The U.S. is already a Socialist society!

[SingleDad]

It is irrefutable fact that human beings acting in concert in a society are more powerful and prosperous than a collection of individuals acting alone. We see this feature in even the most primitive of humans. Society allows specialization; a collection of specialists will operate more efficiently than the same number of absolutely self-sufficient generalists. Eventually, the individualistic humans will be crowded out by the more effective societal humans. It is a measure of the irrefutablity of this observation that there are virtually no absolutely self-sufficient individuals on the planet.

That we must live socially is a given. But to do so, we must create and enforce agreements; we must each agree to forego some actions to make our society effective. For instance, I forego the action of killing my neighbor and looting his possesions so that he is not obligated to defend himself against me. I forego counterfeiting our currency so that I may rely on it as a medium of trade. Likewise, to specialize we must also compel certain behaviors; a person is obliged at the very least to assume the duties of a particular specialization to deserve the support of his society. The set of of prohibitions and compulsions form the social policy of a particular society.

Since the set of social agreements involves a relaxation of one’s defenses and a reliance on other people to do their share, niches become available for criminals and parasites to survive. A criminal is one who ignores the prohibitions for his personal gain; a parasite ignores his obligations. To counter these tendencies, we allow individuals to specialize in defense of our interests and compulsion of social obligations.

What’s really being argued here is (as I’ve so often pointed out) a question of basis and means. On what basis do we evaluate cooperative policy of our society and by what means do we do so?

There are two competing bases: The fundamental basis, Utopianism; and the effective basis, Utilitarianism. Both of these bases may be effectively applied to different aspects of discussions of policy. Utopianism is the generalization of the concept that what is necessary to one is necessary for all; contrawise what is intolerable to one is intolerable for all. Utilitarianism is concerned with the subjective valuation of the good or harm of a course of action.

Both Utopianism and Utilitarianism ultimately depend on a subjective valuation of good, harm, necessity and intolerance. Since human beings show a wide variety of subjective evaluations, any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength. Even if only a minority of the population are slaves, the strength of their objection gives disproportional weight to their subjective evaluation of the harm of slavery.

There are three primary effective decision making means: Force, popularity and reason. Not even the most die-hard Libertarian can deny the importance of force. Ultimately the protection against compulsion depends on force, justified by its restriction to self-defense. Popularity is an extension of the use of force. It is a simple observation that numerical superiority will generally prevail in contests of force; to accept the results of a poll or election recognizes the likely outcome of such a contest without the necessity to engage in bloodshed. Reason and logic allow us to predict the consequences of possibilities and implement the one with the most eventual benefit with the least amount of relative risk.

Since this thread seems to be discussing the relative merits between “social democracy” and “libertarianism”, I will offer my interpretation of the above arguments the two societal philosophies.

I’ll operationally define “Social Democracy” as the common philosophical and practical elements of the United States, Canada and virtually all Latin America and Western European societies. All of these societies feature relatively tolerant rules of individual behavior, protection of minority viewpoints, and taxation for the general welfare and common endeavors. There is no denying the empirical success of this general form of society. Since WW II, only a handful of Asian nations have acheived any level of material prosperity without adopting it, and, as the level of prosperity rises in these Asian nations, the call for tolerance of personal opinion and behavior becomes increasingly widespread and insistent.

From both a Utopian and Utilitarian perspective, Social Democracy provides a relatively non-violent means of negotiating competing value systems. Few results are “perfect”, but there is no universal definition of perfect anyway.

I’ve argued some fundamental criticisms of Libertarian philosophy in Government financing in a free society. I won’t repeat the full argument here, but in essence I argue that the Libertarian philosophy (specifically the definition of “freedom”) is arbitrary, in that it has no intrinsic value, undesirable in that it is contrary to the self-interest of most people, and impractical as it does not promote and protect the specialization necessary for a prosperous and efficient society. Additionally, the Utopian evaluation of intolerability of taxation is not widely held; such an evaluation can only be termed idiosyncratic.

[matt_mcl]

If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom.

“Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice… but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.”

• Edmund Burke

[Smartass]

sdimbert:

I’m almost sorry I ever got involved. You could be right - perhaps I didn’t comprehend your posts fully… But really, why not leave the pompous sarcasm at home, eh?

I will happily agree to this. Would you also be willing to forego leaping into the conversation by addressing me in such a deliberately condescending manner? Not to say that my reaction was the most mature or helpful, but it was predicated by your post, which concluded with a somewhat sarcastic ultimatum.

To clarify:

democracy is based on the idea that it is “acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority.” That’s how the system is designed to work.

I am saying that is is obvious that this is how the “system” known as democracy is designed to work. However, I think pure democracy would be a horrible government and am therefore pleased with our system, at least partially, because it is not one.

Is your point that, yes, a democracy is a governmental model you would support, but that ours is not a democracy and, thus, you don’t support it?

Just to make sure I’m being clear: I am saying that democracy is a governmental model I would not support. Ours is not a democracy, and I happen to support it.

I support it because the constitution was created with a focus on the protection of individual Liberty. I think that the government described in the Constitution, while not perfect, is the best I have encountered. My complaints are with actions by government that are in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I support the Libertarian Party because its candidates generally support this position as well.

Also, I tend to say that I am a Libertarian, because I support and am a member of the Libertarian party. I cannot say whether all my views are philosophically Libertarian because I am not interested enough in pure philosophies to study them closely. I am primarily interested in things that directly affect my life and happiness.

[Smartass]

SingleDad:

Since human beings show a wide variety of subjective evaluations, any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength.

I think you are making an assumption here that one measure of good and bad must ultimately prevail. I believe that it is possible for multiple definitions of good and bad to prevail. The way to allow for this is to make your basis the protection of individual liberty, with each person’s liberty equally as valuable as every other’s. From a Utilitarian standpoint, the result of this approach is to allow as many people as possible to make their own decisions based their personal valuations of what is good and what is bad. The only time there is a need for society to intrude is when my efforts to achieve what I think is good are trouncing on your efforts to achieve what you think is good.

It is a simple observation that numerical superiority will generally prevail in contests of force…

This is true. However, the exertion of force is also an acceptance of risk. If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail. To categorically submit every decision to the majority is to assume that the people will feel this strongly about every issue. In other words, those with numbers are allowed to impose their will without having to weigh their desires against personal risk. Thus, you may feel strongly enough about keeping me from harming myself with drugs to vote that they be banned. However, you may not feel strongly enough about it that you would be willing to enter into armed combat with me to prevent me from harming myself. You may also be in the majority with this view. However, me and my friends may feel strongly enough about being able to harm ourselves with drugs that we are willing to fight you for that right. Hence, the drug war.

I’ll operationally define “Social Democracy” as the common philosophical and practical elements of the United States, Canada and virtually all Latin America and Western European societies. All of these societies feature relatively tolerant rules of individual behavior, protection of minority viewpoints, and taxation for the general welfare and common endeavors. There is no denying the empirical success of this general form of society. Since WW II, only a handful of Asian nations have acheived any level of material prosperity without adopting it, and, as the level of prosperity rises in these Asian nations, the call for tolerance of personal opinion and behavior becomes increasingly widespread and insistent.

I think it is self-serving to define the U.S. as a social democracy and then present it as evidence of the value of such a system. If the U.S. were a social democracy, it would not be achieving this level of success. Unfortunately, by flouting the Constitution, politicians have managed to introduce some elements of social democracy into our system. These elements are not bringing about the prosperity that you describe. Rather they are hampering it by weighing everyone down with the costs of such ridiculous programs as the Drug War, the welfare system, the public education system, et al.

From both a Utopian and Utilitarian perspective, Social Democracy provides a relatively non-violent means of negotiating competing value systems. Few results are “perfect”, but there is no universal definition of perfect anyway.

I do not know of any actual Social Democracies, so I question your conclusion. However, I agree that there is no universal definition of perfect. The thing is, Social Democracy requires people to act as if there were a universal definition of perfect, based on “popular” opinions. Libertarianism seeks to, as much as possible, allow people to hold and act according to multiple definitions of perfect. In that way, it provides a relatively non-violent means of allowing competing value systems to coexist.

I think this is the better system. You, apparently, do not.

in essence I argue that the Libertarian philosophy (specifically the definition of “freedom”) is arbitrary, in that it has no intrinsic value, undesirable in that it is contrary to the self-interest of most people, and impractical as it does not promote and protect the specialization necessary for a prosperous and efficient society.

I hope some time to have time to check out this thread. For now, it can be argued that any philosophy is arbitrary as its basis must be selected from available contenders. Different people can select different bases for their philosophies. If you do not believe that allowing as many people as possible to do this for themselves is the fairest system, there is probably nothing I could say to convince you otherwise. However, I doubt that, expressed in this way, it would be a “popular” position to take.

If you think that Libertarianism is contrary to the self-interest of most people, I can’t help but think you have misunderstood Libertarianism. How can it be in conflict with self-interest to attempt to allow everyone to pursue their self interests? This is only true if you somehow understand people’s self-interests better than they do themselves. If this is true, why do free markets work better than centrally controlled ones?

Also, Libertarianism specifically promotes specialization by allowing people to choose. By protecting property, Libertarianism promotes markets. Markets, by their nature, promote specialization. I don’t mean to be rude but, what the hell are you talking about?

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

“Freedom is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish Liberty. As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… This kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice… but whenever a separation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.”

• Edmund Burke

I assume that, since you put this after my statement, you think it refutes my statement. I disagree. In fact, I agree with this quote.

If my approach to freedom were solitary, unconnected, individual, and selfish, then I would not be interested in Libertarianism or in any sort of law whatsoever. I would take what I wanted and kill whoever got in my way.

Instead, my approach to freedom is to recognize that it only exists if we all have it. Thus, I not only support and defend my own freedom, I support and defend my fellow citizens’ freedom as well.

The fact that you define justice in a different way than I do does not mean that I have no interest in it.

-VM

[galen]

Some points:

1. Taxes, high or otherwise, are not unique to socialism.

2. Those who think so should consider that a big chunk of their earnings are already docked even before it is taxed. It’s called profit, which the employer expropriates from wage earners as his cut.

[sdimbert]

smartass:

**
Would you also be willing to forego leaping into the conversation by addressing me in such a deliberately condescending manner?

**

While I don’t think I was condescending, consider the hatchet buried.

**
Just to make sure I’m being clear: I am saying that democracy is a governmental model I would not support. Ours is not a democracy, and I happen to support it.

**

Thank you. That’s what I thought.

I admit that you’ve obviously thought more about this issue than I have. I’ve stopped debating the question… I’m simply trying to keep up with you, SingleDad (as usual) and the others. But I am bothered again by what I see as a contradiction in your posts. If you have time please clarify:

You say (please pardon my snipping - I’m trying to save time):

**
…The way to allow for this [multiple definitions of good and bad] is to make your basis the protection of individual liberty, with each person’s liberty equally as valuable as every other’s. From a Utilitarian standpoint, the result of this approach is to allow as many people as possible to make their own decisions based their personal valuations of what is good and what is bad. The only time there is a need for society to intrude is when my efforts to achieve what I think is good are trouncing on your efforts to achieve what you think is good.

**

Then you say:

**
If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail. To categorically submit every decision to the majority is to assume that the people will feel this strongly about every issue. In other words, those with numbers are allowed to impose their will without having to weigh their desires against personal risk. Thus, you may feel strongly enough about keeping me from harming myself with drugs to vote that they be banned. However, you may not feel strongly enough about it that you would be willing to enter into armed combat with me to prevent me from harming myself.

**

If I understand your point, you mean that the underlined section is a flaw - it’s not fair that Group A can tell Group B how to behave without putting themselves on the line to determine the outcome in armed combat?

I know I haven’t read as much as you obviously have about this, but it seems to me that government by proxy (“voting” as opposed to “combat”) is simply a more mature extension of the same philosophy.

If I feel that you and your pals shouldn’t use drugs, I can put the issue to vote and try to create a law. You argue that I’m assuming no personal risk by doing so? Hogwash. I expend time, resources and energy. Additionally, I risk my wellfare - If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

The idea of voting on things rather than fighting about them simply elevates society above the sandlot.

(Unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood you again ?)

[matt_mcl]

. If the U.S. were a social democracy, it would not be achieving this level of success.

Success? Hah!

The United States is a success at two things: enriching the wealthy and convincing others that it is the best.

However, on the social democracy front, the US comes fourth in the 1998 Human Development index, largely because its GNP per capita (a meaningless statistic because it represents how rich everyone would be if the wealth were evenly divided, which it isn’t) was so high. What that means is there are a few filthy rich people (Bill Gates is now worth more than several small countries) to balance out the mass of the poor. Be that as it may, the countries which beat it (Canada, France, and Norway) are social democracies.

If you look at life expectancy, the US was 16th, beaten by Japan, Iceland, Canada, France, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Greece (!), Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Austria, and New Zealand. Of those nations, I know that 12 of them are social democracies (I don’t know about Switzerland, Greece, or Austria.)

Interestingly, moving right along we look at the last statistic on the column: Real GDP per capita (PPP$) rank
minus HDI rank. That represents the amount by which the country is the nicest but not the richest. For example, Canada had the 11th highest GDP per capita but it placed 1st in the human development index.

In other words, seven countries which are not in the top ten richest are in the top ten best-developed. All of them are social democracies.

However, of the Top Ten countries, the only country whose ranking of GDP per capita exceeds its HDI index is the United States. Doesn’t sound like you’re reaping the benefits of your wealth, does it?

Frankly, I’m surprised that the US scored so high. Let’s see how you’re doing in five years after “welfare reform” removes all government benefits from the already-poor chunk of the population. (And let’s not forget that the Fed specifically uses interest rates to keep a stable constant of 6 million Americans out of work.)

Oh, and remind me to tell you some time about the difference in public cost between a single-payer medicare system and a privatized one. (Sneak preview: Surprise! Canadians pay less in taxes per capita for our commie system than you do for your red-blooded Amurrican capitalist one.)

The UNHDR is available at http://www.undp.org/hdro/98hdi.htm .

[SingleDad]

Smartass:

I think you are making an assumption here that one measure of good and bad must ultimately prevail. I believe that it is possible for multiple definitions of good and bad to prevail.

Multiple contradictory valuations cannot coexist. When applied to our social policy, at some point we must choose from competing, contradictory valuations.

If my band of people are willing to fight your band of people over an issue, this implies that we feel strongly enough about the issue to risk personal injury or death in order to see our side to prevail.

I note that “… any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength.” We are in agreement on this point.

I think it is self-serving to define the U.S. as a social democracy and then present it as evidence of the value of such a system.

You are completely missing my point. Whatever you wish to call our government (and the common features of “western civilization”), it is clearly effective. We have the greatest amount of personal and public wealth in the world, and the one of the highest levels of personal freedom.

For now, it can be argued that any philosophy is arbitrary as its basis must be selected from available contenders.

Precisely so. Thus any argument that a particular value has intrinsic merit is fundamentally fallacious. All value arguments ultimately must rest on the rational bases of Utopianism and Utiliarianism to have objective meaning.

If you think that Libertarianism is contrary to the self-interest of most people, I can’t help but think you have misunderstood Libertarianism. How can it be in conflict with self-interest to attempt to allow everyone to pursue their self interests?

Unless I am economically self-sufficient (e.g. I control sufficient capital to ensure my long-term survival) I must subsume my own self-interest to those who are economically self-sufficient to ensure my survival. I have traded politcal oppression for economic oppression.

Also note that is is not my responsibility to understand Libertarianism; it is your responsibility to explain it correctly.

This is only true if you somehow understand people’s self-interests better than they do themselves. If this is true, why do free markets work better than centrally controlled ones?

“Free market” is a misnomer. The market that Libertarianism describes is not free: people are not free to use coercion or fraud. Those prohibitions are presumably controlled by a central government. The contention between Libertarianism, Democracy and Communism concerns the degree of control over the market, not presence of control.

[SingleDad]

Also note that I have nothing “personal” against Libertarianism. In fact I subscribe completely to “social” Libertarianism; I hold that private consensual behavior should be entirely unregulated. I merely find the arguments in favor of “economic” Libertarianism naive and unpersuasive.

[Smartass]

sdimbert:

If I understand your point, you mean that the underlined section is a flaw - it’s not fair that Group A can tell Group B how to behave without putting themselves on the line to determine the outcome in armed combat?..

You argue that I’m assuming no personal risk by doing so? Hogwash. I expend time, resources and energy. Additionally, I risk my wellfare - If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

Hmmm, you have not completely misunderstood my point, but there are some crucial subtleties.

What I pointed out was indeed what I perceive to be a flaw (not the only one) with democracy, or majority rule. Since you have not completely missed the point, I’m having a hard time clearly expressing the difference.

For one, yes it is not “fair” by my definition. My definition of fair goes back to individual liberty. In this case, I would also say that it is not equitable. Let me see if I can frame this in terms of the drug example.

If you and your band decide to take me and my band on in armed combat, each of you is assuming an amount of risk that you have deemed appropriate relevant to your desire to accomplish your end. In fact, how hard each of you fights will reflect this desire.

Now, if me and my band are willing to fight for this right, you will have to stop us by using force. If we hold a vote to do this, you and your band are distributing the risk among the population. If you are in the majority, the result will be that others will share this risk and effort in order to enforce a law that they do not support. Therefore, you are allowed to cause to be expended more effort than you would be willing or able to expend yourself to accomplish this goal. In fact, this effort may be in excess of what your entire band would be willing to expend if you were not able to use the vote to coerce others into contributing. Also, you will probably use surrogates to carry out the actual enforcement. If they are not members of your band, they probably will not approach the problem in the same way or with the same vigor as you would.

We use the free market to optimize the utilization of resources and to gain productivity. It works because individuals are able to express their desires with dollars. For any sellable item, there are as many opinions about its “value” as there are people. Over the course of transactions, price and purchasing decisions are the mechanism that carries information about these values throughout the system. It is fair and equitable because your ability to obtain an item is proportional to your desire for the item. The more you desire it, the more you are willing to sacrifice to obtain it. The system is efficient because people are resourceful when they are looking out for their self-interests.

Now, going back to the example, to discuss what is, to me, the key issue. If you and your band are a large enough sample of the population, you can vote that we all pitch in to solve the “problem” of me and my band taking drugs. The result will be a concerted governmental effort to solve this problem. Being a national solution, it will tend to be arbitrary, inflexible, and to violate a great many rights, including those of the people in your band, who do not take drugs. Also, the people in your band who have voted to solve the problem may have different notions of how the problem should be solved. Some may prefer counseling, some may prefer obstructing supply, etc. Chances are that the bulk of the national effort will be expended on one approach at a solution (a “focused” effort).

In contrast, imagine if the rules of the government do not allow you to vote to prevent me from using drugs, because it is an unjustifiable violation of my rights. Imagine also that you and your band feel strongly about this, but not strongly enough to take up arms and attack me and my band. Here is the thing about people: If enough people want something badly enough, they will figure out a way to achieve it. Certain members of your band may favor counselling as a solution. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will spend their money setting up couselling services for addicts. Others may favor cutting supply. In order to achieve this, they may spread information that criticizes suppliers of drugs. They may march up and down in front of drug suppliers’ places of business waving signs. They may boycott businesses that supply drugs. As a result, some number of these business will choose to quit engaging in this pursuit, lowering supply, increasing price. Of course, you can’t eliminate the drug supply this way. You can’t do it with a drug war either. The people who want the drugs want them too badly and are willing to risk and sacrifice too much for them. A major point: The effectiveness of your efforts will be directly proportional to the time, money, and labor you put into them. And this will be the result of how badly you want to achieve your goal, and what proportion of the population feels similarly.

The advantages: Everyone pursues their wants to the degree dictated by their own values. Their ability to achieve them is proportional to their desire. Also, by not relying on government to solve problems, they are able to attempt multiple solutions at the same time. As they notice one working better than others, they will tend to devote more energy to it.

The simple fact is that people solve their own problems better than government ever will.

Now, this is a side issue, but I figure you’re thinking of it. Some of the members of my band may harm members of your band under the influence of drugs (car accidents, whatever), and therefore you may think that the drug problem then becomes “society’s” problem. However, a Libertarian government will already have protections in place for people’s rights, and will act on these harms–with or without the presence of drugs. If I run over someone in my car, I have violated their rights by harming them, not by ingesting drugs beforehand.

Still, even if you can make a legitimate case that this problem is society’s problem, that does not make up for the fact that government imposed solutions just don’t work. Solutions arrived at by individuals are always better, more flexible, and more efficient.

Giving the majority control over my resources merely perverts the system, violates my rights, and fails to solve problems. Protecting individual rights ensures that the problems that are most strongly addressed are the ones that are cared most strongly about by the most people.

Okay, let me see if I can sum it up. If you think about it, voting gives everyone’s feelings voice, but does not consider the relative importance of their desires (that is, I want people to stop taking drugs, but feeding the poor is more important to me). A Libertarian government not only gives voice to my opinion, but weights the results according to how badly I want something (so if more of us feel more strongly about feeding the poor, more action is taken in this regard).

I don’t know if this is perfectly fair, but I can’t think of a system that would be more fair to every participant.

A few additional notes:

If I fail in my bid, if the societal majority disagrees with my proposition, I lose power.

This is not true. Your power is the same regardless. It just wasn’t sufficient to achieve the result you wanted on this occasion.

The idea of voting on things rather than fighting about them simply elevates society above the sandlot.

I agree. A Libertarian approach elevates the society a further step, by protecting all members equally, whether they are in the majority or not.

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

Interesting statistics. However, to rank the U.S. according to them is to assume that these measures are the correct basis to evaluate the successfulness of a nation.

They obviously are correct, according to your belief system–and no, I am not implying that you are alone in this. What I am implying is that reasonable people can disagree. You prefer systems that forcibly resolve these disagreements. I prefer systems that allow people as much leeway as possible to live by their own standards.

You are interested in life expectancy. Some Americans are willing to give up pleasures in order to increase their lives; others are not. Some would prefer a shorter, more enjoyable life. A higher number here does not mean that everyone is better off. It just means that, on average, people are living longer.

Also, you are interested in “the amount by which the country is the nicest but not the richest”. Obviously, you think this is an important number. However, I bet if we start discussing it, we won’t even agree on what is “nice” and what is not.

However, of the Top Ten countries, the only country whose ranking of GDP per capita exceeds its HDI index is the United States. Doesn’t sound like you’re reaping the benefits of your wealth, does it?

I would say that some are, some are not. Some are not even interested in wealth. I am reaping the benefits of what little wealth I have (which isn’t much), but I don’t generally think of it as communal wealth. I think of it as mine.

Canadians pay less in taxes per capita for our commie system than you do for your red-blooded Amurrican capitalist one.

Gee, then it must be better.

Obviously, we, as a nation, are not impressing you with our success on numbers that you deem important. As it turns out, Canada is not impressing me with its success on the things that I deem important. We can argue this, but I doubt it would get us anywhere.

Overall, I am forced to conclude that your rant certainly clarifies your opinions, but does little to forward this general discussion.

-VM

[Gadarene]

Smartass,

As a matter of curiosity–and given your expressed concern for the poor and indigent among us–just how would you devise a system of privatized education better than what we have now? You do understand the value of a literate, productive population, don’t you? Even in a libertarian society?

[Smartass]

SingleDad:

Multiple contradictory valuations cannot coexist. When applied to our social policy, at some point we must choose from competing, contradictory valuations.

They can coexist, but usually not in the same person. And no, they cannot be simultaneously implemented as policy. This is why solutions that are achieved with policy are usually bad ones. Better solutions are achieved by people working to achieve the things that they want. Given that, I generally favor government that is as weak as possible, but still able to protect the rights of its citizens.

I note that “… any argument of values will rest on both the popularity of the evaluation, and its relative strength.” We are in agreement on this point.

Excellent. The difference, then, is that you favor a system that measures this popularity and strength only on the basis of numbers of people. I prefer a system that considers not only the numbers of people, but how relatively strongly each individual feels about his/her position.

We have the greatest amount of personal and public wealth in the world, and the one of the highest levels of personal freedom.

Absolutely. I credit it to an excellent Constitution and a general attitude of wanting to protect people’s rights. I submit that, were we to follow the Constitution more, and cut out the rights violations, it would be even better.

Precisely so. Thus any argument that a particular value has intrinsic merit is fundamentally fallacious. All value arguments ultimately must rest on the rational bases of Utopianism and Utiliarianism to have objective meaning.

And which one you select is arbitrary as well, to a point.

Unless I am economically self-sufficient (e.g. I control sufficient capital to ensure my long-term survival) I must subsume my own self-interest to those who are economically self-sufficient to ensure my survival. I have traded politcal oppression for economic oppression.

Nobody controls sufficient anything to ensure their long-term survival. By making decisions that help ensure your survival, you are not “subsuming” your self-interest, you are defining it.

If you do not have “sufficient” economic capital, this does not lead to the conclusion that you are being economically oppressed. You are oppressed if the government is deliberately preventing you from acquiring that capital. The fact that others are competing for that capital with you does not qualify as oppression either.

Also note that is is not my responsibility to understand Libertarianism; it is your responsibility to explain it correctly.

I’m trying, man. But I can’t make you understand it–you have to meet me half way.

The market that Libertarianism describes is not free: people are not free to use coercion or fraud. Those prohibitions are presumably controlled by a central government.

Quibbling over terms does not help any, unless you are somehow confused by what I mean when I say “Free Market” or think that I don’t know what it means.

The contention between Libertarianism, Democracy and Communism concerns the degree of control over the market, not presence of control.

This is certainly an aspect of the contention, but not the whole of it. How much control you exert and how you go about exerting it will result from what you are trying to accomplish. In other words, what you think the purpose of government is. I believe that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals–no more, no less. I am assuming that you see additional purposes. While they may be laudable, I submit that they would be better achieved using tools other than government.

In fact I subscribe completely to “social” Libertarianism; I hold that private consensual behavior should be entirely unregulated. I merely find the arguments in favor of “economic” Libertarianism naive and unpersuasive.

I would be interested in how you would define a government based on “social Libertarianism”, because it sounds like an oxymoron to me (it doesn’t require military intelligence, does it?).

I don’t know if I should add anything more here or not. I am happy to try to help you understand Libertarianism, because I believe the better you understand it, the more likely you are to support it. Please read my post to sdimbert as well and let me know your objections/questions.

-VM

[Gadarene]

Upon what measures do you evaluate the successfulness of a nation? Matt’s list seems to be relatively objective, insofar as it attempts to quantify health, prosperity, and human development (which is an amorphous concept, depending on which social scientist you talk to, but can be reasonably operationalized). If these things are not the way by which to judge a country’s success, what is? In your estimation, of course.

[Smartass]

Gadarene:

As a matter of curiosity–and given your expressed concern for the poor and indigent among us–just how would you devise a system of privatized education better than what we have now? You do understand the value of a literate, productive population, don’t you? Even in a libertarian society?

I don’t know if I understand it as you understand it, but it is important to me that my daughter be literate and productive. I suspect that a great many parents in this country feel the same way.

You’ll get a kick out of this: Even though I don’t profess anything beyond agnosticism, I was raised Catholic. For eight years I attended a Catholic school. For one year, I attended a Baptist school. For three years, I attended a public school. My experience leads me to conclude that there is no better education to be found than the one at Catholic schools, so I will probably try to have my daughter at least start at one.

Of course, I will have to pay tuition. Unless something changes, at the same time, I will be paying for public schools with my tax money. What you may not realize is that Catholic schools actually charge more in tuition than is required to provide the service. This enables them to enroll people whose parents cannot afford to send their children there.

What would a Libertarian system be like? I cannot predict the future, but I suspect it would be a lot like that. Schools would exist of varying qualities offering various curricula. Some might even teach Creationism (gasp). Parents would send their children to the best school they could afford that matched their criteria for education. As children became older, they would probably want to participate in the decision.

I know what you’re waiting for: What about those people whose parents can’t afford to send their children to school? You’re waiting for this because you feel strongly that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent education. I feel the same way. In fact, so do a whole lot of other people in this country. Given that, people will figure out various solutions to this problem. Catholic schools will continue to charge a little higher, and accept donations, so that they can offer education to Catholic children who cannot pay. Some people may organize schools that are completely based on donations. Some will come up with solutions I could never think of. Will this solve the problem of ensuring a quality education to every child? No. But it will provide a lot of different solutions, based on the needs and desires of the people involved. Will it be perfect? I doubt it. I’ll wager you this, though: It would be a whole hell of heap better than what we’ve got now and are being forced to spend so much money on.

Most liberals have a tendency to instinctively assume that people will not act to solve problems on their own. The government must do it. Now, I will freely admit that people aren’t currently working too hard on these kinds of problems. That’s because they have come to think that it is the government’s responsibility. And of course, the fact that the government is siphoning off more than a fourth of my income doesn’t leave me too damn much to work with either.

-VM

[matt_mcl]

I don’t know who started talking about education; I was talking about medicare. Were you aware that the US system costs 16% of GDP whereas the Canadian one costs 9%? And still some tens of millions of Americans are simply not covered at all. So - we have everyone covered for 9%; you have rich people covered for 16%. Yep, I can sure see how US capitalist democracy is better for the people than Canadian social democracy.

[Smartass]

Gadarene:

Upon what measures do you evaluate the successfulness of a nation? Matt’s list seems to be relatively objective, insofar as it attempts to quantify health, prosperity, and human development (which is an amorphous concept, depending on which social scientist you talk to, but can be reasonably operationalized). If these things are not the way by which to judge a country’s success, what is? In your estimation, of course.

You want to evaluate the successfulness of a nation or its people? I don’t have any idea what would make up a “successful” nation, but I would most want to live in one that maximizes the ability of each individual to live their lives as they choose and to gain the things that they most want.

How do you measure this? I don’t think you can, directly. Total wealth will tell you how efficiently resources are being used, which is certainly an indicator. People trying to leave vs. people trying to enter would probly be a good indicator too.

I think it is easier to measure the degree to which a nation is failing. I would measure this by counting the unwarranted infringements on people’s rights. When you infringe a person’s rights, and cannot justify it by the protection of another person’s more fundamental right, then you are lessening the ability of that individual to live his life as he chooses and gain the things that he wants most. Thus the more rights you infringe of more people, the more you are failing. It is also important how often you allow one person to infringe the rights of another.

As far as things like wealth per person and the other stuff that matt_mcl mentioned, measuring them in a free society measures only the importance of those things to its members. Thus, if people are free, and you measure their education level, the number you obtain is a measure of how important the citizens believe education to be, relative to other things they want.

Does this help?

-VM

[Smartass]

matt_mcl:

I understand, then, that you believe the correct way to evaluate government is by a comparison of statistics. I also understand that you believe tha the best way to evaluate medical care, nationwide, is to consider the total costs, divide them by GDP, and then look at the percentage of population that is not covered by insurance.

I will make a note of it.

Needless to say, if these are you measures, then the Canadian system is better, in your opinion.

Doesn’t leave much for you and I to discuss.

-VM

[SingleDad]

Lack of capital self-sufficiency does not a priori deny me liberty, but it can have that effect. The argument is lengthy, so please bear with me.

Consider a small, isolated society. Each of the residents is rational, in that they will not make a decision which can be demonstrated to be against their self-interest. However, the residents are otherwise diverse in intelligence, capabilities and talents, and have the normal human distribution of flaws. The residents all begin absolutely self-sufficient, but seeing their neighbors prosper, they decide to organize their own system specialization. One person specializes in water collection and distribution, another on food production, another on house contruction, etc. Each person assumes ownership of the tools, land, techniques, etc. This ownership, over a period of time becomes entrenched.

They find that their specialization has reaped some excellent benefits: Because water collection and food production are more efficient, drought and famine are less prevalent. More importantly, their overall efficiency has allowed them time for leisure and luxury. What they have traded for this prosperity, of course, is self-sufficiency. None of the members can now survive on their own; they depend on each other. Even more so, the decision to become self-sufficient is not resource-free. A significant investment in resources (food, water, clothing, shelter) must be assembled to survive the transition to self-sufficiency. Likewise, leaving the community is not resource-free; those same resources must be assembled to survive the journey to the next town.

To prevent conflict, the residents purchase the latest Mark X Police Robot from travelling aliens (hey, it’s a thought experiment!) This robot can be programmed with any political system, and will enforce it thoroughly and without exception. It is, of course, sufficiently powerful that the combined force of the people cannot overcome it. Only a total unanimity of the members can change its basic programming, although it may be pre-programmed to allow different methods of modification, such as a majority vote.

Just to recap: We have a small society of human specialists, none of which may regain self-sufficiency with trivial effort. They are stuck with one another. Whatever political system they decide upon is absolutely enforced; there is no “going outside the system” to correct any deficiencies.

Now, let’s program the robot with the Libertarian political system, and see how our model community deals with this issue.

Bill and Ted, the guys who control the two water works, decide they want to be absolute tyrants of our community. Anyone who does not submit to their will in every way is denied water. Anyone who tries to compete with them is denied water; without it, they cannot survive long enough to dig a well. Anyone who wishes to leave is denied sufficient water to survive the journey.

The robot, programmed with the Libertarian political system, cannot act. Property rights and the freedom from coercion are basic principles; they cannot be overridden without a consensus, and Bill and Ted certainly refuse to consent. The tyranny of Bill and Ted is not being coerced politically. No one is compelled to submit to their will; the robot would not permit that. They are merely using their own property as they see fit; anyone is free to refuse their demands without fear of violent reprisal.

There are three counterarguments to my thesis.

The predicated society is unrealisitic. If so, you must point out a common feature of ordinary society that differs from my scenario in a qualitative, and not merely quantitative manner. A million people banding together to oppress a hundred million has been historically demonstrated.

The actions of individuals are unrealistic. Again you must point out a qualititive difference.

My understanding of Libertarian theory is incomplete and inaccurate. As you have greater knowlege of Libertarian theory, I will naturally accept your expert opinion.