Libertarian Plan

[slakjaw]

Libertarianism sounded good. But today, I am not a libertarian. For reasons I think will come out in a discussion here, if you folks are game. We'll see.


Libertarianism, to me, means a strong local/community govment. while reduceing the big federal government. If a bunch of libertarian's get elected, it will not be the end of the police or anything like that.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
As long as there are populists (democrats) this will never happen. Their bread-and-butter is deceptively offering a free lunch. This is why liberaltarianism will never work.

Correction...as long as ther there are populists (republicans and democrats)......

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by slakjaw
Libertarianism sounded good. But today, I am not a libertarian. For reasons I think will come out in a discussion here, if you folks are game. We'll see.


Libertarianism, to me, means a strong local/community govment. while reduceing the big federal government. If a bunch of libertarian's get elected, it will not be the end of the police or anything like that.

You are correct.

Some here apparently have a lack of understanding of the libertarian platform.

[Superman]

Pat, I'm going to read the other posts but not before I say this:

You are millimeters away from being on my Ignore List. I know you don't care about that, but you also have come nowhere near close to satisfying the challenge I laid in this thread. Frankly, the idea of no gubmint is ASININE. Here is the only way you can possibly make anybody interested in your intellectual diarrhea:

Tell us how this works. Don't just toss unworkable notions out and expect us to respect your thinking. What happens when there is no government? What would be the chances that another nation might think we'd make a good target for takeover? Until you demonstrate otherwise, your posts are going to be considered idiotic. You would not have done well in Dr. Seaman's (Dean Seaman) philosophy courses. He would have tolerated your antics roughly two minutes. There was always someone like you in each course.

[Nathans_Dad]

I actually went over to the Libertarian party's website and took that little test they have to see which party you fall into. I came out as a Republican, mainly because I didn't think that drugs should be legal. This is probably too simplistic, but my first blush on the Libertarian party is that they are conservatives except for social issues where they are quite liberal.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I actually went over to the Libertarian party's website and took that little test they have to see which party you fall into. I came out as a Republican, mainly because I didn't think that drugs should be legal. This is probably too simplistic, but my first blush on the Libertarian party is that they are conservatives except for social issues where they are quite liberal.

Yep.

Except it's not that they're "liberal" on social issue, it's that they're rather conservative on social issues. No intervention.....stick with the constitution.....that's a conservative ideal.

What's happening now is the word "conservative" has been bastardized to mean being "prude" or "family values" or something, but that's not really what conservativism is....

Imposing that kind of stuff on others is more liberal than anything..... Does that make sense?

[Superman]

No kidding. Think of what "liberal" means these days. It falls just below "father raper."

[island911]

just below?

[Superman]

A more localized government makes sense in many areas. Unfortunately, competition between states is frowned upon, and probably for good reason. Federal law disallows interference with interstate trade, for example. If not, then California would probably be the commercial winner and would largely control the other states.

But again, I'm still waiting and hoping for a Libertarian to outline how things should be "adjusted." With some specificity. It's fun to talk in generalities, but that's not where the implimentation problems are.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. . .. With some specificity. It's fun to talk in generalities, but that's not where the implimentation problems are.

We have to get to "generalities" BEFORE talking about specifics . . . . Unless you're a Dem . .. them it's all programed minutia, with no general plan . . .other than spending money on minutia.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by island911
We have to get to "generalities" BEFORE talking about specifics . . . . Unless you're a Dem . .. them it's all programed minutia, with no general plan . . .other than spending money on minutia.

Look what the cat dragged in.

Where you been?

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm starting to think we're out of luck here. There are no libertarians on this board to provide the specifics you are looking for, Supe. I think that is significant in some way. Is it because their numbers are low enough that it is unlikely to find one one a car forum? Or is the old "P-car filter" at work here, where we just won't see them on this particular car forum? Would we find more of them if we were on, say, an Oldsmobile forum? Do any of you even know an active, card-carrying Libertarian? I don't, and I don't think I have ever met one. Are they like Sasquatches? Everybody knows some one that knows some one who's uncle saw one years ago? Anybody have some grainy old Super-8 footage of one?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I actually went over to the Libertarian party's website and took that little test they have to see which party you fall into. I came out as a Republican, mainly because I didn't think that drugs should be legal. This is probably too simplistic, but my first blush on the Libertarian party is that they are conservatives except for social issues where they are quite liberal.

Here's a recent post on this issue:

from http://blog.lewrockwell.com/Economic v. 'personal' rights
Posted by Wendy McElroy at January 6, 2006 11:18 AM

In a written exchange, a friend recently lamented what she called the Reagan-like drift in the libertarian movement toward conservativism. She speculated on whether the shift was due to a focus upon economic values and principles rather than upon social ones -- that is, personal liberties such as freedom of speech.

I answered:

"You raise an interesting point re: economics v. civil liberties. Of course, this is not a dichotomy in terms of theory because both economic and 'personal' rights derive from the same source of which they are merely two different expressions; the source is self-ownership. In psychological terms, however, I have noticed a big difference in the personalities and concerns of those who enter libertarianism because they are attracted to the economic theories as opposed to those who enter because they are attracted to the civil liberties. I fall into the latter category and I cultivated an interest in economics by convincing myself of how inter-dependent the two concerns are in practice as well as in theory. In short, I integrated the two areas, with civil liberties being my main focus. At this point, my economic theories are pretty much straight and predictably Austrian in the fashion of Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, etc. I doubt if I will ever make an original contribution in the area of economics because I view it as a springboard for social theory.

By contrast, I do not commonly encounter libertarians who entered through economics and, then, went on to integrate the more radical civil liberties positions. I think the only category of economists who do routinely integrate radical social theory into their world view are those who identify with Rothbard, who drew heavily upon the 19th century individualist anarchists. Otherwise, it is common for 'libertarian' economists to balk at extending their principles into social realms. Often, they renounce or 'improve' Austrian economics by turning to cost-benefit analysis, mathematical modeling, the Chicago school, etc. Although I believe these approaches have insights to offer, they are not inherently libertarian in the same manner as Austrian economics. That is to say, they are not based on libertarian principles even if they often come to conclusions that libertarians may like. Someone who argues that the drug war is not "cost efficient" or unConstitutional may make good arguments and do valuable research but they are not making an inherently libertarian argument. After all, their position presumes that the drug war would be acceptable if it was economically effective or Constitutional.

Another aspect of the movement that has contributed to the confusion of core principles and a Reagan-like drift is the inept incorporation of religion with libertarianism. Note: unlike many atheists in the movement, I do not believe that there is any necessary contradiction between religious belief and libertarianism. In practice, however, contradictions often occur. A few decades ago, the influence of Rand and her zealous atheism/rationalism was far greater than it is today. Although Objectivists are far from being libertines and have their own rather puritanical views re: sex, etc., nevertheless they take a good line on the right to be what they call "irrational." That is, the right to be a prostitute, a drug user, and such. They distinguish between morality and rights. This one fact alone provides more common ground with libertarians than you see with the non-Austrians economists or conservative Christians who, as often as not, simply like our general and well-spelled out laissez-faire market approach but aren't wedded to accepting the consequences of true freedom across the board. In short, those who come from a religious background often mix the ideas of morality and rights as though they were indistinguishable. They never truly 'get' the principle expressed by Lysander Spooner as "Vices are Not Crimes."

The conservative drift is a problem in many ways. And I understand your becoming frustrated. Just one level on which it frustrates me is how effectively it blocks any sophisticated, original discussion of the issues I'd most like to address. Bring up drugs or prostitution and you never seem to get past, "Oh, but it is immoral." Quite apart from the truth-value of that statement, it represents a discussion I've had several hundred times over the past years...and I am not exaggerating. I remember Murray (Rothbard) once refusing to answer the question, "But without government, who would build the roads?" because he said that no one should be forced to answer the same question more than 500 times in one lifespan.

For more on Murray Rothbard go to:
http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=299

[Nathans_Dad]

I was actually really curious about the libertarian platform and thought that it would represent a lot of what I think. I was right, on the economic issues. Many of the libertarian ideas on economics I think are dead on. I am for a flat tax and I would completely agree with getting rid of the IRS.

I just got very stuck when it came to the "civil liberties" position. The libertarians are too far left with that for me. Granted, I am a conservative Christian which makes me a nutbag in the eyes of many, but I do still think that it is the responsibility of government to provide some regulation of people's actions in this country. Calling everything a civil liberty just doesn't wash in my book. It seems like most of the arguement for libertarians centers around legalizing drugs. I don't think that legalizing drugs is in the best interests of our country.

If you really look at it, of course the government regulates morality and no one would say that the government regulating morality is wrong. How about murder? That is against the law and I don't think anyone would say that someone should have the civil liberty to murder someone else, or rob a bank or drive drunk. All of these things are considered morally wrong in our world. Now you may say these things are done TO someone else and that is the difference. I would say you would be partially right. I think that drug use does hurt other people besides the drug user. It hurts the user's family, friends, employer and the country as a whole given the increased rates of crime and illness among drug users.

Perhaps a better example would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is illegal in this country and considered immoral. There are several tribes in South America who still practice cannibalism of their dead family members as a show of honor. It is neither illegal nor immoral in their society. So is this a civil liberty as well? Where does it stop?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Pat, I'm going to read the other posts but not before I say this:

You are millimeters away from being on my Ignore List. I know you don't care about that, but you also have come nowhere near close to satisfying the challenge I laid in this thread.

I see, you asked for a spoon feeding of ideas, and are are now acting the petulant teenager when I didn't give what you demanded, Tsk-tsk.

Frankly, the idea of no gubmint is ASININE. Here is the only way you can possibly make anybody interested in your intellectual diarrhea:

Tell us how this works.

No, I won't do taht because if I did, then I'd be taking the place of government, whose job it is to tell you how it workis

It's quite likely that the folks in the northeast, north of New York, would like things pretty much the status quo, and would continue their tax funded methods. After all, they pretty much invented the American nanny state long before it reached South Carolina.

Don't just toss unworkable notions out and expect us to respect your thinking.

How do you know them to be unworkable. The federal government has been acting to prevent any experimentation by state and local governments for 140 years, and become acute in their demands that the states are mere adjuncts to the federal government most of the time. So where is this proof that no government won't work?

What happens when there is no government? What would be the chances that another nation might think we'd make a good target for takeover?

Who would or could do that? The cops in America can't control the large cities here, what foreign invader would be able to do so? Who is this mystery country, anyway?

Until you demonstrate otherwise, your posts are going to be considered idiotic.

Translation: You have no notion of how to do what you want done in America without stealing money from others to do it, and plan to continue asking for that theft at gunpoint unless I and/or other libertarians or anarchists provide you a completely worked out plan and proof it will work. That's not going to happen for several reasons, let's see if you can figure them out.

You would not have done well in Dr. Seaman's (Dean Seaman) philosophy courses. He would have tolerated your antics roughly two minutes. There was always someone like you in each course.

Perhaps when I was 20-something; today it's quite likely I'd cut his shriveled up socialist ass (philosophically speaking), and leave it in a heap on the academic floor.

Enough posturing.

The demand by folks that need government, whether it's because they like to tell others what to do or for some other rationale, that libertarians provide them with pat answers is not new.

I say to you that there is a huge repository of ideas, from philosophical to pragmatic, available out there. The Mises Institute has nearly everything Murray Rothbard wrote available, and there are many more. All anyone needs to do it read it for themselves. Here's a bibliography that will supply a good start to anyone really interested in learning.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
So where is this proof that no government won't work?

I rest my case.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
today it's quite likely I'd cut his shriveled up socialist ass (philosophically speaking), and leave it in a heap on the academic floor.

Even though I've seen this tried many times, I'd still pay a thousand dollars for a seat. Philosophy courses and political discussions seem to be irresistable opportunities for a select few folks to demonstrate to others their towering intellect.

To that end, perhaps you could tell us about how this "no government" option would work. I'll go get a cup of coffee.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I was actually really curious about the libertarian platform and thought that it would represent a lot of what I think. I was right, on the economic issues. Many of the libertarian ideas on economics I think are dead on. I am for a flat tax and I would completely agree with getting rid of the IRS.

A flat tax does not end the immoral demand that you reveal your private finances to the government(s). Further, I know of no schemes involving a flat tax wherein it's restricted and set up to decline in size to reduce government in any meaningful way. In short, it solves nothing.

I just got very stuck when it came to the "civil liberties" position. The libertarians are too far left with that for me. Granted, I am a conservative Christian which makes me a nutbag in the eyes of many, but I do still think that it is the responsibility of government to provide some regulation of people's actions in this country. Calling everything a civil liberty just doesn't wash in my book. It seems like most of the arguement for libertarians centers around legalizing drugs. I don't think that legalizing drugs is in the best interests of our country.

Civil liberties are those granted by government, like voting. Intrinsic liberties are those that belong to each of us, because we own ourselves. Self ownership is a bedrock position of libertarianism. Intrinsic rights are the right of self defense (with any tool), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of and from religion, freedom of travel, and many others.

You must come up with a method to teach your Christian values that does not involve government force. Jesus himself would have been horrified to know that his teachings were being used to justify government violence.

If you really look at it, of course the government regulates morality and no one would say that the government regulating morality is wrong.

No, government cannot regulate morality, no government is equipped to do so, and cannot do so. In fact, to associate ones religion, as routinely done by Jerry Falwell and much of the Catholic hierarchy, with government sullies religion. There are few, if any, entities as immoral and corrupt as government.

How about murder? That is against the law and I don't think anyone would say that someone should have the civil liberty to murder someone else, or rob a bank or drive drunk. All of these things are considered morally wrong in our world. Now you may say these things are done TO someone else and that is the difference. I would say you would be partially right.

There is no one that says murder is a civil, or more importantly, an intrinsic right. I am completely confortable with someone shooting a thug dead when said thug is harming or threating harm to them, their families, or their property. I am not comfortable with authorizing the state to kill someone who it has determined committed a crime. The state cannot be trusted with that act.

I think that drug use does hurt other people besides the drug user. It hurts the user's family, friends, employer and the country as a whole given the increased rates of crime and illness among drug users.

Can you show, in any meaningful or moral way, that making some drugs (determined by the state) illegal has reduced harm to society? No, you cannot. Can you show that these laws have harmed many more in our society than would otherwise have not been harmed, yes very easily. Drug laws are both unethical and immoral. If you really are a Christian, you would not support a single drug law. Supporting a drug law is not the same as supporting a Christian teaching to not use drugs.

Perhaps a better example would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is illegal in this country and considered immoral. There are several tribes in South America who still practice cannibalism of their dead family members as a show of honor. It is neither illegal nor immoral in their society. So is this a civil liberty as well? Where does it stop?

Since, as a healthcare professional, I know cannibalism to be dangerous to those who practice it; I'd advise teaching that to these folks, if I could. I have no interest in authorizing the state to track them down and put them in jail. Such an authorization would be immoral.

As to your question of where does it stop, the answer is that it stops where my activities interfere with yours; and if we disagree then we must work out a mutually acceptable solution voluntarily.

[Superman]

Pat, much of what you say above makes good sense.

I like the flat tax idea myself, but wonder how long it might take us to decide to tweek the tax code to (again) deliberately encourage some types of financial decisions. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just saying a move to a flat tax would upend a number of industries, and some of them are industries we would like to encourage. Home ownership, for example. The practical implications are not so simple as the glamorous ideal.

Government cannot legislate morality. Christianity is not a government. It might be a great idea to discourage a behavior, and a lousy idea to criminalize it.

Drug laws do little more than maximize drug profits.

so you see, we can agree on some important things. And gubmint is corrupt. Human nature is what it is.

Now, I have asked and asked and am still waiting. What happens when you have no government? How does that work? Your lofty ideals are amazing and you are obviously a genius, far beyond our feeble understanding. So now, tell us how police services are provided under your government-does-not-exist plan, and who gets those services. Tell us why America will not come under attack. Tell us how private businesses will form a utopia in the absence of gubmint regulation, and how those businesses will resist the temptation to cheat people. Or is that something we should not care about?

[Nathans_Dad]

I never said that the government should force my religious beliefs or anyone else's on others. I simply said that to say that government doesn't or shouldn't legislate morality is not an accurate statement.

That is why prostitution, underage drinking, public lewdness, beastiality, incest, rape, robbery, polygamy, etc are illegal.

At the core of it, you must have some moral code to your society. If you are going to say it is a free for all, then that is called anarchy, not libertarianism.