Just What is Libertarianism?

[dblack]

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

I'm not sure what post your responding to, or what you consider to be "in error". I was describing libertarian values. Are you saying my description is wrong? We're opposed to the initiation of violence. How is that "in error"?

 

[dblack]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

The vast majority of our interactions would require no government laws. As they're governed by social mores. For those instances where social mores wouldn't be sufficient, anarchy has fewer and less useful tools than more centralized, authoritative governments.

Anarchism is largely an ivory tower ideal, at least in its purest forms.

 

[dblack]

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people?

They wouldn't. How does government enforce laws against murder before murderers kill people? They don't.

You'd be trusting the businesses to regulate themselves.

No. We don't think businesses need to be 'regulated', so we wouldn't particularly care if they regulated themselves or not.

And many libertarians I've spoken with would disagree with you. As they argue that the government should play no role in the use of private land. If you own land, any government interference on the use you put the land to would be a violation of liberty and sovereignty.

One of they key functions of government is management of the commons - property held jointly by society in common. People who damage the commons, by polluting or otherwise, should be held accountable.

 

[dblack]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

The vast majority of our interactions would require no government laws. As they're governed by social mores. For those instances where social mores wouldn't be sufficient, anarchy has fewer and less useful tools than more centralized, authoritative governments.

Anarchism is largely an ivory tower ideal, at least in its purest forms.

I agree. As a general solution, it doesn't suit modern society. We need government for the (relatively rare) circumstances where voluntary cooperation fails us.

 

[bripat9643]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

The vast majority of our interactions would require no government laws. As they're governed by social mores. For those instances where social mores wouldn't be sufficient, anarchy has fewer and less useful tools than more centralized, authoritative governments.

Anarchism is largely an ivory tower ideal, at least in its purest forms.

Bunk. Anarchy worked for thousands of years. I realize boot-licking toads like you can't imagine any solution to a problem other than the government solution. Nevertheless, no coercive solutions to any problem you can name have been devised.

 

[bripat9643]

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

The vast majority of our interactions would require no government laws. As they're governed by social mores. For those instances where social mores wouldn't be sufficient, anarchy has fewer and less useful tools than more centralized, authoritative governments.

Anarchism is largely an ivory tower ideal, at least in its purest forms.

I agree. As a general solution, it doesn't suit modern society. We need government for the (relatively rare) circumstances where voluntary cooperation fails us.

I've never seen any evidence that there are any such circumstances. Government continually steps in where it isn't needed. That's what government does. That's how it grows.

 

[bripat9643]

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people?

They wouldn't. How does government enforce laws against murder before murderers kill people? They don't.

You'd be trusting the businesses to regulate themselves.

No. We don't think businesses need to be 'regulated', so we wouldn't particularly care if they regulated themselves or not.

And many libertarians I've spoken with would disagree with you. As they argue that the government should play no role in the use of private land. If you own land, any government interference on the use you put the land to would be a violation of liberty and sovereignty.

One of they key functions of government is management of the commons - property held jointly by society in common. People who damage the commons, by polluting or otherwise, should be held accountable.

The solution to that is to sell off the commons. No commons, no problem with pollution. Air is about the only thing where that can't be done. However, lawsuits over air pollution were common before the EPA existed.

 

[Skylar]

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people?

They wouldn't. How does government enforce laws against murder before murderers kill people? They don't.

In the case of our government, they would enforce the law through inspections, testing, and regulation.

The libertarian model leans heavily toward businesses regulating themselves. Which has a pretty awful success

You'd be trusting the businesses to regulate themselves.

No. We don't think businesses need to be 'regulated', so we wouldn't particularly care if they regulated themselves or not.

And there you go. An explicit contradiction of M14's assertion regarding the regulation of business. No, M14....a libertarian system wouldn't regulate the business or the use of private property. The recourse for those poisoned if a business poured harmful chemicals into a river....would be a civil suit.

Exactly as I said, Libertarianism has no mechanisms for preventing the water from being polluted BEFORE it happens. Only for seeking compensation after. Which is just foolish.

Its far more effective, inexpensive and straight up rational to prevent the poisoning of a river before it happens than decontaminating it and burying the bodies of those poisoned after.

One of they key functions of government is management of the commons - property held jointly by society in common. People who damage the commons, by polluting or otherwise, should be held accountable.

How would they be 'held accountable'? If a river runs through your property, is that portion of your property 'commons'? Is the groundwater beneath your land 'commons'? Is the air above it?

If no, then what regulation would or could put on the use of private land?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly there were as I brought up two of the issues you presented.
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

That's neither agreement nor disagreement. But a homework assignment. If you have a perspective to share on my argument, please do so.
But you're not actually disagreeing with me.

It is, You apparently think that libertarians opposed anti-discrimination and environmental laws.
To that end, lease answer the questions.
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

While you;re at it, answer this question, asked several times: Who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil case?
Absent that answer, its clear your complain in this regard has no real basis -- or solution.

Lets say there is a law against dumping Chemical. X into the river because it will kill people. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.
Libertarians would prosecute a company that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people?

Der.... the same way anyone else would?
The law against dumpint can be only enforced -after- the law is broken.
How does -anyone- enforce the law BEFORE it was broken?

Lets say there is a law against firing a gun into a crown of people because people are in real danger of getting hurt. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.
Libertarians would prosecute person that does this.

And I've discussed such issues with libertarians in the past that argue that hypothetical harm is insufficient justification to regulate with force. That only actual harm would mandate such a response. With firing a gun into a crowd being only hypothetical harm until someone is actually hit.

BS. No libertarian argues that shooting up a house does not violate anyone's rights because it unquestionably causes property damage.
There is no libertarian question as to if there was a crime; the only question is what level of crime is committed.
Tell me: someone puts a couple rounds into an house with no one home-- what crime should they be charged with?
How would you prevent this crime?

The proactive prevention of hypothetical but foreseeable harm is one of the hallmark differences between the system we have now and that of libertarianism.

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Given that it is already illegal to do so, what law do you suggest would prevent people from shooting at a house, as you describe?

There is already environmental regulation, central banking, compulsory taxation, zoning laws and a variety of other factors that libertarians advocate eliminating.
Thus, the existence of a law in the current legal system doesn't necessarily translate into the existence of the same law in a libertarian legal system.

So... you don't have an answer to my question. Thank you.

 

[dblack]

Exactly as I said, Libertarianism has no mechanisms for preventing the water from being polluted BEFORE it happens. Only for seeking compensation after. Which is just foolish.

Well, you steered around my response to this earlier, so lets circle back around. Preventative law is what you're advocating here, and yes - we reject it. We don't do that with regard to theft or violent crimes, why would we do it in other arenas?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly as I said, Libertarianism has no mechanisms for preventing the water from being polluted BEFORE it happens. Only for seeking compensation after. Which is just foolish.

Well, you steered around my response to this earlier, so lets circle back around. Preventative law is what you're advocating here, and yes - we reject it. We don't do that with regard to theft or violent crimes, why would we do it in other arenas?

I can't tell you how many times I've asked him how a criminal law can be enforced before it is broken.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Someone that wants to weaken America as they aim to hand the entire economy over to a unregulated private sector.

Your kind of loserterian wishes to do away with science and to favor the super rich.

Your economic ideas are dumb.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly there were as I brought up two of the issues you presented.
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

That's neither agreement nor disagreement. But a homework assignment. If you have a perspective to share on my argument, please do so.
But you're not actually disagreeing with me.

It is, You apparently think that libertarians opposed anti-discrimination and environmental laws.

I apparently think libertarians oppose regulation of private business. Which would include anti-discrimination and environmental regulation. And my evidence? Why a self proclaimed libertarian:

"No. We don't think businesses need to be 'regulated', so we wouldn't particularly care if they regulated themselves or not."

dblack

There's my assertion. There's my evidence. Agree or disagree to your heart's content.

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people?

Der.... the same way anyone else would?

So regulation, testing, enforcement, fines for failure to comply? All before anyone actually gets hurt? That's how its done now.

You may want to check with the actual libertarians. As they're indicating that businesses shouldn't be regulated. Which kinda precludes the 'same way anyone else would' enforce environmental regulation.

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals. Background checks for gun purchases to find those with a history of reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder.

And in the case of water and air, strict emission and water purity standards that are checked and verified to be well below those levels that can plausibly harm people.

All proactive prevention of hypothetical but plausible harm.

Given that it is already illegal to do so, what law do you suggest would prevent people from shooting at a house, as you describe?

There is already environmental regulation, central banking, compulsory taxation, zoning laws and a variety of other factors that libertarians advocate eliminating.
Thus, the existence of a law in the current legal system doesn't necessarily translate into the existence of the same law in a libertarian legal system.

So... you don't have an answer to my question. Thank you.

So....I reject your premise that a law being on the books now would mean that the law would be on the books after our legal system had been given a libertarian adjustment.

'Already illegal' is a meaningless term when you're proposing we change the legal system. Making your argument moot.

 

[dblack]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Background checks for gun purchases to find those with a history of reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder.s a meaningless term when you're proposing we change the legal system. Making your argument moot.

People who have a history of violence have already committed crime and should be punished likewise. Stripping them of their right to own guns seems reasonable, depending on their crime. But this is after the harm has been done, and not valid example of preventative law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I apparently think libertarians oppose regulation of private business. Which would include anti-discrimination and environmental regulation. And my evidence? Why a self proclaimed libertarian:

Yawn.
One last time.
Who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil case?

 

[Skylar]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

Its much more rational, inexpensive and effective to prevent a business from spilling chemicals into a river than to decontaminate that river and bury the folks poisoned when drinking from it. As the old adage goes....an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Libertarianism prohibits the very regulation that can prevent the harm before it happens. Which is my point. Well, one of them.

And can I take it from the complete refusal to discuss all the *other* failures of libertarianism that there's really no disagreement on any of those points?

 

[dblack]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

 

[Skylar]

I apparently think libertarians oppose regulation of private business. Which would include anti-discrimination and environmental regulation. And my evidence? Why a self proclaimed libertarian:

Yawn.

You keep yawning. I'll keep quoting libertarians backing my argument:

"No. We don't think businesses need to be 'regulated', so we wouldn't particularly care if they regulated themselves or not."

dblack

That is the libertarian perspective on regulation. And it has the exact weaknesses that I discussed earlier. There's no method of regulation to prevent environmental damage. Libertarianism only allows action AFTER harm has been caused.

Not before. Which is foolish. Rather that treating the sick, burying the dead and meticulously decontaminating the river, its far more rational to prevent it from being poisoned through regulation.

And to enforce that regulation. Which you don't even seem to disagree with. Which might explain your recent refusal to discuss the topic.

One last time.
Who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil case?

The folks that hired an attorney should pay their attorney.

Notice you don't disagree with me on the way a pay to play system will dramatically discourage people pursuing their rights.

You don't disagree that a loss could lead to financial ruin when the loser is forced to pay all legal expenses. Or that this massive risk would discourage many from every seeking redress.

You don't disagree that a pay to play system would make it much more difficult for the poor to pursue their own rights.

You don't disagree the elimination of punitive damages would reduce the benefit for filing a case. While the 'loser pays' system would increase the risk. Making it even less likely that a person will seek redress.

You don't disagree about how the lack of punitive damages would reduce harming people with one's products v. recalling or repairing the product a mere cost effectiveness analysis.

You don't disagree a pay to play system where the loser pays and there are no punitive damages would overwhelmingly favor the powerful, while eroding the ability of the powerless to protect themselves.

And its these reasons (and many more) that libertarianism would be a poor fit for our society. Empowering the powerful is not in our best interest. As any significant concentration of power will be abused.

 

[Skylar]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

I know its true. I have a pretty firm handle on libertarianism because I took the time to ask libertarians what they actually believe. Its not a unified philosophy, but there are some averages and relatively common tenets.......the abolishment of preventative regulation being one of them.

And I think that their dismissal of preventative regulation is foolish for the reasons I've offered. Its one of the many reasons that libertarianism is a poor fit for our society. And I try and point out the practical costs of libertarianism whenever the vague 'freedom and liberty' shellack is offered.

Libertarianism comes with costs most people don't want to pay when they learn of them.