The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Pogo]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Parents and teachers can come together, form a school board and a school district, pool their resources, and do whatever they need to do to provide education to children. No libertarian has an issue with this. The only issue a libertarian would take is if you suddenly decide that every single person who happens to fall within this arbitrary school district, whether they want to or not, must help fund the education. That is violence, and that would be what a libertarian would oppose.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

Yes, they were liberals. Classical liberals, who have more in common with libertarians than they do progressives who call themselves liberals.

 

[Erand7899]

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

If it's one thing the do-gooder authoritarian central planner loves above all, it's visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

Wouldn't or couldn't answer my question eh Jethro?

How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

Once a sizable portion of the population become dependent upon social programs, it becomes virtually impossible to stop them without inflicting terrible pain on those who are dependent upon the programs. Consequently, reasonable people think twice about advocating new social programs. Liberal/socialists are not reasonable people since they rarely consider the bad that ensues from creating dependency.

Old people were not dying in the streets before Social Security, or before Medicare. They usually worked until they were unable to continue, and then they were cared for by relatives and/or charitable institutions. That continues to this day, since neither Social Security nor Medicare is sufficient to care for all the needs of the elderly.

 

[Pogo]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

Yes, they were liberals. Classical liberals, who have more in common with libertarians than they do progressives who call themselves liberals.

I'm not even sure what that means or who you're talking about. Who are "progressives"? Do you mean "leftists"?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

Yes, they were liberals. Classical liberals, who have more in common with libertarians than they do progressives who call themselves liberals.

I'm not even sure what that means or who you're talking about. Who are "progressives"? Do you mean "leftists"?

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

 

[Foxfyre]

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Denying cooperation would be coercive...Denying your coercion upon my life and property as an affect of the mythical and cynically dubbed "social contract" is merely meeting force with force.

You speak of using coercion at the local level for the porpose of education...But what of those who are single, couples who have no children or those who cannot have them?

What makes the rights of those who choose to have children superior to those who do not, to the point that they need to be coerced into supporting those children?

But social contract is democracy at work. There will be those happy with the outcome of a majority vote and those not so happy, but the majority prevails in social contract. Those who do not have children will still benefit from an educated work force etc., but if they do not wish to subscribe to that, then they should move to a district that does have privatized schools or no schools at all. Same with those who are in the minority who don't want an organized fire district or municiple police force and prefer to provide those services for themselves. They benefit from lower insurance rates etc. in the social contract, but if they really don't want to participate, they need to move to a community that doesn't have those kinds of services.

Freedom is not anarchy. And it cannot exist under authoritarian government. It is the ability for people to live as they wish to live. I should never be able to dictate to you what your choices must be or vice versa. But majority vote is the only way for a social group to decide issues that are not unanimous.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.

To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

"Liberal" at the time of the Founders was defined 'libertarian' which is why it is now called "classical liberalism'. It bore no resemblance of any kind to modern day American liberalism.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, they were liberals. Classical liberals, who have more in common with libertarians than they do progressives who call themselves liberals.

I'm not even sure what that means or who you're talking about. Who are "progressives"? Do you mean "leftists"?

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

 

[Pogo]

In my opinion the Founders were the true libertarians. I thought Kevin's OP was brilliant, well designed, and provided lots of thoughtful ammunition for a good discussion.

The only quarrel I would have with it--and indeed we may have no difference of opinion at all but I'll let him speak for himself--was on the concept of what Libertarians would not favor.

Example: Libertarians would not support school vouchers. (I do agree with this. The Federal government has no business in the education of the people.)

But Libertarians would push for privatized education? Here he and I part company just a tad. I have no problem with social contract in which parents, teachers, school boards, etc. agree on what sort of education the children will receive and mutually agree to pool resources to form a school district to allow that to happen. And to elect a governing authority to set reasonable policy and see that the process is implemented to meet mutual goals. But this must be done at the local level or at most at the state level. It should never be a federal function to either fund or dictate policy.
t
To me, true libertarianism is the concept that our rights must be recognized and secured--that is the federal governments job--but then we all are completely free to form whatever sort of society we wish to have at the state and local level.

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

"Liberal" at the time of the Founders was defined 'libertarian' which is why it is now called "classical liberalism'. It bore no resemblance of any kind to modern day American liberalism.

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know what freedom or true libertarianism looks like?

It is the concept that the parents, teachers, school board, and local citizens can choose to decide that creationism and/or intelligent design does or does not have a place in their local school curriculum.

And. . . .

It is the concept that the parents, teachers, school board, and local citizens can choose to decide that evolution does or does not have a place in their local school curriculum.

And. . . .

It is the concept that the parents, teachers, school board and local citizens can choose to decide that they want creationism and/or intelligent design taught side by side with evolution in their local school curriculum.

If you agree with that, you are libertarian.
If you disagree with that, you are something else.

And PLEASE don't sidetrack this into another discussion of Darwin vs Genesis or some such nonsense. Please use the example as illustration only.

 

[Oddball]

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Denying cooperation would be coercive...Denying your coercion upon my life and property as an affect of the mythical and cynically dubbed "social contract" is merely meeting force with force.

You speak of using coercion at the local level for the porpose of education...But what of those who are single, couples who have no children or those who cannot have them?

What makes the rights of those who choose to have children superior to those who do not, to the point that they need to be coerced into supporting those children?

But social contract is democracy at work.

The mythical "social contract", if it even existed, would almost certainly be deemed a contract of adhesion were it ever brought before a court....Look it up.

There will be those happy with the outcome of a majority vote and those not so happy, but the majority prevails in social contract.

No, the majority prevails in mob rule.

Those who do not have children will still benefit from an educated work force etc....

Sophistry.

Some of those kids in the education system will become criminals...Do I also benefit from the existence of educated criminals?

..but if they do not wish to subscribe to that, then they should move to a district that does have privatized schools or no schools at all.

Ahh...Murrica, love it or leave it.

Same with those who are in the minority who don't want an organized fire district or municiple police force and prefer to provide those services for themselves. They benefit from lower insurance rates etc. in the social contract, but if they really don't want to participate, they need to move to a community that doesn't have those kinds of services.

Apples and oranges....Police and fire is the collectivized manifestation of the individual right to recompense for and/or to stop aggression, whether that be from another individual or an out of control chemical reaction.

Freedom is not anarchy.

Straw man argument...Nobody said it was.

And it cannot exist under authoritarian government.

You're telling me.

It is a choice of how people choose to live. I should never be able to dictate to you what your choices must be or vice versa.

But you are dictating to others to pay for the results of the choices of others with the gubmint-run model of schooling.

But majority vote is the only way for a specific social group to decide issues that are not unanimous.

Majority vote is the aggression of mob rule...Period....Is that what we need to teach children?...That all you need to get your way is have a bigger mob?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not even sure what that means or who you're talking about. Who are "progressives"? Do you mean "leftists"?

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

Well Glenn Beck is essentially a shock-jock as far as I can tell, and he can use the term progressive however he wants. Regardless, progressivism is a real and active political ideology today. Anybody who calls themselves a liberal today is probably actually a progressive, and many people openly identify as progressive. Yes, the examples I cited are dead, but their ideals are expressed by today's "liberals." Obama is a progressive, Pelosi is a progressive, and on and on.

There was split in the liberal Democratic Party near the turn of the century, where some began to follow William Jennings Bryan, and became progressives, and those who still believed in the liberal ideals and stayed supporters of Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats. The progressives won the day, of course, and many of the old liberals faded into obscurity or tried their hand in the Republican Party, which didn't really work out that well for them, and faded into obscurity regardless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To deny freedom to choose one way of life/community cooperaton is just as coercive as dictating what sort of life or community the people are expected to have

Denying cooperation would be coercive...Denying your coercion upon my life and property as an affect of the mythical and cynically dubbed "social contract" is merely meeting force with force.

You speak of using coercion at the local level for the porpose of education...But what of those who are single, couples who have no children or those who cannot have them?

What makes the rights of those who choose to have children superior to those who do not, to the point that they need to be coerced into supporting those children?

But social contract is democracy at work. There will be those happy with the outcome of a majority vote and those not so happy, but the majority prevails in social contract. Those who do not have children will still benefit from an educated work force etc., but if they do not wish to subscribe to that, then they should move to a district that does have privatized schools or no schools at all. Same with those who are in the minority who don't want an organized fire district or municiple police force and prefer to provide those services for themselves. They benefit from lower insurance rates etc. in the social contract, but if they really don't want to participate, they need to move to a community that doesn't have those kinds of services.

Freedom is not anarchy. And it cannot exist under authoritarian government. It is the ability for people to live as they wish to live. I should never be able to dictate to you what your choices must be or vice versa. But majority vote is the only way for a social group to decide issues that are not unanimous.

The question then becomes, how many people does it take to legitimize their taking your money for their own benefit? If 10 people get together, and 9 of them decide to take the money of 1 of them would that be theft or the social contract in action?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Liberals", Foxy, not libertarians.
Libertarians are like liberals without a net.

"Liberal" at the time of the Founders was defined 'libertarian' which is why it is now called "classical liberalism'. It bore no resemblance of any kind to modern day American liberalism.

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

Neither did classical liberalism exist as a term in the late 18th Century.

Nevertheless, what the Founders espoused as sociopolitical philosophy as libertarianism that is sometimes used interchangeably with classical liberalism as we define the terms now.

Modern day liberals embrace very very little, if any, of that philosophy as the Founders developed the concept, preached it, and practiced it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm not even sure what that means or who you're talking about. Who are "progressives"? Do you mean "leftists"?

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

Then educate yourself on the matter. Doesn't matter what you call progressive, it's the same destructive philosophy.

And if it has no valid contemperary meaning why was Hillary Calling herself a progressive?

 

[Avatar4321]

No it wasn't. "Libertarian" didn't exist yet. Even the root word wasn't even coined until the mid-19th century.

So because the same philosophy changed names over time, the philosophy didn't exist before the most recent name?

 

[dblack]

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

Nah. I'm just asking: who is harmed?

Is this, perhaps, the question non-libertarians can't answer?

In your specific example where you decide to 'contract the services' of an unlicensed 'doctor', you are the one taking most, but not all the risk. If things go badly and you decide to sue, then other people are involved. And if any insurance claim is paid out, it does affect everyone because rates are based on actuarial risk.

I meant to cover that contingency in my original question with:

"As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry ..."

-- maybe I sign a release or some such. Would that address your concerns?

But even without that caveat I find the idea that "having an effect on" insurance rates constitutes harm is a real stretch. It's about as compelling as the conservative notion that someone looking at porn, or doing drugs in the privacy of their own home damages the 'moral fiber' of society. In either case, the idea of communal harm is so abstract and so far removed from any direct cause and effect as to be negligible. It's certainly something that ought to be part of basic civil tolerance in any case.

My problem is not with you seeking medical treatment from someone other than a doctor. My problem is with this unlicensed 'doctor' soliciting business and claiming he is a 'doctor'.

That's fine. But I suspect it goes deeper than that. It's my understanding, for example, that even if an unlicensed practitioner didn't call themselves a 'doctor', but still performed similar services, they would be subject to prosecution. What about that? If I contracted with "not-a-doctor" to provide me with what would otherwise be described as health care services, should that be allowed in your view? If not, why not? Who is being harmed? (assuming I signed a release as previously stipulated).

I hope you can appreciate that I'm pushing this argument because I really don't believe most advocates of state regulation adhere to the proposition I offered earlier, namely that if no one is being harmed, the state has no business interfering. A lack of harm isn't usually satisfactory. They seem to want control for control's sake; to enforce conformity in the name of convenience and deny individuals the right to make decisions that they don't approve of. It's that aspect of the statist view I find so unacceptable. And I don't see a good excuse for it.

 

[Pogo]

If anything, "leftist" should be the confusing term. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, FDR was a progressive, etc... I hope that answers the question.

I'm pretty sure those guys are all dead and belong to the past. The only contemporary use of "progressive" I'm aware of is by Glenn Beck who uses it as one of his smear euphemisms, but as far as I'm concerned it has no valid meaning on the political spectrum today.

Then educate yourself on the matter. Doesn't matter what you call progressive, it's the same destructive philosophy.

And if it has no valid contemperary meaning why was Hillary Calling herself a progressive?

Uh, "educate myself"? Educate your own self, you pretentiously arrogant asshole. You offer absolutely nothing here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Denying cooperation would be coercive...Denying your coercion upon my life and property as an affect of the mythical and cynically dubbed "social contract" is merely meeting force with force.

You speak of using coercion at the local level for the porpose of education...But what of those who are single, couples who have no children or those who cannot have them?

What makes the rights of those who choose to have children superior to those who do not, to the point that they need to be coerced into supporting those children?

But social contract is democracy at work. There will be those happy with the outcome of a majority vote and those not so happy, but the majority prevails in social contract. Those who do not have children will still benefit from an educated work force etc., but if they do not wish to subscribe to that, then they should move to a district that does have privatized schools or no schools at all. Same with those who are in the minority who don't want an organized fire district or municiple police force and prefer to provide those services for themselves. They benefit from lower insurance rates etc. in the social contract, but if they really don't want to participate, they need to move to a community that doesn't have those kinds of services.

Freedom is not anarchy. And it cannot exist under authoritarian government. It is the ability for people to live as they wish to live. I should never be able to dictate to you what your choices must be or vice versa. But majority vote is the only way for a social group to decide issues that are not unanimous.

The question then becomes, how many people does it take to legitimize their taking your money for their own benefit? If 10 people get together, and 9 of them decide to take the money of 1 of them would that be theft or the social contract in action?

There is no justification for confiscation of anybody's money for another person's benefit. The security of our property is one of the unalienable rights as defined by the Founders. The 9 can vote for everybody to pay $1 for a specific common goal. And the 10th, who opposes that, can either agree to it or leave.

Because of basic human nature, there will be ayes and nays in the process and everybody won't have it exactly as they want. But when we move to a community we are agreeing to live under the social contract and rules of the existing community and comply with the common will. If it becomes too oppressive or offensive or uncomfortable, we have full right to remove ourselves from it and seek a more compatible place or group.

Under social contract there is no tyranny of a minority, but neither can the majority tread on the unalienable rights of anybody.

The wise husband and wife agree from the beginning that the social contract will be that both agree on anything important or it will not be done. The wise community also chooses from the beginning that a large majority will agree on what the social contract will be, or it will not be done. But when social contract is working as it is supposed to, social contract does no harm and it is a way of deciding.

Think of it as a church congregation voting on what color the new carpet will be. Having done that a number of times, I can guarantee that the vote will never be 100% for a specific color.