Depends on whether you mean freedom from or freedom to.
If you want to be free from all laws, from anyone telling you what to do, then the destruction of our society and civilization is the best way to achieve that. If you want freedom to do whatever the fuck you want, pulling the lever for Trump is in your best interest.
If you want freedom from roving gangs of bandits and rape gangs, if you want freedom from persecution based on your immutable characteristics, then a vote for Trump is exactly the opposite of your best interest.
Somalia is a Libertarian paradise: you have all the freedom you have the firepower to enforce.
One should be careful what one wishes for because once things start down that slope they pick up speed quickly. Sadly, careful forethought is not part of most aggressive Trumpers’ mental make-up.
Without weighing in on Trump in particular, I have to take issue with this characterization of libertarianism. In fact, for many libertarians, the single most important function of government is precisely to protect individuals from violence and intimidation. Warlords driving around with armed militias, ruling by the gun and respecting no laws except brute force, do not constitute a libertarian paradise.
Civilization is what prevents me from killing my neighbor and taking his stuff.
Yes, but none of their pie in the sky ideas can actually create such a government. There is a reason that there are no functional states that follow their ideal.
Do you consider protecting from financial extortion and coercion to also be functions of a libertarian government?
Well, I’m not a libertarian, but libertarians are explicit that one of the functions of government is to prevent extortion and coercion. The devil lies in the details, though: what sort of things are you talking about when you use those terms? What does coercion mean to you? Are you defining extortion in the literal, legal sense, or using it more loosely?
I’m not asking you to speak as a libertarian, but since you brought it up, you are welcome to provide as much defense of the principle as you wish to.
Extortion in the sense that actually affects people. Company towns with company script. Lack of protections for the environment we live in, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. Debtor’s prisons, one sided contracts, stuff like that.
In order to protect us from others, a government needs to be the biggest around. Having giant megacorps has some benefits, there are some economies of scale that we all benefit from, but, it also means that the government needs to be big enough to rein them in.
A government also needs to protect us from the externalities of the actions of others. Dumping waste into the river helps a corporation’s bottom line, but hurts us all. A government needs to be able to regulate those externalities.
And finally, maybe libertarians would disagree here, but a government needs to ensure the well being of its citizens. There is a social contract, we are denied certain freedoms, and with that, needs to come some benefits. Since we can’t just go out and live off the land, we need to be assured that food will be available. We can’t just put up a home anywhere we want, so we need to be assured that there will be housing available.
Healthcare is a bit of a stickier subject, but if the government is going to tell me that I need to get a prescription in order to buy drugs to treat me, then access to a doctor who can write that prescription should be available. As an example, I have sciatic issues, when I have a flare up, I need about $5 worth of muscle relaxers, but I have to pay $100 to have a doctor give me permission to buy them. I see that as an example of extortion that progressives are trying to eliminate, but I don’t see any solutions on the libertarian side.
As I said, there is a reason that there are no functional states that operate under the libertarian ideals.
All of these things might be bad, but none of them are extortion. You need to use the word properly if you want to discuss it. And debtors’ prisons, which many libertarians oppose, have historically been state-sponsored institutions. Libertarians are among the strongest supporters, right now, of eliminating or dramatically reducing the use of cash bail, which effectively serves as something like a poorhouse in many American jurisdictions. It’s not much of an anti-libertarian position to argue that you don’t want the government to sanction debtors’ prisons.
Again, while not all libertarians agree, and there are plenty of different ideas about exactly what policies to enact, some libertarians argue that these sorts of externalities are one area where government regulation is appropriate and even desirable. You seem to be operating based on a caricature of libertarianism, where the government does basically nothing and the world is the wild west. Libertarians are not, for the most part, anarchists.
This is too vague for an adequate response. What do you mean, for example, when you say that “we need to be assured that there will be housing available.” Assured by whom? The government? One of the most common arguments made by libertarians about housing in the United States, especially in places like California where there is a dramatic shortage, is that the lack of housing is often a direct product of government regulation like excessively restrictive zoning.
This is hilarious. Do you know who it is that generally mandates a prescription for your medication? The government. Plenty of libertarians who focus on healthcare argue that drugs should be subject to fewer burdensome regulations, and that more drugs that currently require a prescription should be available over the counter.
I grew up in a country with socialized medicine, and it was great. I believe that healthcare, especially in a wealthy society like America, should be considered a right, and that provisions should be made for everyone to receive medical care, whether they can afford to pay for it or not. I don’t know if the best way to achieve that outcome is a single payer system, or a combination of government and private action, and I disagree with a lot of the libertarian arguments about healthcare. But if you’re arguing that having to pay for a doctor’s visit to get access to prescription medicines constitutes extortion, you seem to be making the libertarians’ case for them.
There are also no non-functional states that operate under libertarian ideas.
More generally, libertarians, as I’ve said, don’t all believe exactly the same thing. Like just about every other political philosophy, they differ on exactly what the boundaries of proper government action should be. Some argue that they see the term libertarian more as an adjective than a noun, as in: “I don’t call myself a libertarian, but I believe in libertarian principles and think that they should be applied wherever possible and practicable.” There is no single “libertarianism,” just as there is no single “liberalism” or “socialism” or “conservatism.”
That’s why I said, as how they affect people. Without a government to protect them, people have no choice but to accept these things. They are threatened through their livelihood or even their lives if they try to get the larger entity to stop.
I’m actually discussing the downsides of libertarianism. If you are saying that these are not things that are addressed by libertarianism because they do not meet the definition of one of the things that a government should exist to protect, then that is a major failing.
How does a libertarian government deal with externalities like pollution, and under what definition do they use to justify it?
And debtors prisons were certainly a desire for capitalists, as they ensured that people paid their debts, and they also provided compelled labor. How would a libertarian govt deal with an individual who refused to pay what he owes?
No, I am operating under the principles that libertarians have laid out. As you said, “some libertarians argue that these sorts of externalities are one area where government regulation is appropriate and even desirable”, but not all.
I didn’t say that they were anarchists, I’m saying that I’ve never seen a coherent plan from them to deal with externalities. I always hear that it should be resolved through the courts, that those who have standing to claim harm can file suit, and then, if they can prove that a particular polluting entity is responsible for the harm, then and only then can action be taken.
By whatever entity tells me that I can’t just go ahead an put up a house wherever I want.
Exactly. That you think that it “hilarious” only means that you have entirely missed the point here.
Do you see any potential problems with getting rid of regulations on our drug companies? Do you see any potential problems with allowing people to choose their own medications?
And would libertarians feel the same way?
That’s not my argument. My argument is that these things are not extortion, therefore, a libertarian govt would not bother to deal with them.
That’s a bit of a true scotsman, but sure. There are no states, functional or non, that operate according to pure libertarian ideas.
Right, and the only thing that they seem to agree on is that you should be free from violence or intimidation, leaving all the other problems of maintaining a civilization as something beneath their consideration.
I would argue that the United States is about as close to the libertarian ideal as you can get without becoming a failed state, most libertarians would argue for more reductions of government protections and regulations.
If you were a libertarian, what would you change about the US to make it more of an ideal?
My only concern is public utilities. As the saying goes, “You don’t have privately owned lighthouses.” If the Government stops building those things and leaves it to the private sector, you will need either a lot of toll/retail collection, or one heck of an efficient way of registering users. Example, every road built will have to have an allocation of registration fees for all vehicles sold and registered. The alternative is to have a toll collector in each intersection.
I’m not an expert on Libertarianism or its cousin Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy). Really my only references are having read Atlas Shrugged and Ron Swanson on Parks & Recs. But I don’t think either equates to “anarchy” or “lawlessness”. As I understand it, you would still have a functioning government with taxes and laws and a constitution and all that. It would just be defined by Libertarian ideals. Examples would be (and correct me if I am mistaken):
Freedom of speech / press / religion (while still maintaining separation of church and state)
Right to bear arms / self defense
Laissez faire free-market economics - no tariffs, subsidies, bailouts, welfare, or additional taxes
Democratically elected representation
Privatization to the greatest extent possible
Personal freedom (particularly with respect to one’s home/property)
I guess where I am unclear is in the details. Like what if I dam a river on my property and flood/ cut off yours? Or preventing corporations from damaging the environment. Or Francisco d’Anconia intentionally destroying his own company to prove a political point (I’m sure d’Anconia had other shareholders).
As a “big-government conservative,” I am not a fan of libertarianism, but I think it is often straw-manned as anarchy or “government should do nothing.” I think it means just setting up the minimal government required for security, justice, fairness, and stability, and then letting people do as they please.If someone wants to smoke weed, let them. If someone wants an abortion, let them. Stay out of people’s lives, but keep the nation safe and secure.
The description I sometimes here associated with libertarianism is that the freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose. The problem is that in the real world a lot of libertarians seem to ignore where someone else’s nose starts. This seems to be especially true with things like environmental protection, such as the already mentioned person who dams a river on their property and hurts people downstream.
But you immediately run into a problem there, because surely someone who is libertarian and pro-life would argue that the government should protect you from being terminated during your vulnerable embryo stage?
As a fetus or embryo you are for all intents and purposes a part of your mother. Also, you are not yet capable of feeling or reason. For that, you do not have rights that people can recognize.
Being libertarian, to me, means being on the liberal side of social issues and the conservative side of economic issues. The government should err on the side of not getting involved with either except as where clearly necessary to cause a better quality of life. Liberals will be more likely to advocate for economic intervention for the government, while conservatives will be more likely to want the government to enforce their morals.
That’s it. There’s no particular points of policy on which someone that sees themselves with those principles will agree, if you count the people who are only moderately beholden to those principles, and only in comparison to those around them. I consider myself a moderate left-learning libertarian because I tend to side with liberals on social issues and am rather ambivalent about which side to support on economic issues, and I don’t take any libertarian principles as being non-negotiable. The government has its roles. If you think it should be less than what most people think, you are a libertarian in some sense.
Not everyone thinks that way.
Personally, I’m pro abortion rights, but my point is that not all Libertarians would agree about that. Some would say that the fetus is already a person, and as much in need of protection as a 6-month old baby.
Heck, even me as a pro-choice advocate, would not agree that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. A late term embryo is probably capable of feeling pain, so it should be killed at least as humanely as we would kill animals.
Which of course brings up another issue, because now we can ask whether the government should do anything about animal cruelty?
This is the thing with Libertarianism; you’d never get people to agree on what things are necessary for the government to get involved in.
Speaking to the thread in general … I am far from an expert on Libertarianism. But it does seem to be a very broad church as others have said above. Which invites lots of No True Scotsman and “Is so! Is Not!” arguments. That way lies madness & failure to communicate, so about all we can say with any certainty is pretty high level summary stuff.
To me, this gets to the heart of it:
It is not a free life to constantly be ducking swinging fists that stop just short of one’s nose. Even honestly intentioned swings that somehow benefit the swinger. And that’s before we consider the swings of “Alpha” = asshole males who think it’s fun to watch people flinch. Or bad actors who actually want to threaten or actually hit people to get their way.
So as a practical result, we need to recast that aphorism as:
The freedom to swing your fist stops when/where somebody else flinches in response.
The obvious problem is the bright line of mutual skin-to-skin contact has suddenly become the fuzzy line of somebody else, the flincher/swingee, passing judgement on how close is too close about the actions of the swinger/flinchee. Real quickly after that recognition you recapitulate the history of human civilization starting from Hobbes’ State of Nature and end up about where we are today.
In a nutshell, IMO libertarianism is a philosophy that is easy to live by if you live on a large ranch waaay out in the country and ignore all the technology and value the the modern economy magically delivers to your front gate. You can swing freely because for all practical purposes, there are no nearby noses to hit or people to make flinch. Both physically and figuratively. Making a big polluting bonfire or toxic mining tailings or anything else like that with externalities just doesn’t matter when there simply aren’t enough people to make a dent in the Earth’s carrying capacity or even the local carrying capacity.
In suburbia or an urban area, or at work in a modern business, it’s all noses everywhere and you need to keep your elbows in at all times and your fists stowed. Failing that, violence and anarchy ensue or else there’s a vast police / regulatory presence to prevent the swings.
To be sure, there is a strain of Libertarianism that in effect assumes everyone will be “reasonable” and exercise voluntary restraint at an appropriate level so everyone will get along without government “help” in doing so. If only everyone is reasonable but also freedom-loving, enough, then all the coercive mechanisms of government can be shut down as unnecessary. Quite right. And if everyone was that reasonable, we’d not need Progressivism because we’d already be living there. Welcome to the Star Trek universe.
IME the Libertarians proposing this particular model are the ones quickest to heap scorn on the idea that human nature in bulk is good enough to embrace any Progressive idea. It’s all selfishness in those other people, but not me & my kind; we’re enlightened.
Backing up one or two meta-levels, I think a vast amount of the left/right cultural divide in the USA can be laid directly at the feet of population density and the amount of interaction with, and necessary consideration for, strangers and the inevitable side effects of one’s actions in everyday life.
Bottom line IMO: Libertarianism, and cultural RW-ery, though distinctly different philosophies, are both simple ideas suitable for governing only in a simple world of few people and small societies that may have existed a few centuries ago but certainly does not exist today at the national level of even tiny countries.
I passed through the Libertarian phase about 40 years ago. Stood on a street corner in Coconut Grove and collected signatures for Roger McBride. Right across from the Hari Krishnas.
I moved on because I recognize that we are all bound by the social contract. We are not islands in a virgin sea. Our uniqueness as Americans derives from our form of government. Those rights we have are granted and regulated by the government. The Constitution defines the process by which they are given and removed. Our persons are the property of the state. I learned that 70 years ago when I was drafted,
Indeed the only choice available is to acknowledge the social contract within our government or move to Libertarian Somalia. Whining about stop signs and drivers licenses is a waste of time.
There is small ‘l’ libertarianism, and big ‘L’ libertarianism. The former is a belief in liberty, the latter is a pile of manure meant to attract the disgruntled misanthropes that hang their hat on each new populist movement that promises to fix all the problems created by the last one.