[quote from="liquid_water »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/742315-libertarianism?comment=25"]Nonsense. The Constitution came from Moses, not Jesus. My state's high school social studies requirements say so!
No, it's just saying that the Ten Commandments are among the "principles of laws and government institutions [which] informed the American founding documents".
But more interestingly, also saying that Moses wrote them. Texas: atheist state?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.
Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".
Key word there; "everybody". Conflicting freedoms mutually annihilate. The right to speed through an intersection without a traffic light is illusory, because it unacceptably increases the risk of somebody's death, possibly yours. People have been pointing this out at least since Hobbes. (Well, not with traffic lights specifically...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.
Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".
You’re saying that there is no definition of freedom that does not involve someone’s subjective good, but then you just avoid that by setting out a definition that is void for vagueness instead. How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?”, when you refuse to set out even a limited set of what that pursuit looks like? I hope by this exercise it’s clear that you either have a definition of private rights that is subjective, or you have no private rights at all.
History will show as well that, yes, a society can, should, and does choose its own values. We can (and do) decide that we value human lives, and in so doing, give people assistance who have children. Same with public infrastructure, health care, education, or anything that you decide. If you leave the interpretation as vague as “freedom to pursue goals”, then people in power will use that vagueness to shoehorn whatever they want into that.
Uh oh. You don’t have a job because they were all given to White people? Well, at least you had the freedom to put in an application. We can only guarantee the “freedom to pursue your goals”, not anything of any substance. We hope there’s not too much disease and crime in the shantytown you’re now forced to live in. (Really, we don’t care, just don’t bother us.)
That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.
Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".
Key word there; "everybody". Conflicting freedoms mutually annihilate. The right to speed through an intersection without a traffic light is illusory, because it unacceptably increases the risk of somebody's death, possibly yours. People have been pointing this out at least since Hobbes. (Well, not with traffic lights specifically...)
It seems that you are arguing how free a society is is measured by the percentage of people able to pursue their desires. Therefore anarchy is less "free" than instituting a formal government with traffic laws and meat inspectors. This is a very odd use of the word 'free' in a discussion about libertarianism. It might be an effective tactic to get the freedom-obsessed on your side, but it's not what I"m talking about. It's not what most libertarians are talking about. When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
I agree that creating a society where people can be happy is a good thing. But you're shifting the definition of freedom away from how most libertarians like to use it. You're saying, "No, drivers license requirements increase freedom rather than restrict it". If we change to your version of the word, then sure. I'd pick apart some further details, but for the purpose of an internet forum discussion I'd of course agree. When you expand "freedom" to such a broad definition there's basically nothing left to talk about.
Curious about one thing though: Seatbelt laws. Freedom or infringement on freedom?
Jusstice, the private traffic law enforcement officers would have to operate under the rules set by the owners of the roads, otherwise, theyd be kicked out.
A monopoly is nearly impossible in a free market society. Corner cases are the reason most libertarians advocate for some amount of government to exist.
____
If you want to help the poor in a libertarian society, you can do so, but forcing others to do so is theft.
Here in Germany, the conservative and (neo)liberal parties privatized quite a few sectors because that would make them more "efficient" and cost the tax payer less. Parts of the retirement pay system was privatized as well and there are even projects for private investors to build streets and other infrastructure projects. In the end, all of these projects became even more costly and inefficient than they would have been if the state had continued to own them. The private part of the retirement pay system has already been exposed as a fraud which favors the investors behind it and takes money away from the depositors. But because the legend of state inefficiency and private institutions efficiency has to be hold up such things are never directly questioned by those parties, something I have seen in many libertarian and conservative parties. Europes banking sector was largely left to its own for decades, with very small state interference.. and the banks began to gamble and invested in risky financial assets which led to the banking crisis of 2008. The EU had to bail them out, costing the tax payers billions. Of course they kept their profits for themselves, heaven forbid anyone saying otherwise.
All libertarians I ever met have the same problem. They are extremely suspicious of the state (not always without reason) but strangely naively trusting in the free market. There is no scientific evidence that the free market automatically leads to profit for everyone and that there is a force at work keeping it stable and orderly (competition for example). This sometimes takes on nearly religious levels. The problem is: there is no such force. Competition in economics and politics doesn't favor the best, it favors the ones who can trick the most people in thinking they are the best and the ones who already start with more than others. People don't make rational decisions all the time, the Homo economicus is nothing but an ideal. Morality also gets the short end as well: Human rights (except for pretty much meaningless "freedom") have no basis in libertarian civilisations and a weak state will never be able to enforce them on ever more powerful corporations. In the end I fear that libertarian countries will always end up with monopolies owning nearly everyone and only acting in their own interest (which as we have seen time and time again in the last few decades doesn't line up with most of the populations or even humanitys own interest). I always favored Germanys social market system as a good (but admittedly not perfect) compromise of socialism and free market capitalism and the constant push for more privatizations here makes me cringe because I don't think it leads to the right direcrtion, especially when private organisations have control over essential things like water. Just my thoughts on the issue.
Jusstice, the private traffic law enforcement officers would have to operate under the rules set by the owners of the roads, otherwise, theyd be kicked out.
They did operate under the ruiles of the road owners it went horribly wrong for everyone else. The same thing will happen again if we return to it.
A monopoly is nearly impossible in a free market society. Corner cases are the reason most libertarians advocate for some amount of government to exist.
Which version of monopoly are you using because there are 2 of them that are vastly different things.
The first classic one was a tax bung given by Monarchs and similar saying that the holder of the monopoly is the only person that is able to legally trade a commodity with in an area or was given complete control of trading with an area, like the old Hudson Bay River company or the East India company.
If that is the one you are using then yes you are correct it is impossible in a free market as no one will be able to hand them out that form of patronage.
Unfortunately that is not the current modern definition of a monopoly which is where a single company is able to leverage a dominant position in a market so it is able to force out other competitors. Usually by deliberately performing uncompetive actions like selling at a rate which is at or just below cost until everyone else has run out of money and forced to leave the market or just by agressively taking over their competitors until again they are the only one in the market then can run it for their own benifit.
With this second more relevant definition of monopoly the only thing that stops it from taking place is the assorted rules and regulations put in place by the Governments that force competition into the market.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
It seems that you are arguing how free a society is is measured by the percentage of people able to pursue their desires. Therefore anarchy is less "free" than instituting a formal government with traffic laws and meat inspectors. This is a very odd use of the word 'free' in a discussion about libertarianism. It might be an effective tactic to get the freedom-obsessed on your side, but it's not what I"m talking about. It's not what most libertarians are talking about. When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
That's interesting. Whenever I hear libertarians argue about their position, they actually tend to argue that actions that can harm people to the point of death/severe disability/what have you wouldn't be allowed because death/severe disability/what have you directly denies that individual freedom.
As such, your action is infringing horribly into another's freedom, and ergo cannot be allowed in a libertarian society.
How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?
How would you?
In fact, what does it mean to decide that we value human lives and how do we enforce this?
'What does it mean to decide that we value human lives?'
What?
It means we decide human life is important, it is valuable, and therefore anything that supports it receives a positive effect on favourability as a result and anything that goes against it receives a negative effect on favourability as a result.
How do we enforce it?
Murder is illegal. Assault is illegal. War crimes exist. Parents have legal responsibility for their children. Suicide prevention programs exist. Dangerous things like weapons and drugs are restricted. Workplaces have health and safety regulations. Traffic regulations exist.
That sort of thing.
When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
I generally assume that any society like this would also allow me to shoot drunk drivers as a form of self defense/justified homicide.
Libertarianism is highly disorganized, but the anti-drivers-license thing is mainstream enough to be a major point of debate in the last Libertarian convention in which Gary Johnson was nominated. When he meekly said he's not entirely against drivers licenses, there were loud boos from the crowd. He still won the nomination, but not without severe opposition from many libertarians on that and similar issues. Even that extreme position absolutely exists.
Jusstice, the private traffic law enforcement officers would have to operate under the rules set by the owners of the roads, otherwise, theyd be kicked out.
Ok, because you are so confident in the result, let’s appoint you owner of the roads. You hire a squad of enforcement officers. You being very clever, you select people who are 6’0” average, 250lbs and up, with self-defense training and enough equipment to be able to handle any unruly people who decide to use your roads. Then, you give them a set of operating rules that lay out economically efficient road use. The Free Market being God and everything, you lay out rules that deliver maximum profit for you.
But then one day, your enforcement officers tell the guy at the toll booth to take a hike, they put in their own guy. Then, they insist on cash payments from motorists and then distribute them among themselves. When you find out about this, you go down there to tell all of your enforcement people that they are fired. To what I’m sure would be your profound surprise, these enormous men who you’ve armed to the teeth calmly fold their arms and tell you to shove it.
So, you show up the next day with a registered deed of ownership of the roads, and tell them that they have to respect your authoriteh. Maybe they treat you nice and tear up the piece of paper, maybe they break your knees. Meanwhile, they continue to collect whatever they want from the people using the roads.
So you do what? Call the police? How very circular. Except now, the police department can’t respond right away to this private, non-emergency situation. They are busy fighting in the streets with dozens of these thug groups who took over the roads, bridges, servers, and other infrastructure. But they let you know they’re sorry about this road ownership business venture not going your way, you now being sued by dozens of drivers that your thugs harassed on top of not getting any tolls for your roads. But to reassure you, they offer you a job fighting off street thugs. You can start as soon as they get the vest and pistol back from the last cop that got shot.
In all honesty, nothing is stopping legitimate government police forces from doing this sort of thing either. In fact, a lot of police departments in the US and the world over practice some sort of extortion on citizens. The point is, there is an immense benefit of public oversight when police powers (and many, many, many other societal functions) are legitimized by government control, rather than left up to profit seeking private individuals.
A monopoly is nearly impossible in a free market society. Corner cases are the reason most libertarians advocate for some amount of government to exist.
Ok, I can agree with you that there are some “corner cases” where the free market is a disaster. There are…
As above, enforcement.
Also as mentioned, natural monopolies. Same example with the roads that I detailed the economics of a few posts up. This happens when there are high barriers to entry, limited availability of assets (roads), or basically any other situation where there are high enough economies of scale. Everybody gets gouged.
Monopolies by coercion, collusion, or other artificial, anti-competitive business practices. Everybody gets gouged.
Externalities. Twitter version, I decide to raise poultry and dump all their waste into the public river next to my property. Everyone who used that water for irrigation and drinking now gets sick, dies. Sad!
Information Asymmetry. I Google how to write a search algorithm, Google redirects me to search strategies for Pokemon because they would rather me play their game than compete with their search algorithm. I go to my local law school’s library to research the elements of an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, and I’m not admitted to the library unless I present my bar membership card.
Collections costs. I’m employed in delivering waste disposal services, where every morning I pick up trash left at the front of every house. People are supposed to pay me for this, but I actually spend more time going door to door asking for my weekly $5 than I do actually collecting trash. I double my prices, people refuse to pay.
Other transaction costs (bargaining cost, illiquidity, etc). I get appendicitis. An appendectomy costs $15k-$20k. I collect weekly for my trash disposal services, and I get around $1200/wk. I tell the doctor I will have enough money to pay after about 3 months. The doctor tells me that he won’t put it on a tab, because recovery time from the operation, so on, and he hears that it’s really hard for trash collectors to get paid in Libertarian society. I try to cut out my appendix myself, get tetanus and die. Sad.
…. I mean, these are all things that any college student pursuing a bachelor’s in Economics will learn about in great detail, very early on. Much less what the actual cutting edge Economics theory at the post graduate level will show. The doctrine of an efficient free market doesn’t hold up at all past 101 level Economics. So, at what point is that doctrine the exception rather than the rule? Even for those who aren’t students of Economics, it seems like even a bare review of history has taught everyone these lessons. Except of course for the Libertarians.
If you want to help the poor in a libertarian society, you can do so, but forcing others to do so is theft.
If you view everything a government does as coercion, then you’re doing nothing more than painting yourself into that box. Nothing intrinsically defines that as theft.
By a different view, citizens have plead their hearts out over all eras of civilization for an agreement where everyone gets together, pools their resources, and solves all of the problems like the ones above. Then by a great act of administrative wisdom, some very insightful statesmen created a constitutional republic that authorized a legislature of elected representatives to undertake acts to provide for the common welfare of their constituencies.
Your view is a hollow mental exercise. The other view is a matter of historical fact.
How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?
How would you?
In fact, what does it mean to decide that we value human lives and how do we enforce this?
Well, we might value cost-free education so our lives are more meaningful. We might value public health care so that people can stop dying of preventable diseases, or police oversight, or gun control laws that stop people from getting killed. Really, it’s up to everyone to define for themselves what constitutes meaningful human life, the pursuit of life goals, so on, and put those values into practice through the governance process.
My point, the definition of most people in the US bears a much closer resemblance to the platform of a major party than it does to the Libertarian idea that eliminating government is an infallible principle that has no logical limitations. The fact that one is presented as a pragmatic agenda and the other as an infallible principle of dogma has no bearing. These values actually are subjectively defined. We would rather govern ourselves by observable facts rather than abstract principles. Evidence being, we have the two major parties and not Libertarianism.
The key principle behind Libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression. This concept presents that "use of force" is prohibited except in defense of criminal action; That the only criminal action is "Theft."
In this thought, theft is the only crime against another sentient being, as in theft of: Life, Liberty, Property.
This philosophy simplifies the disparity between morality and "rule of law." It is in essence, the most pure form of legal establishment.
Libertarianism is more over a philosophy, not a form of government.
Government is the authority on which society rests. The role of government is to extend control over society in order to achieve maximum efficiency of productivity. The purpose and design of that productivity depends on the culture that society represents.
For example: Culturally, we justify our existence by having jobs. We also condition ourselves to fear outsiders. Therefore, the driving force of our society is the acquisition of wealth and power. Jobs give us wealth, War gives us power to suppress our fear. The priority of government today, is to see to the maximum production of such. So we exist in a Corporatist Oligarchy, the prime form for the function it serves.
In theory, eventually society will evolve to recognize the fallacy of scarcity based economic systems and no longer be driven by wealth and power but rather knowledge and self-improvement. In this situation, The role of government would be the production of education, health, and morality. Until we reach this point culturally, government will continue to bear the form it currently has in order to best serve the needs of society.
@OP: I think, as others have pointed out, I believe you're misframing libertarianism. Admittedly, there's also a major question of defining terms. Libertarianism as a political philosophy is different from Libertarians as in the political party. I recommend you step back from trying to frame particular opinions on social welfare and the like and instead bring it back down to the fundamental concepts. The best manifestation of this that I've seen was this article that I highly recommend you read.
It's entirely possible to ask these questions of libertarian philosophy (as presented in the linked article) and come to different conclusions than yours, and in fact I do, but the key part is understanding where your position is arising from.
As a point of interest, I would pose this to you: if you fear the government exerting expanding power and control, how do you differentiate this from corporations exerting expanding power and control?
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
@OP: I think, as others have pointed out, I believe you're misframing libertarianism. Admittedly, there's also a major question of defining terms. Libertarianism as a political philosophy is different from Libertarians as in the political party. I recommend you step back from trying to frame particular opinions on social welfare and the like and instead bring it back down to the fundamental concepts. The best manifestation of this that I've seen was this article that I highly recommend you read.
It's entirely possible to ask these questions of libertarian philosophy (as presented in the linked article) and come to different conclusions than yours, and in fact I do, but the key part is understanding where your position is arising from.
As a point of interest, I would pose this to you: if you fear the government exerting expanding power and control, how do you differentiate this from corporations exerting expanding power and control?
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read. Not necessarily directed at anyone, here are my thoughts:
I'm not very interested in the first question. I'm a sort-of small-l libertarian, not a large-L Libertarian. And I'm deeply uncomfortable about labeling myself as even a small-l libertarian. I've explained why before: I think that embracing political labels leads to bad behavior. I ought to support something because I have thought it through and think it's right, not because members of my tribe support it and insecurity and cognitive dissonance will set in if I disagree with them.
It’s hard to disagree with the imperative that people evaluate the issues beneath the labels. That said, doing so represents demands far in excess of what the US constitutional system was designed to impose on voters. It is great to have transparent, public discourse at a sophisticated level, but ultimately what is expressed in the ballot box is this “large-R/large-D” persuasion. Identifying which tribe you belong to is all that our system ever set out to require of voters. And, I think asking what is expected from whom is important particularly in the US constitutional system of separated powers, as the rest of this author’s blog post will further make clear:
1) Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
Whose role is it to ask this question? It’s not the voter. What might surprise many people, it’s not even really a question for the legislature or the president. It’s uniquely the purview of the US Supreme Court to decide the limits of government power.
This acknowledges a reality that the founders understood very well, that every government everywhere is empowered to do anything that it wants to do. It’s the Captain Jack Sparrow principle, what a man can do and what a man can’t do. It requires no less than the force of some other government power to restrain what another part of the government decides to do. The Legislative enacts policy that it likes, the Executive enforces it, and if the citizens don’t think it’s constitutional, then they take their case to court. Of course the other branches knowing that the Court can invalidate their policy, they are incentivized to make law that will actually pass muster. But the Constitution didn’t appoint them authorities on Constitutional law, or even ask them to be experts on it, just require an oath to uphold it.
Much less is required of the actual voter. So, what small-l libertarianism says about a candidate’s campaign platform is still unclear. That the candidate believes that the Constitution is of some role in determining the limits of government power? Everyone agrees on that. Is libertarianism saying other political philosophies don’t believe in Constitutional limits of power?
2) What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
Have you guys ever read a Justice Scalia opinion? Basically to him, any expanded read of a Constitutional principle meant that we’d soon be living the worst parts of Brave New World and 1984.Again, the Judicial decides precisely those questions of how each law and decision affects the precedents going into the future.
But what beliefs small-l libertarianism requires of voters and the other branches of government, I still have no idea.
3) What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people? 4) What would your worst enemy do with this power?
Ok, here are questions of practicality that belongs to the elected branches of government. But still, I’m failing to see here how the libertarianism political philosophy distinguishes itself. Everyone agrees that there should be enforcement mechanisms in government policy, or there would be no policy. That includes sensible appointments to government agencies, and a lot of states have given enforcement mechanisms directly to voters, such as review, recall, ballot initiatives, so on. Does libertarianism say that current enforcement mechanisms don’t go far enough? It seems to me from the platform that the opposite is true, too much enforcement. Or that a law shouldn’t be enacted in the first place unless the libertarian God has a perfect, prescient foreknowledge that the enforcement mechanisms in it will be easy to implement and foolproof?
The premise of governance in a Republic is that the voters will elect people that they find moral and trustworthy, who will make appointments down the line of people that they find moral and trustworthy. The major parties believe, and the Constitution provides, that voters will elect different representatives if they find the current ones “indifferent”, “unaccountable”, or “enemies”. But how a law passed by libertarian lawmakers looks different from one passed by an ordinary, prudent lawmaker, I still have no idea.
5) Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
I think I might sort of understand where this is coming from. Modern opinion like Lawrence v. Texas, Williams v. Morgan says that “morality” (whatever that is taken to mean) cannot serve as the rational/legitimate basis for legislation. On this point, Libertarians seem to identify more with this view on the Left than with the opposing view on the Right. Of course the question is, what is this “morality” that has no place in public policy?
What is evident from opinions like those, and the dissents, is that what’s meant by “morality” here is actually just anything that has a basis in tradition, religion, or any such similar things that those decision makers have subjectively defined as obsolete or antiquated. It cannot possibly mean any and all things that society values as wholesome, praiseworthy, prudent, or ethical. In fact, the only thing that government has ever done is endeavor to establish policy based on its choice of what is beneficial to those it intends to serve. How you actually draw the line between judgments that governments can make, or only individuals can make? Small-letter libertarianism doesn’t make that at any more clear. It only says that there is such a line (which again, was never in dispute). Big-letter Libertarianism, though, seems to agree with the Left that this means only secular influences ought to be the basis of policy. But this is platform, not principle.
So in the end, we’re circling back again on these things either being within the power of the Court to determine, or intended to be checked by the Republic form of governance where voters can elect to replace government officials that they don’t find themselves in agreement with. I’m still not sure how libertarianism distinguishes itself, other than just being prepossessed with these Constitutional issues that bear little relevance to the process of setting an election platform.
6) Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
Wait, as I recall, the elements of a “protected class” under strict scrutiny analysis include groups that are “unable to protect themselves through the normal political process”, or are “subject to historical prejudice”.
So first, if you think that you are disadvantaged (really, who doesn’t?), then the mechanism of electing new representatives is your recourse, and if that is ineffective, you can ask for protection from the Court. It looks like another case of libertarianism trying to encourage voters to elect Constitutional Law scholars to office.
Second, is this a libertarian saying that competitors in a market should not use their power and influence to tip the scales? It’s probably nested somewhere in this idea that the process of getting a government license to do business, as in the example used in the blog, is more easily identifiable as a government action. Now that there, that’s businesses using government to distort markets, which is a bit no-no right? Whereas, all of the ways a government sets conditions for markets and enables trade that are often taken for granted are to be, you know, taken for granted. Roads, police, so on. As already posted above, where do you draw the line? Major parties are engaged in drawing that line, meanwhile libertarians are patting themselves on the back for reminding everyone that there is a line.
7) Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
First, there is actually no difference between “negative” rights and “positive” rights. For every right that there is, language allows for it to be stated in either the affirmative or the negative. I have a right to bear arms, or I have a right for the government not to deprive me of or restrain my ability to buy and own weapons. I have a right to education, or I have a right for the government not to restrain States and other institutions in their ability to provide me affordable education. Lawyers and judges being very crafty in their word choice, the jurisprudence also bears out that principle. Analysis only looks to whether there is a “benefit” or a “duty”, not whether it’s characterized by action or inaction.
What this is actually saying is that Constitutional Law (labeled by the author as “rights”) should be on a higher order than other policy (labeled as “law”). Again, this issue seems to be both extremely well settled, and completely outside the domain of the representative elections process. Any conflict within a single law would be interpreted by the judiciary.
8) Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
There is no article of the Constitution that appoints an ombudsman to decide what issue belongs to which branch. Good thing, or they would just decide that every issue belongs to them. As above, it’s the what you can do, what you can’t do principle. The powers of every branch have been shaped like that, from Marbury v Madison onward. The founders seem to me to have envisaged that, especially with the 10th amendment. In really bad cases too, there is a process for Constitutional amendments.
So where that puts small-l libertarians on where each issue should go, I still have no idea. Yes, wow, there are governing principles. Where is the person I’m supposed to be voting for on the issues, though?
9) Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
Stop electing people that are acting on fear, anger or self-promotion, then. Except, how does a law written by a libertarian following this principle actually read any differently than a law written by some other lawmaker (except for not being named after dead kids)? Or is this some sort of contrarian virtue-signaling, where libertarian candidates profess that they are not prone to fear, anger and self-promotion, then go on inciting anger and self-promoting as normal?
10) Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?
Is there any evidence in the history of human behavior that people can assess themselves as unfit? Then after doing so, they relinquish or fail to act on power they’ve been given? Or relinquish power under any conditions, at all? By the way they value checks and balances, those in the libertarian camp should probably agree that, no, people don’t do this.
Again, how the American Constitutional system is set up is that the branches of government are the only ones that can challenge one another. It is understood that they will undertake any and every action that they believe serves the best interests of their constituents. If it turns out they suck at it, elect different people. But candidate who professes that his plan after taking office is to do nothing without asking a judge if they should is either lying or profoundly mistaken about the nature of the office that they are running for.
To summarize, I get it that judicial nominations are the role of some offices that run for election. But, it is a real strain to make this small-l libertarianism here your calling card, because it’s nothing more than a principle that judges would use to interpret issues of Constitutional Law. It’s not long after that point that candidates will ready their list of intended judicial nominees, and then start dragging them along on the campaign trail and deferring to them for whether they’d be allowed to do such and such without making James Madison cry.
At best, the principle will put a voter into the Republican party on economic policy, and possibly into the Democrat party on foreign policy and social issues. That’s no indication that you’re led by principle, and the rest of us are led by partisan groupthink. If there are enough people who are of a like mind on the actual issues, then put the issues into the election platform. We will see if it works out (history lesson, it didn’t).
At worst though, libertarianism is a get out of jail free card for obstructionism, filibuster, and inaction. Don’t like something? Don’t have any ideas on how to do it better? Easy, just claim that it’s government overreach! Doing nothing was the right course. Campaign on a principle that government is ineffective at doing anything, and then once elected, set out to make sure that it continues to be ineffective.
Jusstice, the private traffic law enforcement officers would have to operate under the rules set by the owners of the roads, otherwise, theyd be kicked out.
Ok, because you are so confident in the result, let’s appoint you owner of the roads. You hire a squad of enforcement officers. You being very clever, you select people who are 6’0” average, 250lbs and up, with self-defense training and enough equipment to be able to handle any unruly people who decide to use your roads. Then, you give them a set of operating rules that lay out economically efficient road use. The Free Market being God and everything, you lay out rules that deliver maximum profit for you.
But then one day, your enforcement officers tell the guy at the toll booth to take a hike, they put in their own guy. Then, they insist on cash payments from motorists and then distribute them among themselves. When you find out about this, you go down there to tell all of your enforcement people that they are fired. To what I’m sure would be your profound surprise, these enormous men who you’ve armed to the teeth calmly fold their arms and tell you to shove it.
So, you show up the next day with a registered deed of ownership of the roads, and tell them that they have to respect your authoriteh. Maybe they treat you nice and tear up the piece of paper, maybe they break your knees. Meanwhile, they continue to collect whatever they want from the people using the roads.
So you do what? Call the police? How very circular. Except now, the police department can’t respond right away to this private, non-emergency situation. They are busy fighting in the streets with dozens of these thug groups who took over the roads, bridges, servers, and other infrastructure. But they let you know they’re sorry about this road ownership business venture not going your way, you now being sued by dozens of drivers that your thugs harassed on top of not getting any tolls for your roads. But to reassure you, they offer you a job fighting off street thugs. You can start as soon as they get the vest and pistol back from the last cop that got shot.
In all honesty, nothing is stopping legitimate government police forces from doing this sort of thing either. In fact, a lot of police departments in the US and the world over practice some sort of extortion on citizens. The point is, there is an immense benefit of public oversight when police powers (and many, many, many other societal functions) are legitimized by government control, rather than left up to profit seeking private individuals.
A monopoly is nearly impossible in a free market society. Corner cases are the reason most libertarians advocate for some amount of government to exist.
Ok, I can agree with you that there are some “corner cases” where the free market is a disaster. There are…
As above, enforcement.
Also as mentioned, natural monopolies. Same example with the roads that I detailed the economics of a few posts up. This happens when there are high barriers to entry, limited availability of assets (roads), or basically any other situation where there are high enough economies of scale. Everybody gets gouged.
Monopolies by coercion, collusion, or other artificial, anti-competitive business practices. Everybody gets gouged.
Externalities. Twitter version, I decide to raise poultry and dump all their waste into the public river next to my property. Everyone who used that water for irrigation and drinking now gets sick, dies. Sad!
Information Asymmetry. I Google how to write a search algorithm, Google redirects me to search strategies for Pokemon because they would rather me play their game than compete with their search algorithm. I go to my local law school’s library to research the elements of an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, and I’m not admitted to the library unless I present my bar membership card.
Collections costs. I’m employed in delivering waste disposal services, where every morning I pick up trash left at the front of every house. People are supposed to pay me for this, but I actually spend more time going door to door asking for my weekly $5 than I do actually collecting trash. I double my prices, people refuse to pay.
Other transaction costs (bargaining cost, illiquidity, etc). I get appendicitis. An appendectomy costs $15k-$20k. I collect weekly for my trash disposal services, and I get around $1200/wk. I tell the doctor I will have enough money to pay after about 3 months. The doctor tells me that he won’t put it on a tab, because recovery time from the operation, so on, and he hears that it’s really hard for trash collectors to get paid in Libertarian society. I try to cut out my appendix myself, get tetanus and die. Sad.
…. I mean, these are all things that any college student pursuing a bachelor’s in Economics will learn about in great detail, very early on. Much less what the actual cutting edge Economics theory at the post graduate level will show. The doctrine of an efficient free market doesn’t hold up at all past 101 level Economics. So, at what point is that doctrine the exception rather than the rule? Even for those who aren’t students of Economics, it seems like even a bare review of history has taught everyone these lessons. Except of course for the Libertarians.
If you want to help the poor in a libertarian society, you can do so, but forcing others to do so is theft.
If you view everything a government does as coercion, then you’re doing nothing more than painting yourself into that box. Nothing intrinsically defines that as theft.
By a different view, citizens have plead their hearts out over all eras of civilization for an agreement where everyone gets together, pools their resources, and solves all of the problems like the ones above. Then by a great act of administrative wisdom, some very insightful statesmen created a constitutional republic that authorized a legislature of elected representatives to undertake acts to provide for the common welfare of their constituencies.
Your view is a hollow mental exercise. The other view is a matter of historical fact.
How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?
How would you?
In fact, what does it mean to decide that we value human lives and how do we enforce this?
Well, we might value cost-free education so our lives are more meaningful. We might value public health care so that people can stop dying of preventable diseases, or police oversight, or gun control laws that stop people from getting killed. Really, it’s up to everyone to define for themselves what constitutes meaningful human life, the pursuit of life goals, so on, and put those values into practice through the governance process.
My point, the definition of most people in the US bears a much closer resemblance to the platform of a major party than it does to the Libertarian idea that eliminating government is an infallible principle that has no logical limitations. The fact that one is presented as a pragmatic agenda and the other as an infallible principle of dogma has no bearing. These values actually are subjectively defined. We would rather govern ourselves by observable facts rather than abstract principles. Evidence being, we have the two major parties and not Libertarianism.
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
Your second example of possible failure of libertarian society is not limited to libertarian societies, your example can happen anywhere the world where there is a river. This action described in your example would be punished in a libertarian society just as it would in any other society.
Your third example can happen today as well.
Your fourth example has a person that decides to break a previously agreed upon contract by increasing the price of his labor. The customers have the right not to pay what they didnt agree upon.
Your fifth example could be avoided if the person had set up an insurance plan, had chosen a medical centre that allowed payment overtime, or by the genorosity of a centre to do the operation for a lower cost. Also not everything is perfect in a libertarian society, there will be deaths.
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
It's theft only if you don't want to have any kind of social contract at all. Even the most die-hard libertarian (who is not also a *shudder* so called "objectivist*) I know of only wants to lessen taxes considerably not remove it altogether (which is mostly what anarchists would propose). You are forgetting that the state doesn't do with our taxes "what it wants" and that you are in most cases getting the money back in the form of infrastructure, culture, science, wellfare and education. Of course you don't have direct control over that money and in many cases (like in all systems) mistakes are made and money vanishes into dubious projects. Still, what would removing taxes (and therefore the state altogether, it can't sustain itself without money to do so) accomplish? You'd leave the private sector and free marcet economy with all the power in the world and laws would be pretty much made by those who have the necessary means to build their own army/security force (i.e. people and companies who are already rich) thus leading into some sort of dictatorial plutocraty. I don't kn ow about you, but that prospect is a lot more frightening to me than paying taxes.
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
It's theft only if you don't want to have any kind of social contract at all. Even the most die-hard libertarian (who is not also a *shudder* so called "objectivist*) I know of only wants to lessen taxes considerably not remove it altogether (which is mostly what anarchists would propose). You are forgetting that the state doesn't do with our taxes "what it wants" and that you are in most cases getting the money back in the form of infrastructure, culture, science, wellfare and education. Of course you don't have direct control over that money and in many cases (like in all systems) mistakes are made and money vanishes into dubious projects. Still, what would removing taxes (and therefore the state altogether, it can't sustain itself without money to do so) accomplish? You'd leave the private sector and free marcet economy with all the power in the world and laws would be pretty much made by those who have the necessary means to build their own army/security force (i.e. people and companies who are already rich) thus leading into some sort of dictatorial plutocraty. I don't kn ow about you, but that prospect is a lot more frightening to me than paying taxes.
It is definitely a terrifying prospect. Theoretically there is some possibility of it all working out, but when looked at practically in terms of how things play out letting the free market do it's thing without a guiding force leads to horrible, horrible things. I don't think the current system is perfect, and I'm certainly open to the idea of less government influence, but abolishing the government in it's entirety seems like an absurd prospect, with no real net benefit.
But you definitely hit why it isn't theft. It's not stealing when you exchange money for bread at your local supermarket. Taxes are that concept on a much larger scale. You don't have much choice in whether to participate or not now a days, but the solution isn't to remove taxes, it's to redirect where taxes are spent so they're used correctly, and at worst lower them, but not remove them entirely. I'm not really sure that lowering them (at least in the ways I've seen it tossed around) would really make for a better society though. But speaking just as an American, each country is going to approach those things differently.
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
But since the law enforcement is effectively a paid gang what is stopping them from taking your money, beating you up and leaving you for dead?
The threat that you will hire a bigger gang with more weapons that is twice as likely to beat you up, take your money and leave you for dead?
Your second example of possible failure of libertarian society is not limited to libertarian societies, your example can happen anywhere the world where there is a river. This action described in your example would be punished in a libertarian society just as it would in any other society.
And who enacts the punishment? The same armed gang mentioned above that hires its labour out to the highest bidder. Thats likely to be the ******** that polluted the river. Good luck with getting them to bite the hand that feeds them.
Your third example can happen today as well.
Except we have some effective means of seeking restitution for it currently. Under your wished for Utopia there isn't one.
Your fourth example has a person that decides to break a previously agreed upon contract by increasing the price of his labor. The customers have the right not to pay what they didnt agree upon.
He has been forced to raise his prices on the people who paid to cover his losses for those that didn't pay.
Your fifth example could be avoided if the person had set up an insurance plan, had chosen a medical centre that allowed payment overtime, or by the genorosity of a centre to do the operation for a lower cost. Also not everything is perfect in a libertarian society, there will be deaths.
So what happens if there is only 1 person in the territory who is willing to enter in to that form of scheme, and has a backlog or is in an inconvient location? Thats all presuming that the condition you need treatment for isn't one where you are in imminent danger of expiring.
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
Except it isn't. It is the Government taking payment for services rendered and using exactly the same means you advocate above to deal with those that refuse to pay. Whilst generally being a lot more leninent to those that can't pay than a private creditor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But more interestingly, also saying that Moses wrote them. Texas: atheist state?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Key word there; "everybody". Conflicting freedoms mutually annihilate. The right to speed through an intersection without a traffic light is illusory, because it unacceptably increases the risk of somebody's death, possibly yours. People have been pointing this out at least since Hobbes. (Well, not with traffic lights specifically...)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You’re saying that there is no definition of freedom that does not involve someone’s subjective good, but then you just avoid that by setting out a definition that is void for vagueness instead. How do you make verify that everyone is “free to pursue their own goals?”, when you refuse to set out even a limited set of what that pursuit looks like? I hope by this exercise it’s clear that you either have a definition of private rights that is subjective, or you have no private rights at all.
History will show as well that, yes, a society can, should, and does choose its own values. We can (and do) decide that we value human lives, and in so doing, give people assistance who have children. Same with public infrastructure, health care, education, or anything that you decide. If you leave the interpretation as vague as “freedom to pursue goals”, then people in power will use that vagueness to shoehorn whatever they want into that.
Uh oh. You don’t have a job because they were all given to White people? Well, at least you had the freedom to put in an application. We can only guarantee the “freedom to pursue your goals”, not anything of any substance. We hope there’s not too much disease and crime in the shantytown you’re now forced to live in. (Really, we don’t care, just don’t bother us.)
It seems that you are arguing how free a society is is measured by the percentage of people able to pursue their desires. Therefore anarchy is less "free" than instituting a formal government with traffic laws and meat inspectors. This is a very odd use of the word 'free' in a discussion about libertarianism. It might be an effective tactic to get the freedom-obsessed on your side, but it's not what I"m talking about. It's not what most libertarians are talking about. When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
I agree that creating a society where people can be happy is a good thing. But you're shifting the definition of freedom away from how most libertarians like to use it. You're saying, "No, drivers license requirements increase freedom rather than restrict it". If we change to your version of the word, then sure. I'd pick apart some further details, but for the purpose of an internet forum discussion I'd of course agree. When you expand "freedom" to such a broad definition there's basically nothing left to talk about.
Curious about one thing though: Seatbelt laws. Freedom or infringement on freedom?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
A monopoly is nearly impossible in a free market society. Corner cases are the reason most libertarians advocate for some amount of government to exist.
____
If you want to help the poor in a libertarian society, you can do so, but forcing others to do so is theft.
All libertarians I ever met have the same problem. They are extremely suspicious of the state (not always without reason) but strangely naively trusting in the free market. There is no scientific evidence that the free market automatically leads to profit for everyone and that there is a force at work keeping it stable and orderly (competition for example). This sometimes takes on nearly religious levels. The problem is: there is no such force. Competition in economics and politics doesn't favor the best, it favors the ones who can trick the most people in thinking they are the best and the ones who already start with more than others. People don't make rational decisions all the time, the Homo economicus is nothing but an ideal. Morality also gets the short end as well: Human rights (except for pretty much meaningless "freedom") have no basis in libertarian civilisations and a weak state will never be able to enforce them on ever more powerful corporations. In the end I fear that libertarian countries will always end up with monopolies owning nearly everyone and only acting in their own interest (which as we have seen time and time again in the last few decades doesn't line up with most of the populations or even humanitys own interest). I always favored Germanys social market system as a good (but admittedly not perfect) compromise of socialism and free market capitalism and the constant push for more privatizations here makes me cringe because I don't think it leads to the right direcrtion, especially when private organisations have control over essential things like water. Just my thoughts on the issue.
They did operate under the ruiles of the road owners it went horribly wrong for everyone else. The same thing will happen again if we return to it.
Which version of monopoly are you using because there are 2 of them that are vastly different things.
The first classic one was a tax bung given by Monarchs and similar saying that the holder of the monopoly is the only person that is able to legally trade a commodity with in an area or was given complete control of trading with an area, like the old Hudson Bay River company or the East India company.
If that is the one you are using then yes you are correct it is impossible in a free market as no one will be able to hand them out that form of patronage.
Unfortunately that is not the current modern definition of a monopoly which is where a single company is able to leverage a dominant position in a market so it is able to force out other competitors. Usually by deliberately performing uncompetive actions like selling at a rate which is at or just below cost until everyone else has run out of money and forced to leave the market or just by agressively taking over their competitors until again they are the only one in the market then can run it for their own benifit.
With this second more relevant definition of monopoly the only thing that stops it from taking place is the assorted rules and regulations put in place by the Governments that force competition into the market.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
How would you?
In fact, what does it mean to decide that we value human lives and how do we enforce this?
That's interesting. Whenever I hear libertarians argue about their position, they actually tend to argue that actions that can harm people to the point of death/severe disability/what have you wouldn't be allowed because death/severe disability/what have you directly denies that individual freedom.
As such, your action is infringing horribly into another's freedom, and ergo cannot be allowed in a libertarian society.
'What does it mean to decide that we value human lives?'
What?
It means we decide human life is important, it is valuable, and therefore anything that supports it receives a positive effect on favourability as a result and anything that goes against it receives a negative effect on favourability as a result.
How do we enforce it?
Murder is illegal. Assault is illegal. War crimes exist. Parents have legal responsibility for their children. Suicide prevention programs exist. Dangerous things like weapons and drugs are restricted. Workplaces have health and safety regulations. Traffic regulations exist.
That sort of thing.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I generally assume that any society like this would also allow me to shoot drunk drivers as a form of self defense/justified homicide.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Ok, because you are so confident in the result, let’s appoint you owner of the roads. You hire a squad of enforcement officers. You being very clever, you select people who are 6’0” average, 250lbs and up, with self-defense training and enough equipment to be able to handle any unruly people who decide to use your roads. Then, you give them a set of operating rules that lay out economically efficient road use. The Free Market being God and everything, you lay out rules that deliver maximum profit for you.
But then one day, your enforcement officers tell the guy at the toll booth to take a hike, they put in their own guy. Then, they insist on cash payments from motorists and then distribute them among themselves. When you find out about this, you go down there to tell all of your enforcement people that they are fired. To what I’m sure would be your profound surprise, these enormous men who you’ve armed to the teeth calmly fold their arms and tell you to shove it.
So, you show up the next day with a registered deed of ownership of the roads, and tell them that they have to respect your authoriteh. Maybe they treat you nice and tear up the piece of paper, maybe they break your knees. Meanwhile, they continue to collect whatever they want from the people using the roads.
So you do what? Call the police? How very circular. Except now, the police department can’t respond right away to this private, non-emergency situation. They are busy fighting in the streets with dozens of these thug groups who took over the roads, bridges, servers, and other infrastructure. But they let you know they’re sorry about this road ownership business venture not going your way, you now being sued by dozens of drivers that your thugs harassed on top of not getting any tolls for your roads. But to reassure you, they offer you a job fighting off street thugs. You can start as soon as they get the vest and pistol back from the last cop that got shot.
In all honesty, nothing is stopping legitimate government police forces from doing this sort of thing either. In fact, a lot of police departments in the US and the world over practice some sort of extortion on citizens. The point is, there is an immense benefit of public oversight when police powers (and many, many, many other societal functions) are legitimized by government control, rather than left up to profit seeking private individuals.
Ok, I can agree with you that there are some “corner cases” where the free market is a disaster. There are…
As above, enforcement.
Also as mentioned, natural monopolies. Same example with the roads that I detailed the economics of a few posts up. This happens when there are high barriers to entry, limited availability of assets (roads), or basically any other situation where there are high enough economies of scale. Everybody gets gouged.
Monopolies by coercion, collusion, or other artificial, anti-competitive business practices. Everybody gets gouged.
Externalities. Twitter version, I decide to raise poultry and dump all their waste into the public river next to my property. Everyone who used that water for irrigation and drinking now gets sick, dies. Sad!
Information Asymmetry. I Google how to write a search algorithm, Google redirects me to search strategies for Pokemon because they would rather me play their game than compete with their search algorithm. I go to my local law school’s library to research the elements of an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, and I’m not admitted to the library unless I present my bar membership card.
Collections costs. I’m employed in delivering waste disposal services, where every morning I pick up trash left at the front of every house. People are supposed to pay me for this, but I actually spend more time going door to door asking for my weekly $5 than I do actually collecting trash. I double my prices, people refuse to pay.
Other transaction costs (bargaining cost, illiquidity, etc). I get appendicitis. An appendectomy costs $15k-$20k. I collect weekly for my trash disposal services, and I get around $1200/wk. I tell the doctor I will have enough money to pay after about 3 months. The doctor tells me that he won’t put it on a tab, because recovery time from the operation, so on, and he hears that it’s really hard for trash collectors to get paid in Libertarian society. I try to cut out my appendix myself, get tetanus and die. Sad.
…. I mean, these are all things that any college student pursuing a bachelor’s in Economics will learn about in great detail, very early on. Much less what the actual cutting edge Economics theory at the post graduate level will show. The doctrine of an efficient free market doesn’t hold up at all past 101 level Economics. So, at what point is that doctrine the exception rather than the rule? Even for those who aren’t students of Economics, it seems like even a bare review of history has taught everyone these lessons. Except of course for the Libertarians.
If you view everything a government does as coercion, then you’re doing nothing more than painting yourself into that box. Nothing intrinsically defines that as theft.
By a different view, citizens have plead their hearts out over all eras of civilization for an agreement where everyone gets together, pools their resources, and solves all of the problems like the ones above. Then by a great act of administrative wisdom, some very insightful statesmen created a constitutional republic that authorized a legislature of elected representatives to undertake acts to provide for the common welfare of their constituencies.
Your view is a hollow mental exercise. The other view is a matter of historical fact.
Well, we might value cost-free education so our lives are more meaningful. We might value public health care so that people can stop dying of preventable diseases, or police oversight, or gun control laws that stop people from getting killed. Really, it’s up to everyone to define for themselves what constitutes meaningful human life, the pursuit of life goals, so on, and put those values into practice through the governance process.
My point, the definition of most people in the US bears a much closer resemblance to the platform of a major party than it does to the Libertarian idea that eliminating government is an infallible principle that has no logical limitations. The fact that one is presented as a pragmatic agenda and the other as an infallible principle of dogma has no bearing. These values actually are subjectively defined. We would rather govern ourselves by observable facts rather than abstract principles. Evidence being, we have the two major parties and not Libertarianism.
In this thought, theft is the only crime against another sentient being, as in theft of: Life, Liberty, Property.
This philosophy simplifies the disparity between morality and "rule of law." It is in essence, the most pure form of legal establishment.
Libertarianism is more over a philosophy, not a form of government.
Government is the authority on which society rests. The role of government is to extend control over society in order to achieve maximum efficiency of productivity. The purpose and design of that productivity depends on the culture that society represents.
For example: Culturally, we justify our existence by having jobs. We also condition ourselves to fear outsiders. Therefore, the driving force of our society is the acquisition of wealth and power. Jobs give us wealth, War gives us power to suppress our fear. The priority of government today, is to see to the maximum production of such. So we exist in a Corporatist Oligarchy, the prime form for the function it serves.
In theory, eventually society will evolve to recognize the fallacy of scarcity based economic systems and no longer be driven by wealth and power but rather knowledge and self-improvement. In this situation, The role of government would be the production of education, health, and morality. Until we reach this point culturally, government will continue to bear the form it currently has in order to best serve the needs of society.
It's entirely possible to ask these questions of libertarian philosophy (as presented in the linked article) and come to different conclusions than yours, and in fact I do, but the key part is understanding where your position is arising from.
As a point of interest, I would pose this to you: if you fear the government exerting expanding power and control, how do you differentiate this from corporations exerting expanding power and control?
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read. Not necessarily directed at anyone, here are my thoughts:
It’s hard to disagree with the imperative that people evaluate the issues beneath the labels. That said, doing so represents demands far in excess of what the US constitutional system was designed to impose on voters. It is great to have transparent, public discourse at a sophisticated level, but ultimately what is expressed in the ballot box is this “large-R/large-D” persuasion. Identifying which tribe you belong to is all that our system ever set out to require of voters. And, I think asking what is expected from whom is important particularly in the US constitutional system of separated powers, as the rest of this author’s blog post will further make clear:
Whose role is it to ask this question? It’s not the voter. What might surprise many people, it’s not even really a question for the legislature or the president. It’s uniquely the purview of the US Supreme Court to decide the limits of government power.
This acknowledges a reality that the founders understood very well, that every government everywhere is empowered to do anything that it wants to do. It’s the Captain Jack Sparrow principle, what a man can do and what a man can’t do. It requires no less than the force of some other government power to restrain what another part of the government decides to do. The Legislative enacts policy that it likes, the Executive enforces it, and if the citizens don’t think it’s constitutional, then they take their case to court. Of course the other branches knowing that the Court can invalidate their policy, they are incentivized to make law that will actually pass muster. But the Constitution didn’t appoint them authorities on Constitutional law, or even ask them to be experts on it, just require an oath to uphold it.
Much less is required of the actual voter. So, what small-l libertarianism says about a candidate’s campaign platform is still unclear. That the candidate believes that the Constitution is of some role in determining the limits of government power? Everyone agrees on that. Is libertarianism saying other political philosophies don’t believe in Constitutional limits of power?
Have you guys ever read a Justice Scalia opinion? Basically to him, any expanded read of a Constitutional principle meant that we’d soon be living the worst parts of Brave New World and 1984.Again, the Judicial decides precisely those questions of how each law and decision affects the precedents going into the future.
But what beliefs small-l libertarianism requires of voters and the other branches of government, I still have no idea.
Ok, here are questions of practicality that belongs to the elected branches of government. But still, I’m failing to see here how the libertarianism political philosophy distinguishes itself. Everyone agrees that there should be enforcement mechanisms in government policy, or there would be no policy. That includes sensible appointments to government agencies, and a lot of states have given enforcement mechanisms directly to voters, such as review, recall, ballot initiatives, so on. Does libertarianism say that current enforcement mechanisms don’t go far enough? It seems to me from the platform that the opposite is true, too much enforcement. Or that a law shouldn’t be enacted in the first place unless the libertarian God has a perfect, prescient foreknowledge that the enforcement mechanisms in it will be easy to implement and foolproof?
The premise of governance in a Republic is that the voters will elect people that they find moral and trustworthy, who will make appointments down the line of people that they find moral and trustworthy. The major parties believe, and the Constitution provides, that voters will elect different representatives if they find the current ones “indifferent”, “unaccountable”, or “enemies”. But how a law passed by libertarian lawmakers looks different from one passed by an ordinary, prudent lawmaker, I still have no idea.
I think I might sort of understand where this is coming from. Modern opinion like Lawrence v. Texas, Williams v. Morgan says that “morality” (whatever that is taken to mean) cannot serve as the rational/legitimate basis for legislation. On this point, Libertarians seem to identify more with this view on the Left than with the opposing view on the Right. Of course the question is, what is this “morality” that has no place in public policy?
What is evident from opinions like those, and the dissents, is that what’s meant by “morality” here is actually just anything that has a basis in tradition, religion, or any such similar things that those decision makers have subjectively defined as obsolete or antiquated. It cannot possibly mean any and all things that society values as wholesome, praiseworthy, prudent, or ethical. In fact, the only thing that government has ever done is endeavor to establish policy based on its choice of what is beneficial to those it intends to serve. How you actually draw the line between judgments that governments can make, or only individuals can make? Small-letter libertarianism doesn’t make that at any more clear. It only says that there is such a line (which again, was never in dispute). Big-letter Libertarianism, though, seems to agree with the Left that this means only secular influences ought to be the basis of policy. But this is platform, not principle.
So in the end, we’re circling back again on these things either being within the power of the Court to determine, or intended to be checked by the Republic form of governance where voters can elect to replace government officials that they don’t find themselves in agreement with. I’m still not sure how libertarianism distinguishes itself, other than just being prepossessed with these Constitutional issues that bear little relevance to the process of setting an election platform.
Wait, as I recall, the elements of a “protected class” under strict scrutiny analysis include groups that are “unable to protect themselves through the normal political process”, or are “subject to historical prejudice”.
So first, if you think that you are disadvantaged (really, who doesn’t?), then the mechanism of electing new representatives is your recourse, and if that is ineffective, you can ask for protection from the Court. It looks like another case of libertarianism trying to encourage voters to elect Constitutional Law scholars to office.
Second, is this a libertarian saying that competitors in a market should not use their power and influence to tip the scales? It’s probably nested somewhere in this idea that the process of getting a government license to do business, as in the example used in the blog, is more easily identifiable as a government action. Now that there, that’s businesses using government to distort markets, which is a bit no-no right? Whereas, all of the ways a government sets conditions for markets and enables trade that are often taken for granted are to be, you know, taken for granted. Roads, police, so on. As already posted above, where do you draw the line? Major parties are engaged in drawing that line, meanwhile libertarians are patting themselves on the back for reminding everyone that there is a line.
First, there is actually no difference between “negative” rights and “positive” rights. For every right that there is, language allows for it to be stated in either the affirmative or the negative. I have a right to bear arms, or I have a right for the government not to deprive me of or restrain my ability to buy and own weapons. I have a right to education, or I have a right for the government not to restrain States and other institutions in their ability to provide me affordable education. Lawyers and judges being very crafty in their word choice, the jurisprudence also bears out that principle. Analysis only looks to whether there is a “benefit” or a “duty”, not whether it’s characterized by action or inaction.
What this is actually saying is that Constitutional Law (labeled by the author as “rights”) should be on a higher order than other policy (labeled as “law”). Again, this issue seems to be both extremely well settled, and completely outside the domain of the representative elections process. Any conflict within a single law would be interpreted by the judiciary.
There is no article of the Constitution that appoints an ombudsman to decide what issue belongs to which branch. Good thing, or they would just decide that every issue belongs to them. As above, it’s the what you can do, what you can’t do principle. The powers of every branch have been shaped like that, from Marbury v Madison onward. The founders seem to me to have envisaged that, especially with the 10th amendment. In really bad cases too, there is a process for Constitutional amendments.
So where that puts small-l libertarians on where each issue should go, I still have no idea. Yes, wow, there are governing principles. Where is the person I’m supposed to be voting for on the issues, though?
Stop electing people that are acting on fear, anger or self-promotion, then. Except, how does a law written by a libertarian following this principle actually read any differently than a law written by some other lawmaker (except for not being named after dead kids)? Or is this some sort of contrarian virtue-signaling, where libertarian candidates profess that they are not prone to fear, anger and self-promotion, then go on inciting anger and self-promoting as normal?
Is there any evidence in the history of human behavior that people can assess themselves as unfit? Then after doing so, they relinquish or fail to act on power they’ve been given? Or relinquish power under any conditions, at all? By the way they value checks and balances, those in the libertarian camp should probably agree that, no, people don’t do this.
Again, how the American Constitutional system is set up is that the branches of government are the only ones that can challenge one another. It is understood that they will undertake any and every action that they believe serves the best interests of their constituents. If it turns out they suck at it, elect different people. But candidate who professes that his plan after taking office is to do nothing without asking a judge if they should is either lying or profoundly mistaken about the nature of the office that they are running for.
To summarize, I get it that judicial nominations are the role of some offices that run for election. But, it is a real strain to make this small-l libertarianism here your calling card, because it’s nothing more than a principle that judges would use to interpret issues of Constitutional Law. It’s not long after that point that candidates will ready their list of intended judicial nominees, and then start dragging them along on the campaign trail and deferring to them for whether they’d be allowed to do such and such without making James Madison cry.
At best, the principle will put a voter into the Republican party on economic policy, and possibly into the Democrat party on foreign policy and social issues. That’s no indication that you’re led by principle, and the rest of us are led by partisan groupthink. If there are enough people who are of a like mind on the actual issues, then put the issues into the election platform. We will see if it works out (history lesson, it didn’t).
At worst though, libertarianism is a get out of jail free card for obstructionism, filibuster, and inaction. Don’t like something? Don’t have any ideas on how to do it better? Easy, just claim that it’s government overreach! Doing nothing was the right course. Campaign on a principle that government is ineffective at doing anything, and then once elected, set out to make sure that it continues to be ineffective.
For your first point, the officers that you hire can not take over what you own. That is theft, which is a violation of the law. If these officers resist the owner's word, force may be initiated upon them by the owner or by an entity the owner may hire. There will not be a shortage of police, why?, because the demand for police will cause their to be enough police to meet the demand, it's economics.
Your second example of possible failure of libertarian society is not limited to libertarian societies, your example can happen anywhere the world where there is a river. This action described in your example would be punished in a libertarian society just as it would in any other society.
Your third example can happen today as well.
Your fourth example has a person that decides to break a previously agreed upon contract by increasing the price of his labor. The customers have the right not to pay what they didnt agree upon.
Your fifth example could be avoided if the person had set up an insurance plan, had chosen a medical centre that allowed payment overtime, or by the genorosity of a centre to do the operation for a lower cost. Also not everything is perfect in a libertarian society, there will be deaths.
Taxation is the government taking your money with force in order to use it to their desire. How is this not theft?
It's theft only if you don't want to have any kind of social contract at all. Even the most die-hard libertarian (who is not also a *shudder* so called "objectivist*) I know of only wants to lessen taxes considerably not remove it altogether (which is mostly what anarchists would propose). You are forgetting that the state doesn't do with our taxes "what it wants" and that you are in most cases getting the money back in the form of infrastructure, culture, science, wellfare and education. Of course you don't have direct control over that money and in many cases (like in all systems) mistakes are made and money vanishes into dubious projects. Still, what would removing taxes (and therefore the state altogether, it can't sustain itself without money to do so) accomplish? You'd leave the private sector and free marcet economy with all the power in the world and laws would be pretty much made by those who have the necessary means to build their own army/security force (i.e. people and companies who are already rich) thus leading into some sort of dictatorial plutocraty. I don't kn ow about you, but that prospect is a lot more frightening to me than paying taxes.
It is definitely a terrifying prospect. Theoretically there is some possibility of it all working out, but when looked at practically in terms of how things play out letting the free market do it's thing without a guiding force leads to horrible, horrible things. I don't think the current system is perfect, and I'm certainly open to the idea of less government influence, but abolishing the government in it's entirety seems like an absurd prospect, with no real net benefit.
But you definitely hit why it isn't theft. It's not stealing when you exchange money for bread at your local supermarket. Taxes are that concept on a much larger scale. You don't have much choice in whether to participate or not now a days, but the solution isn't to remove taxes, it's to redirect where taxes are spent so they're used correctly, and at worst lower them, but not remove them entirely. I'm not really sure that lowering them (at least in the ways I've seen it tossed around) would really make for a better society though. But speaking just as an American, each country is going to approach those things differently.
But since the law enforcement is effectively a paid gang what is stopping them from taking your money, beating you up and leaving you for dead?
The threat that you will hire a bigger gang with more weapons that is twice as likely to beat you up, take your money and leave you for dead?
And who enacts the punishment? The same armed gang mentioned above that hires its labour out to the highest bidder. Thats likely to be the ******** that polluted the river. Good luck with getting them to bite the hand that feeds them.
Except we have some effective means of seeking restitution for it currently. Under your wished for Utopia there isn't one.
He has been forced to raise his prices on the people who paid to cover his losses for those that didn't pay.
So what happens if there is only 1 person in the territory who is willing to enter in to that form of scheme, and has a backlog or is in an inconvient location? Thats all presuming that the condition you need treatment for isn't one where you are in imminent danger of expiring.
Except it isn't. It is the Government taking payment for services rendered and using exactly the same means you advocate above to deal with those that refuse to pay. Whilst generally being a lot more leninent to those that can't pay than a private creditor.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.