That clarification helped me understand better what you mean, SingleDad. It seems like by “marketplace” you don’t mean the economy so much as the “protection” of the economy, or even the “protection” of the individual users of it. If that’s what you mean, then the objection from libertarians is that “the people” are not asking them to pay for protection, but for protection + this + this + this + this + that… If the only thing the government did was protect, then libertarians would agree with you; they are the ones who keep saying, “it is to protect our right to our property that we hire a government.”
Singledad…
I will take you at your word.
Please quote from the Constitution where it lays out that the people own the marketplace, and that the government needs to charge for it’s use.
Gilligan:
So when I ask for my salary, does my employer say, Well, I’ll pay for the computer programming, but not your computer, your extra minivan, your big-screen TV, your contributions to the bleeding-heart ultra-liberal society?
My point is that we charge for the protection and maintenance of the marketplace. Like any owner, we expect not only to cover our expenses, but to make a profit which we may spend as we will.
Freedom:
Obviously the specific statement “The people own the marketplace” is not in the Constitution. However, various provisions support my theory. For simplicity, I will only include arguments based on the US Constitution, and extend the results by analogy to state constitutions.
Thus the people delegate specific powers to the government to further their interests.
Specifically, they allow the Congress to make laws to administer their interests.
Clearly the people have delegated to Congress numerous powers regulating the marketplace, therefore they have indeed asserted ownership thereof.
Furthermore, they authorize the Congress to collect taxes not only for the execution of its powers, but to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”, thus authorizing them not only to cover their costs, but enabling them to make a profit for the benefit of their owners.
They also specifically do not delegate many powers to congress, clearly asserting the terms of their ownership, and limiting the agency of the government to administer their interests.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
Looking over this, I realize that my question was rather too easy. I meant to disclude examples where the corporation actually used force or fraud to accomplish it, or had the government perform its dirty work for it. That is, examples where a Libertarian government would have been inadequate.
As for your “marketplace” revision, SingleDad, that does clarify the point a bit. I’ll take some time to get back to you about that.
Libertarians: Shall I take my point as proven? 
“I’m not dead yet”
I’ve been trying to figure out exactly how to explain my opinion as to why the marketplace is not something that can be owned by the American people as a whole. I haven’t entirely worked this all out yet, and my lack of knowledge about Libertarian philosophy isn’t helping. Honestly, I’ve been hoping this would sink out of sight, and we could return to it when I had a good answer, but that doesn’t seem too likely now.
I will say that this is rather hard to debate, since you seem to want to get at the basic premises upon which Libertarianism is based, while Libertarianism is not really a complete philosophy in and of itself. Rather, it is a set of beliefs held by a number of people for different reasons. As a group, Libertarians are certainly more homogeneous than “Liberals” or “Conservatives”, but there are still many different philosophies that have a Libertarian political view.
As far as me personally, I consider myself primarily a staunch free market capitalist, which leaves Libertarianism as the most apropriate political philosophy for me. My personal belief is that the government, as the agent that secures for the people their freedom and jsutice system, has the right to charge the people for these services, but no more. But I will not try to pass this view off as THE Libertarian view.
Ah… I’m not insisting on the THE LIBERTARIAN view. I’ll just as happily debate your own views.
Yes, but the OP dealt with whether or not the US is a Libertarian society. I feel that this argument has progressed beyond my understanding of Libertarianism, as well as beyond the beliefs which, strictly speaking, are included in Libertarianism.
While I’d like to continue this debate, I don’t feel that I can do it under this thread. If no one chimes in here, what do you say we start a new thread where we don’t have to guess at what the Libertarian perspective is? Perhaps something along the lines of whether or not the income tax is justified in a free market. Same discussion, but without the Libertarianism angle.
waterj2: An excellent idea. If you would like to reformulate the debate in a new post, I would be happy to recap my arguments here, which are, I think, equally germane.
SingleDad:
I commend you on your ability to come up with a rationalized argument to support your theory that taxation and income re-distribution is in concert with Libertarian principles. In particular, I commend your ability to confuse a number of apparently bright Libertarians with the evolution of your argument. To begin, a few things I would like to point out:
- It is disingenuous to continually alter your assertions when problems are pointed out–first, we were a Libertarian society. When that didn’t work out, you asserted that you only meant the part about taxation and government spending. Later, you used quotes from the Constitution, as if that were some kind of evidence of Libertarianism. Also, you compare government to corporations, as if corporations were some kind of essential Libertarian concept, even while pointing out that this is not so: A corporate structure that shields owners from the risks of doing business is not, strictly speaking, Libertarian.
- Whatever else it is about, Libertarianism is about individual liberty, not group liberty. To apply Libertarian principles to groups is to deliberately misunderstand Libertarian positions.
- I notice a continuous confusion in this thread between people and The People, The People and government, and government and the marketplace. The way these terms are thrown around, it’s no wonder that Libertarians aren’t sure how to answer you.
I would like to re-start at the beginning:
Absolutely not. The People have put government in place, along with a bunch of rules, in order regulate the market (or marketplace); but no ownership has been implied or asserted. In much the same way, we have rules to attempt to regulate certain human behaviors (outlawing murder, etc.); yet you do not argue that The People have asserted ownership of the people. This is an important distinction: The people own themselves, but The People do not own the people. It is the difference between Libertarianism and totalitarianism.
To say that participatory government is an “exercise of ownership” is sophistry. It is an exercise of governance. By Libertarian principles, government is not established to manage property, nor to produce goods, provide services, or produce profits. The purpose of government is to protect rights. I know you’re itching to say that this protection of rights is providing a service, but this is a deliberate clouding of the issue. In order to not make this too theoretical, I’ll limit myself to this: If the government is providing any services outside of protection of fundamental rights (life, liberty, pursuit of tasty pizzas), then it has stepped outside of the boundaries of its purpose, by Libertarian standards.
To say that the governmnent is merely disposing of its “profits” puts my head in a bit of a whirl. Are you also suggesting that the government is a participant in the marketplace? Or is it merely the “board of directors”? If you are suggesting that the government is a market participant, and thus should try to make a profit (and spend it, rather than pay dividends), you’re certainly going to upset a certain number of Libertarians. The reasoning is fairly simple: The government is not bound by the rules and conditions of the marketplace; rather, it is able to set and enforce marketplace rules. Libertarians believe that markets provide the best distribution of resources because of the “rules” of supply and demand. Being put in place by The People, and not subject to the rules of the marketplace, the government cannot be considered a valid participant. The consequence of making the government a participant is to let a potential opponent also be the referee. Guess who’s going to win? Government can change the rules as it sees fit to ensure its continued success and profit-making. The result is increasingly powerful government and increasingly less Liberty for individuals.
This is why Libertarians insist on government being kept on a tight leash and don’t want government taking our profits and spreading them around as it sees fit.
A side issue is the fact that, while government may represent The People, it is also composed of people. Libertarians do not trust others, even if they are in the majority, making decisions for them–thus, the stress on individual liberty. If you say that The People want to support advancement in the Arts, I say fine; let the people start up a fund and contribute as much as they each wish to it. But keep The People out of my money.
We do? First I heard of it. I will accept that maintenance of government has costs associated with it, but to say that we are charging for “participating in the [marketplace]” is a bit of a stretch.
Taken by itself, this statement isn’t objectionable, except for the part about “owning” the marketplace. However, do you really intend to argue that buying up surplus cheese and storing it in the ground is a “cost of using” the market?
One thing is for sure: I will never hire you to run a business of mine. Seems to me that if we have collected money to cover costs, then we are not free to spend the money how we please. We should spend it on what is was collected for. If you collected too much, you give the rest back.
Well, not Q.E.D., as I think I have shown. It is closer than a lot of other countries, though.
No, the contradiction is in your thesis that the government is an active participant in the market, and therefore subject to the same theoretical constraints as any other business.
You don’t really think this refutes that point, do you?
Who is we? The People? You would be hard-pressed to misunderstand Libertarian principles any more perfectly than this. Individual Liberty: I believe that I am the person best-suited to determine where my happiness lies, how it can be achieved, and what should be done with the benefits of my work. I also believe that you are the person best-suited to determine where your happiness lies, how it can be achieved, and what should be done with the benefits of your work. What you’re talking about here is having the group decide on these things for the members. This is not Libertarianism, and you cannot structure your argument in such a way as to make it become Libertarianism.
I believe that I should be allowed to keep all of the paycheck that I have worked for. But I’m not hypocritical about it. I believe you should keep all of yours, too. Do you honestly not see the fundamental hypocrisy of wanting to decide how your and my money is spent? Even if you do speak for The People, that does not make what you are doing less objectionable: It is still stealing.
SingleDad said:
I was going to try to avoid insinuating myself into this discussion, but what are you talking about? Of course you can sell your own life. You sell your time and your labor every day, and that is really what people want from you. They don’t want your “life force”, or your organs (despite what Lindsey, wherever she went, might think :)). Even back in the day, people wanted the time and labor of slaves; not much else about you is useful.
the U.S. is clearly becoming a socialist state. government has been so involved in the lives of people since the great depression. the “welfare state” that has been created from the first and second “new deal” programs (social security, et al) started by franklin delano roosevelt have blanketed the american public. on a side note, some historians argue that FDR did not intend for the new deal programs to continue on after the depression. anyway, america is far from a libertarian society where overly political correctness is the rule, rampant and often redundant laws are passed everyday, people are taxed ridiculous amounts, and an overinflated government runs up a sizable debt to its own citizens.
the U.S. is clearly becoming a socialist state. government has been so involved in the lives of people since the great depression. the “welfare state” that has been created from the first and second “new deal” programs (social security, et al) started by franklin delano roosevelt have blanketed the american public. on a side note, some historians argue that FDR did not intend for the new deal programs to continue on after the depression. anyway, america is far from a libertarian society where overly political correctness is the rule, rampant and often redundant laws are passed everyday, people are taxed ridiculous amounts, and an overinflated government runs up a sizable debt to its own citizens.
SingleDad
Surprising from you, my friend.
Inasmuch as there is no ethical difference between “taxes and [some] regulations” and “oppression of the non-violent”, the statement you made is perilously close to making a point, whereupon it would become a complex question fallacy.