I’m a registered Libertarian and believe that ultimately, individuals must take responsibility for their own morality.
Government should exist only for the necessary protection of a person’s rights to life, liberty and property (e.g. by deterring thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.). Beyond that, men and women should arbitrate their own affairs, free of forced charities (welfare, medicare, social security), victimless crimes, heavy taxes and the other burdens of an overgrown bureaucracy. Taxes should be for services rendered (police, roads, etc.), not for some amoebic-majority-rule-social-welfare-budget.
Of course, I recognize that the transition to such an ideal might be quite painful, so I would be happy to see just one state in the union adopt a Libertarian stance. Imagine if Pennsylvania, for example, were given complete autonomy. The state would pay directly for necessary federal services (defense, interstate arbitration, etc.), but the federal government would have no power to tax or govern the individual Pennsylvanian. Residents would pay no federal income tax, would receive no federal benefits, and would basically enjoy an oasis of freedom in an overregulated country. What an interesting experiment that would be…
“Give a man a fire and he’s warm for a day… Set a man on fire and he’s warm for a lifetime.”
I don’t understand what this has to do with Libertarianism. Libertarians don’t have any particular bias against the federal government (or state government) - they simply think that government in general should have a very limited role.
Have to admit I’m mystified by this comment. If I don’t find the Democrats left enough why would I possibly support the Republicans?
That link I posted above goes straight to the Labor Party’s platform; I agree with everything on it. I like most of the policies of the P&F and Green Parties - it’s just the personalities of the party members I’ve met that turn me off them.
Actually, even though I side with Republicans on most issues, I am a registered Democrat because of the nature of New York City politics. Very often, in NYC, it isn’t the general election that determines who gets in, but the Democratic primary.
I’m a member of the largest and most powerful of them all–the voter apathy party. We could EASILY take control of the house and senate if we wanted to. Thing is, we don’t.
Neither do I have a problem with limited state or federal government. However, what I outlined above was a way to transition a single state while the rest of the union maintains its current policies. It was an outline for an experiment to prove viability, not some sort of long-term plan.
In such a case, since the federal government would not be changing, the easiest way to carry out the experiment would be to let the state take over necessary governmental functions (using the federal government where appropriate). Otherwise, every federal agency would have to create special procedures for dealing with Pennsylvanians.
In the end, however, we’d be able to see how Libertarianism works in the real world before we commit the entire country to a painful transition period. It would be a very interesting case study that would not only ease concerns, but might also help determine how best to implement the same measures on a national level.
Sorry if I was unclear above. I’ve spent a lot of time debating the ‘single-state experiment’ and forget that you all have no clue what I’m babbling about. :
Hey, we could do a bunch of single-state experiments, in states that lean in the appropriate direction already. Idaho could be venue for the libertarian experiment (I have a hard time envisioning Pennsylvania, a long-time labor stronghold, going that way); Mississippi could become a Christian theocracy, Virginia could elevate ancestor-worship to the level of public policy (after letting Northern Virginia secede so that it can continue into the 21st century), Vermont could become the socialist experiment, and so forth.
We could see what sort of successes and problems each one has, and get some clues on which way to go from there.
There are plenty of cases where a single state has proven a concept and led the way for the rest of the nation. There are other cases where an idea crashes and burns and we’re lucky it was only one state. Of course, many times, we learn that while most people agree on basic rights, not everybody everywhere wants the same thing from their government.
I like the idea of a Libertarian nation, but don’t see it ever happening throughout the entire U.S. There are too many who honestly WANT to live in a bubble and be micro-managed by their government. Perhaps the solution is to return the bulk of the power to the state and local governments and allow people to live a little bit differently in Idaho vs. Pennsylvania.
Then again, perhaps that’s just too chaotic to ever work and we’re stuck with the status quo until we can get off this rock and establish a few space colonies.
“Give a man a fire and he’s warm for a day… Set a man on fire and he’s warm for a lifetime.”
I’ve never understood why libertarians, free-market fundies, and the like consider this the set of choices.
As a liberal populist (for lack of a better label), I have no interest in a micro-managing government. However, what I want is a different set of boundary conditions within which freedom is exercised, than libertarians do.
Libertarians, for instance, believe in a military to defend the country, and presumably believe in taxes to pay for it. (TANSTAAFL.) This is to keep us free from foreign despots. I believe in additional boundary conditions, such as a minimum wage, and some sort of educational system that provides some minimum level of opportunity to learn, regardless of the parents one has had the foresight to choose. This is, in part, to keep us free from domestic despots. I hardly think that constitutes micro-management.
The arguing over the nature of the educational system, or the amount of the minimum wage, generally gets into some pretty detailed wrangling. But that’s not micro-management; that’s what happens when different people see the balance in the social contract differently.
If someone with approximately my beliefs became dictator, she wouldn’t have to make very detailed rules. It’s frequently the debate that produces the complexity.
This may be wrong - but I see many libertarians as reacting against this debate - it is all the wrangling and messy beauracracy and infighting that they hate - not the socialist policy itself. Obviously this does not describe all libertarians, but what really does? The no-coercion rule is far to simplistic to build a government on.
Also, I don’t see the utility in the ‘single-state experiment’ thought experiment. Surely you realize no state will ever become libertarian, which means this experiment will forever remain a thought experiment. As such, it would be more simplistic to create a mythical country to use as your examples. You really underestimate how many rational, intelligent people who are interested in political discourse absolutely and fundamentally reject the libertarian platform. You cannot educate people into accepting it, because it is through understanding that they reject it.
Cooper - I agree with all your points, including the impracticability of the single-state experiment. I’d also add what I merely implied above: why should libertarianism be especially favored for a potential single-state experiment?
However, we can all create utopias based on our personal beliefs, that work out the way we want. The problem is, that amounts to the writing of fiction - and I’m not talking about just the libertarians; that’s everybody. As long as it’s on paper, we can fool ourselves that it will work, and the stuff in our blind spot won’t smack us. The law of unintended consequences will never come into play.
That’s the appeal of the single-state experiment, even though it probably will never happen. If it could, it would give us a social-science laboratory that would allow us to find out which dumb ideas were really smart, and which ones were dumb after all.
Of course, we’ve got this already, to some extent: we’ve got the world, and we’ve got time. I don’t have much detailed knowledge of the governments and economies of the other developed nations, but I’m trying to learn more, because they have lessons to tell us. And our own nation, in different eras, has been vastly different in its system of government than at present.
For instance, was the U.S. in the late 19th century more or less libertarian, and how well did it work? The first part is a factual question that can be answered, and the second part is one that most of us have enough information about to draw our own conclusions.
Maybe we can’t do a single-state experiment now, but maybe we don’t need to, as badly as we think we do.
I wasn’t implying that everyone wanted to be micro-managed – just that there are enough out there that we will never be rid of the greatest offenders (social security, medicare, etc.). I wouldn’t mind the system you describe, though I would be happier if that ‘minimal level of education’ were provided through scholarships to private schools instead of a costly, mandatory public school system.
In the end, we should call an aid program an ‘aid program’ instead of always dressing it up in some bloated social welfare initiative. I would be content to pay money into the SSA if they only helped needy folks retire. I just resent being forced to support a system that serves millions of people (like me) who don’t want/need the help. What a waste of resources!
If we must have forced charities, so be it… but lets be honest about them. Instead of fixing the millions who aren’t broke, lets focus on those who actually need the help!
I give up. Sign me up for that moon colony and we’ll start over.
An interesting question, however, is whether the feasibility of such a system is inversely proportional to population density. It seems that the more crowded it is, the more hive-like things become.
Much more libertarian than now obviously - and it worked very well for some people. The majority of people found it lacking.
You could start a moon colony, or an anartic colony (much easier!) or something along those lines - seeding only with a pool of people that had the exact same philosophic beliefs as you do. However, the problem would be that any group of people so headstrong in their beliefs that they will migrate to somewhere that closely resembles hell to get away from everyone else will not likely be able to work together very long before they will find something divisive (such as procedure for disposal of coffee grounds) enough to fragment them into new factions.
Yes a system set up that takes into consideration that a right of property has been violated by another citizen of the country. It’s not that difficult to understand the means by which Libertarianism is based, please read the Constitution.
The only role our government is legally allowed to govern is based on the Constitution. Within that document it states:
As extreme as you may view this (I know people already think I am a freedom wacko) is this not only prevents the government from doing so, it also prevents other citizens from doing the same thing.
Therefore, if my property is seized by private citizens without concern to my freedoms as another citizen, it is considered against the law by which to violate this amendment. At the same time the 5th and 6th amendments give those that violate my rights of property to answer and have representation in the instance I accuse them of such a crime.
So, the defendant in such a case can not have their hands can not be “cut off” without the trial and conviction by a jury of their peers.
It’s a simple thing really. If you steal my property the government (and myself) have to prove it before a jury. Vigilantism (sp) is never considered under Libertarian politics. In fact, Libertarians are against violence without provocation (life in jeapordy.) If your life isn’t in jeapordy, as far as your self is concerned, then violence isn’t a part of the solution.
=====
Been doing a lot of posts tonight, hope this makes sense!
