Why I'm Not 100% Libertarian Anymore
 

[Aimless Rant]

Ten years ago, I was equally (if not more so) libertarian that FastPat.

Then I took Econ 101 in college. I came to the realization that some government regulation was required to keep markets efficient. Specifically, government (the only entity capable) has to ensure that information is public, timely, and accurate. Without this basic regulation, markets would be manipulated for personal gain; insider trading if you will.

I still believe that government intervention should be kept to an absolute minimum, be the issue assisted suicide, abortion, illicit drugs, public smoking, speeding, religion, social security, medicare, or whatnot.

Much legislation today seeks to "create a level playing field". While warranted in some rare cases, I believe that overall this creates the same kind of atmosphere where every kid in baseball gets a trophy, regardless of contribution and acheivement. I believe that in order to let people succeed, we also have to be willing to let them fail. While the idea of a safety net seems fine in theory, it also often creates a "safety ceiling"--an artificial barrier that is difficult to rise above.

Some will contend that cutting back on government involvement will necessarily lead to corporations dominating our everyday lives. I say not so. It will lead to individuals being forced to take control (and responsibility for) their lives. We've bred a lazy society because individual do not have to be concerned with meeting their basic needs. I have friends who are on welfare. They live in a small apartment, but they have cable, and Xbox 360, two cars and are never at lack for food, water, and heat. A generation ago this would have been called middle class. They are also exceedingly comfortable in their situation, and do not feel particularly motivated to get jobs. The safety net has become a ceiling.

[/Aimless Rant]

Edited to reveal tags...

Reading FastPat's posts will make many people who think they're libertarian just walk away shaking their heads.

George Will says something like everyone thinks being a libertarian is a good idea until the guy next door does not cut his grass all summer and his dog barks all night long..

"You're just not asking the right questions..."
:rolleyes:

Yep, yep. I thought the Libertarian position was a reasonable alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Now, you can remove the adjective 'reasonable'.

Legion, occasionally you sound like a reasonable man.

Nobody remains 100% Libertarian very long. Well, almost nobody. Still, it is an intriguing set of postulates.

The final projection of pure libertarianism is anarchy. Bad stuff, that. I've always had libertarian leanings, but when they talk of selling the national parks, eliminating public police services and eviscerating the federal government, I begin to think they are not really libertarian, merely contrarian.

I had never heard of Libertarianism until I was invited to a book event at BMW's local gov't. rel. office for David Boaz, then VP of the CATO Inst. He gave out and signed free copies of his book "Libertarianism". He signed mine, "Peace and prosperity." I read the book and was very intrigued by it until it got to discussing drug legalization and the draft. Some of their stuff would be awesome. All of it would be hell.

Some of my friends are card-carrying, dues-paying Anarchists. They envision a great deal more order than full-on Libertarian ideologists.

Sometimes I wonder if Libertarians and Atheists mostly just want us to see how unimaginably brilliant they are.

Reading FastPat's dialogue, I wonder what the difference between his Libertarianism and Anarchy is?

Is fastpat to Libertarians as Pat Robertson is to Republicans as Mayor Nagin is to Democrats?

No, because Fastpat is actually dead on with what the ideals of the libertarian party actually are. Take a look at their website and you can confirm this.

Actually the bulk of the libertarian party don't seem to go along with what the party actually states that their goals are. Perhaps they think calling themselves libertarian is cool or something, I don't know.

I'm just trying to believe there is a real alternative to the Donkey/Elephant regime. The Libertarian platform isn't very palatable.

I think everyone looks at Libertarian as viable until you apply their reasoning to your neighbor. My neighbor adds an addition to his house without permits and inspections. During an earthquake the addition collapses because he really did not know about shear walls. In helping him to remove the debris, someone plugs a saw into one of his new outlets but gets electrocuted because of miswiring. Everyone believes they know enough to be in charge of their own destiny and should be able to do what they want if it doesn't affect others. but the sad truth is that we need codes and enforcement to protect you from your neighbor's actions.

The principal basis for curtailing your neighbor's license to do anything he wants is for safety of others.

After that it becomes a rationale of cost benefit, such as requiring seatbelts and helmets in order to reduce cost to society for someone's reckless behavior.

I live in the "Live Free or Die" state and I think our state govn't does a great job. I could see why a more Federal system (where states have more rights, fed gov has less) might be better because my more efficient state government would be doing things that the feds do now.

However, I think the view that "If the government just left me the f*** alone, everything would be better." is childishly shortsighted. If you were able to get rid of the government that we have some control over, some other entity (that you have no control over) would flow into the power vacuum be it war lords, oranized crime, or big business.

Pick your gang: the ones with a social contract or the ones without it. Opting out isn't really an option.
-Chris

Calling fastpat ...

Legion, what you're saying sounds quite logical. We need SOME control, but the 'safety net' causes people to not try very hard, or at all, or do things they really shouldn't, because the risk is reduced.

This reminds me, for some reason, of another forum, where a poster related an experience in his Economics class. He asked about 'economic justice', which of course related to welfare and related idealisms. It of course turned out that he was the only conservative in the room, and was berated and insulted for his views...

anyway, one reply to the post related how many people SAY they want 'equal opportunity', but what they really want is 'equal results'.

I think many people are unknowingly, ignorantly, or naievely supporting 'equal results', but they call it 'equal opportunity'.

Anyway...

Here you go:

This is where you are quite wrong. I or anyone else, does not owe you or anyone else anything for your kindness or compassion if we are hurt. Otherwise you control what we choose to do to ourselves and we control what you choose to do for yourself. Abortions can be dangerous, therefore you cannot have one. Sex can cause children, therefore you cannot have sex without our permission. Cost benefit you know. What we choose to give others does not oblibate them to us. This is not libertarian crap, but just plain basic freedom.

Are you willing to give your life to back your statement? I am.

So when you get seriously sick or injured, I suppose you'll provide your own medical care.

No resorting to insurance, ambulance services, public hospitals, or any other sort of public or private risk-spreading arrangement. You'll find your own private doctor and pay him with cash.

Because once you do start relying on services that are funded by the group - whether that group is the State, the nation, the insurance pool - then your actions start resulting in costs to the group.

By the way, what is the meaning of boasting statements like "Are you willing to give your life to back your statement? I am."? You live in a state that already violates most of your supposedly-cherished beliefs, and you obediently knuckle under to that state every day as you obey their traffic laws, pay their taxes, and so on. If you're so willing to give your life for your beliefs, how come you're not already dead?

I think snowman is alluding to personal responsibility being overridden. Should personal freedoms be dispelled in society's best interests?

We should constantly evalute "the line."

No, I think snowman will truly crawl from his wrecked car, call his doctor, arrange for an appointment next week, and then stagger home to die.

Yessiree, a truly independent self reliant person like that don't need no societal help any time at all.

If I were to become the "slave" of the person or group that "saved" me, yes I would reject that "help" , no matter the consequences. Just because I help someone in need does not give me any right to expect anything in return. I help others because I want to, nothing is expected in return, thats the american way. If you were an american you would understand. If you are a socialist you just want to get a hook in someone to control them.

Huh?
And how does that jibe with your need for societal help that you do use?

Aaren't you just a bit confused?

You're juxtaposing government in place with the citizenry of society. There's no rejection of human interaction or cooperation implied by ridding ourselves of all or most of government. In fact, just the opposite. It means we've devised methods of cooperating voluntarily and rejected coercion as a method.

One of the few times I agree with Pat.

No, I am not confused. I understand what you want. Sort of a communal heaven on earth. I think I read a farm book on that concept.

My point is that if you don't want what government/society provides by means of taxes (your implied coercion), then who provides emergency services. So, you go volunteer police, fire, ambulance.

No thank you.

Mosy of us understand that the way we have decided to act together to fulfill the needs of others is by taxes.

Taxes are fine with me, its just I do not owe you or anyone else ANYTHING in return for your largess.

Progressive Farmer?

Quote:

My point is that if you don't want what government/society provides by means of taxes (your implied coercion), then who provides emergency services. So, you go volunteer police, fire, ambulance.

Private police, a service that must respond to the individuals that pay for it, unlike government police; is one of the fastest growing businesses in America. There is no reason that fire protection could not function precisely in the same manner.

I have private garbage collection. If I don't like their service, I have two others from which to choose.

It's not my fault that you can't imagine obtaining things you want without coercion.

Quote:

No thank you.

Well, you see, eventually I will win; so get used to it.

Quote:

Mosy of us understand that the way we have decided to act together to fulfill the needs of others is by taxes.

Taxes are theft, plain and simple. You want things, and have gathered together with enough others that want free or low (to them) cost things and have authorized men with guns to take property from those that have it and buy the things you don't want to pay for.

You're a thief.

Perhaps one of you could offer an example of where this sort of purely Libertarian arrangement has been successful.
How did it say keep mercury and pesticides out of the drinking water?
How did it handle/finance things like prisons and sewage systems?
-Chris

I just did, above.

Quote:

How did it say keep mercury and pesticides out of the drinking water?

The same way it's kept out now, lawsuit for damages. You don't really thing government does that job, do you? Government is one of trhe worst polluters in America.

Quote:

How did it handle/finance things like prisons and sewage systems? -Chris

So, because I insist on you paying your way, I'm required to furnish you with methods that don't rely on theft too? You're not supplying me with methods to fund my own needs and desires, so, no, that's not the way it works. You must figure this out for yourself.

No thievery.

Pat,
I was thinking of an example of an example larger Libertarian arrangement than the one you have with your trash collection agency i.e. the sort of arrangement you'd like.

You know, something like a town that didn't depend on "thievery" for it's operation.

BTW, did you ever consider that the reason that you have more than one garbage collection agency to choose from might be because big bad government had jailed the gangsters that would have made it a monopoly?

Replying that "Just because you can't imaging a perpetual motion machine, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. You'll have to figure it out on your own." isn't a very convincing argument for p.m. - or pure Libertarianism.

-Chris

There were a number of towns like that you wish to know about during the western settlement of the US. It's unfortunate that when the safety level of those towns became well known, they were much safer than the cities in the east, easterners moved west and moved their political baggage with them and eliminated most of the old cooperative arrangements in favor of what they had left and what most have today; dangerous armed governments based on graft and thievery.

Quote:

BTW, did you ever consider that the reason that you have more than one garbage collection agency to choose from might be because big bad government had jailed the gangsters that would have made it a monopoly?

Not only did I not consider that, the precise opposite is true. Most local governments eliminate competition and establish monopolies for such services. Where did you learn such nonsense?

Quote:

Replying that "Just because you can't imaging a perpetual motion machine, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. You'll have to figure it out on your own." isn't a very convincing argument for p.m. - or pure Libertarianism. -Chris

What you, and others before you, want is for me to hand you a master plan and some method of setting it in motion, so that you can visit and verify it functions to your personal satisfaction. That's not going to happen. You, and others, also demand that it function perfectly, free from the slightest defect; before you'll agree to abandon your band of government thieves. That's not going to happen either.

You already accept a federal government that functions no better than the worst charities, consuming approximately 80% of taxes taken in before providing the slightest good or service; why should I respect your demand for me to show you a perfect system that functions by cooperative arrangement?

I'm not offering utopia; I'm offering you freedom of choice without violence being initiated to get what you want.

It's up to you to choose to be ethical and moral.

Some of my own state's (NH) low crime rate could be attributed to gun ownership but realistically, I think population density has a much bigger effect on crime rates.

Lots of forms of self governance will "work" when another larger external government insulates them from the greater reality. The Quakers have their world within a world for example.

I thought it was public knowledge. Google "trash organized crime"
How To Run the Mob Out of Gotham in the Winter 2001 City Journal describes the problems of mob controlled garbage collection business and what was done to break their control. Granted, they were pretty slow getting around to it.

As long as asking for even a flawed example of your utopian form of government is too much to ask, people like myself are going to reject replacing our current seriously flawed but still best in the world form government.

-Chris

Culture is the biggest factor influencing crime rates.

Quote:

Lots of forms of self governance will "work" when another larger external government insulates them from the greater reality. The Quakers have their world within a world for example.

You know this, how, exactly?

Quote:

I thought it was public knowledge. Google "trash organized crime" How To Run the Mob Out of Gotham in the Winter 2001 City Journal describes the problems of mob controlled garbage collection business and what was done to break their control. Granted, they were pretty slow getting around to it.

Again, culture is the biggest factor affecting crime. If you have a culture in which crime is tolerated, then you get the above. This is a truth anywhere on earth.

Quote:

As long as asking for even a flawed example of your utopian form of government is too much to ask, people like myself are going to reject replacing our current seriously flawed but still best in the world form government. -Chris

Again, you've asked for something to be spoon fed to you. That's not going to happen; from me, or nearly any other practicing libertarian.

Pat,
Your ideas are just plain nuts.

Translation: Snowman doesn't understand the ideas, therefore must disparage the unknown.

Ignorance can be cured, will you seek the cure?

Pat,
I'm going to have to agree with Snowman on this one. You seem very intelligent (in a Ted Kazinski sort of way) but the way you present Libertarianism makes Libertarians sound like crackpots. I'm not saying Libertarians are, just that you make them seem that way to me.

-Chris

Out of my Non initiation of force against another human you got the notion that I might blow people up. Who did you say is the crack pot here?

Quote:

but the way you present Libertarianism makes Libertarians sound like crackpots. I'm not saying Libertarians are, just that you make them seem that way to me. -Chris

Again. I've presented some libertarian ideas, by no means all of them, and you've taken that to mean I'm crazy.

There are places full of people that act a bit like you; all of them point at everyone outside and call them crazy.

The truly interesting thing here is; libertarianism has been around a long time, has a rich body of information about the philosophy, has a very rich and robust group of people that adhere to it; and you haven't bothered, apparently, to discover any of it for yourself. Or to verify if I represent it, or am representing something else.

In fact, you don't even know if a single other person espouses the set of ideas I've presented here, or not.

In short, your statement here is utterly without merit or meaning.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fastpat

There is no reason that fire protection could not function precisely in the same manner.
[QUOTE]

Sure there is. Suppose none of my my neighbors in the Oakland hills can afford fire protection, except me. So the fire protection services would only try to protect my house?
So as the firestorm begins, they cannot get to my house because of the danger. My house burns to the ground also. So, does the fire protection agency then have to rebuild my house?