to discourage support for non-Libertarian positions by hyperbolically associating them with things like rape, mugging, and slavery. I think it would be more creditable for Libertarians to discuss the opposing viewpoints more respectfully, instead of harping so much on the claim that anyone who disagrees with them simply has no regard for peace or freedom.

(Well, now I’ve used up Monday’s post, dagnabbit. Sigh; this board’s too much fun.)

110

good post, Kimstu, I like to call them “Humpty Dumpty definitions”, but perhaps “newspeak” IS better. Taxation = “theft”, etc. Do they really think by this sort of overblown hyperbolic redefining of common terms they are actually convincing anyone?

And I have not even asked how a libt govt would solve all the std problems, just how it would work, practically, in a hypothetical nation. But, this is the 3rd thread where I have asked that query, and it has been dodged everytime. the std answer is that “we have answered that a dozen times before”, which seems odd. Of course, I hardly ever post or read the thread here, amd a practical stranger. :rolleyes:
But if they have shown us “Libertaria” a half-dozen times before, you think it would not be too hard to either post a link, or better, do it just once more. I DID ask nicely to start out with.

What DO you do with someone who lives in Libertaria, but won’t sign the contract. Can any citizen shoot him down, like a dog? Can he burgle with impunity, as long as he is not caught redhanded? Can he leave the country? 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?
Can he still use the other “pay-as-you-go” sevice? What happens if he does not pay? How do you sue or penalize someone you have no authority over? How about sociopaths?

111

“(Sometimes I like to envision the headlines from an imaginary Libertarian wire service: “Armed Thugs Extort Money from Peaceful 75-mph Drivers”; “Massive `April Blackmail’ Gang Discovered in Government Buildings”; “Elderly Disabled Woman’s Income Derived Entirely from Robbery of Honest Citizens”.)”
[/quote]

Did I mention lately that I love you Kimstu? :slight_smile:
Lib, Phil and techie: I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread, even though my baptismal experience in Great Debates (which came in the form of a fairly lengthy and brutal exchange with Smartass -wonder where he is, anyway?) regarding libertarianism left me unconvinced of its practical merits. You all have been writing eloquently and persuasively in defense of that philosophy.

However, IMO Jeff_42, Arnold, Kimstu and Gadarene have done a very nice job of expressing their doubts about the relative efficacy of a libertarian system (as compared to our present system) in protecting its citizens from coercion and fraud.

As others have pointed out, in all historical examples where anything like non-coercion from government existed, rampant coercion, exploitation and oppression of the very poor by the very wealthy existed instead. Until someone deals with real world historical examples and persuades me that a libertarian system would have yielded less oppression, etc., then I will never vote to hand over the keys to that allegorical car Jeff talked about. After all, I know what protections are available to me under the present system, I’m willing to pay for those protections, and while I’m convinced I would have less protection under a libertarian system, I’m not convinced that I would be any freer than I am right now.

112

Nice post, and well said. But about that 1st line… .ahem… :smiley:

113

I am given to wonder, finally, whether it is at all possible for Statists to argue without equivocation. If we had not defined our terms, then such arguments as the one in the above quote would be fair. But as it happens, we have defined what we mean by coercion over and over to a fair-thee-well. We have given examples of it. We have paraphrased it in other ways (e.g., initiated force). And then we have defined the terms in our paraphrases.

“Why, my goodness. What could possibly be wrong with our modern way of doing things?” the Statist will ask. Or alternatively, “Why, this is how we’ve always done things. There is no example of doing things some other way.” Argumentum ad antiquitatem or argumentum ad novitatem, depending, I suppose, on their mood of the day.

The false analogy shamelessly offered in the quote above is testament to the futility of reasoning with Statists. For the benefit of people who might be reading these pages and who actually are concerned that arguments be properly presented, I will now rip the quote apart, and expose its bare fallacy for what it is, particularly since the author claims to speak on behalf of “others”, and since the quote is a nutshell rendering of the entire aggregate of Statist thought.

Breach is a coercion. Government force used against breach is not a coercion. If a man governed by libertarian government coerces, and that government fails to act, then that government has committed breach, and therefore by definition is not libertarian. Likewise, if a man coerces, then he is in breach of his contract with his government. Breach is answered by force, which force is not coercive but retaliatory.

The quote above does not speak to any libertarian government, but to statist government where politicians in various disciplines — government, religion, and business — cooperate with one another to advance each other’s personal goals. The author of the quote is either unwilling or incapable of discerning the difference between coercive force and defensive or retaliatory force, and so presents as libertarian a government that will stand by and do nothing while people are coerced.

A government that stands by and does nothing while its citizens are being coerced is statist, not libertarian.

114

Hamish is unable to post, due to the password problems described here, so I’m posting this on his behalf. It was written by him.

115

Well, that hardly “ripped apart” my statement Lib. You’ll have to do better than merely claiming a libertarian government (which seems to be the mother of all oxymorons) would not stand by and do nothing while its citizens are being coerced. You’ll have to demonstrate how a libertarian government would actually prevent coercion rather than “arbritrating” it away. Are we to believe that in Libertaria one only has to cry “Help, help; I’m being oppressed” to immediately receive effective mandated aid from a government which has laid no groundwork to prevent the oppression?

I would laugh were I not so dismayed and saddened that you and other intelligent people believe this.

You want a government that, to the best of its ability prevents it’s citizens from being coerced, my friend? You’re living in it. We accomplish it by creating limits on the ability of the powerful to control the weak. We accomplish it by setting standards through which industry must assure the safety of workers. We accomplish it by policing the market. We accomplish it in a hundred ways which do not exist in the libertarian philosophy because our ways call for the responsibility of each citizen to all other citizens, a concept which does not sit well with libertarians.

You accuse me of equivocation, Lib? Clean your own damn house. You’re pulling the same obscene sophistry I’ve seen from Libertarians before: “If a government fails to act against coercion it is not libertarian.” And then of course you define coercion so that “retaliatory force” is allowed, a term which can easily be applied to any action taken against “breach of contract” in a libertarian government.

(Here come the strike-breakers and enforcers, Lib, can you see them? Here come the slick lawyers, carpet baggers, slumlords and robber barons. Here come the very cream of Libertarian society. They’re all saying the Lord’s prayer and throwing pennies to well behaved hoi-polloi while they have their men clear out the troublemakers.)

You put words in the mouths of “statists” (your word), and expect no one to point out that these straw men you set up do not represent our views? We’ve freely acknowledged that the present system is not perfect, and you know that. We also recognize that many different systems of government have existed, with varying degrees of success, which you know as well. So why waste our time responding to fatuous remarks that none of us “statists” have uttered?

And one more thing. If you ever presume to speak for what I will/won’t can/can’t “discern”, Lib, you can find another sparring partner.

I’m sorry I signed your birthday card.

116

Except that that “we” in the first line, is just you libertarians. The rest of us do not accept this idea of taking a perfectly good word out of the dictionary, and giving it an entirely new loaded political meaning. Can you folks debate without doing this? MUST you turn so many words into “Humpty Dumpty definitions” or “newspeak”? Certainly, if Libt is such a wonderful system, its merits can be shown without resorting to such cheap propaganda tricks. Come on, I know I have been a bit overly sarcastic here, at times, but why can’t we debate in a civilized manner?

117

Can you cite a discipline that does not use terms that it defines in specialized ways?

Is “induction” not a special term in number theory? Is “force” not a special term in physics? Read almost any philosophical text, and see whether people do not define their terms in some specialized way. There is a practical reason for this: there are only so many words in the vocabulary. We could use a whole new word, like “mphzpt”, and define it as initiated force, but most disciplines don’t do that when there is a common word handy that already comes close to the meaning, which is the case with “coercion”.

The purpose of defining terms is to make meaning clear within a specific reference frame, like librtarianism, for example. When you know those terms have been defined, but still use them a different way (essentially hiding the meaning they are understood to have), you are equivocating. If, because you are unfamiliar with the concept of defining terms in philosophical discussions, you are uncomfortable with the term “coercion”, then feel free to use the phrase “initiated force”.

As to equating “the majority” with “the people”, I think people who are gay, people who are black, and people whose ancestors marched along the Trail of Tears might have legitimate claim to being recognized as people.

118

>1. Umm, Politics? Which is what we are discussing.

>2. Yes, like “taxation” = “theft”, as we do not have a good word for “taxation” already in the dictionary, so we must take an incorrect and semantically loaded word, and use that instead. :rolleyes: Or how about what you are calling us “statists”, which the dictionary defines as “centralized gov’t control of sociil & economic affairs”. Nope, not me, and not too many of the others, as I see it.

>3. Defined by WHO? Who gave you libt the right to define the words in this context? I did not, nor did the rest of us who are NOT lib’t. Thus WE are the majority, and WE get to define the words. I think we can agree on the std dictionary definition, right folks? And, thus WE are not using the “words in a different way”, you are. You do not want to use words as they are “more precise” you want to use words as they are semantically loaded, and loaded YOUR way. We are not buying it, sorry. The SBMB posters are too smart for that propaganda trick, Bubba.

>4. WTF?!? What on earth does this little emotion laden propaganda picture have to do with the discussion at hand? Umm, I have looked back thru our posts, and none have indicated that blacks, gays or natives are not people, NOR HAVE WE EVEN MENTIONED THEM! This has nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion, except that you want to somehow put a picture out there that us NON- Libt are racists. Man, talk about “the Big Lie”. Hey, why don’t you post a little paragraph which compares us “statists” with pedophiles and murderers too? :rolleyes:

119

I’m going to try to hijack this back to the OP’s intended discussion here. Dumbguy’s argument was that libertarianism is impossible by definition because force is required to maintain a monopoly by the government. This argument was flawed because he assumed that the government holding a monopoly is a tenet of libertarianism. The discussion went off on tangents before the next logical step could be taken from the OP, which would be to attempt to show that a monopoly is essential. I invite everyone to pick the discussion back up here.

If you want to discuss methods by which problems would be solved in a hypothetical libertarian context, I’ll do what I can to dream up all the solutions that a people free from coercion (libertarian definition) would be able to come up with, but I don’t see that discussion getting very far. As I see it, trying to prove anything by arguing about a hypothetical society is the rhetorical equivalent of Calvinball.

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.

Libertarians are not the only ones that can sound needlessly hyperbolic [???] in their use of terms. I know I have been in debates where the portion of the United States population that can afford health insurance is referred to as “the rich” or the “select few”, neither of which phrases I have ever thought to include that many people.

120

Though I admire the reference to Calvinball, a hypothetical society is exactly what we aren’t arguing about. We’ve got a society. Right here. With good stuff and bad stuff; with peaceful, honest people and some people who aren’t so peaceful and honest, not all the time anyway. And the trick is to make this society work in a libertarian context. To move this society to where you want it to go. No real hypothetical necessary.

Or have I been misreading you guys? You do actually want to direct this country towards libertarianism, right? You have genuine beefs with our methods of governance which you would like to see resolved? You’ve got ideas about how things could be better? Well, then give us some leeway in comparing your proposed society to the society we’ve got right now. Hell, give us some leeway in asking exactly how you’d move us from here to there. Because otherwise you’re just trying to have your pie in the sky and complain about it, too. Otherwise you’re just being utopian.

utopia 1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place 2: a place of ideal perfection esp. in laws, government, and social conditions 3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

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). Now, we’ve been round and round for months about the ambiguities present in those words. That’s where the silly hypotheticals usually come in–a man has taken up residence on your property and refuses to leave. Has he initiated force? Are you justified in the use of force? What if he has a gun? What if he has a sharp stick? (or, regarding the free rider principle, my personal favorite: “Giant mutant squids are attacking the United States…”) Yes, it’s ridiculous…but let me stop for a second and explain the motives behind it. If we seem to strain when devising these circumstances, it’s because we like our social contracts to withstand even the most improbable blows. It’s easy to get along when everything is sunshine and tapioca (or peace and honesty). What about in the event of rain and sleet and snow and giant squid attack? Is this thing, in other words, outfitted with rough-weather gear? It might be important to check before the barometer drops.

Anyway, we can put aside the thought experiments here. No more wild hypotheticals. Let’s say the non-coercion principle has been accepted by all parties involved: honestly, you’re not going to find many people saying, “Protection from the initiation of force and fraud? That’s a horrible idea!” Assume, for the moment, that all our terms have been agreeably defined.

Okay? Here’s the thing: most of us think that we’ve got a framework in place which works just fine. There’s an eminently non-hypothetical society out there–time-tested through insurrection, warfare, and depression–which is getting better and better at giving every single person an opportunity for a safe, healthy, prosperous life. Protection from force and fraud? Meet the EPA, OSHA, the minimum wage, the Better Business Bureau, the social safety net, anti-trust laws, public education. They’re not perfect, but they get the job done. You say the job can be done better? Then tell us how. No hypotheticals. No what ifs. No talk of theft or slavery or rape. Just step up to the table and tell us how removal of those protections that I’ve listed above would make the people of this country safer, healthier, and more prosperous. That’s all.

And remember–if you do want a better society–that coercion isn’t just an instrument of the public sector. Corporations do bad things, too. Powerful people tend to oppress weak people when given the opportunity, and that power is more often than not bestowed by wealth. How does libertarianism address this eventuality? In our society today, we’ve addressed it by giving the government ultimate power over its citizens…while making it ultimately accountable to its citizens, as well. Were everything to be privatized, the powerful in our society would retain their power–what about public accountability? Where are the provisions for that, absent a coherent framework of government intervention?

The only rule of Calvinball is that you can never play the same game twice. I fear that the eagerness of libertarians to start the game anew has led to a crucial omission: you want the rest of us to play, but you haven’t told us why your rules are better.