Libertarian Party - the other "L" word.

[jeff]

This is a thread inviting those of the Libertarian persuasion to explain their viewpoint. A few have spoken up before.

I'm not one of them, and hope to learn what their beliefs are all about. I *think* I understand the ideas of small (how small?) government, free enterprise, personal responsibility, but probably not the way Libertarians see it. I don't understand how it accomidates things that are money losers (like running an army or court system), or avoids the "tragedy of the commons". I also pick up, perhaps incorrectly, a "devil take the hindmost/led them eat cake" attitude for the poor or otherwise incapable. I could be wrong. So, please step up to the soapbox...

[noodle]

info on libertarianism

[S. Hunter]

http://www.archive.org/movies/detail...chael_Badnarik

Listen to all of those constitution classes if you have the time. Its 8 hours, but Its 8 hours well spent.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jeff

(snip) I don't understand how it accomidates things that are money losers (like running an army or court system

Since the primary purpose of government is to protect the citizenry, from each other as well as from external enemies, the courts and armed forces are necessary in order for government to perform its function. The former protects citizens from the depredations of other citizens; the second protects the nation from outside force.

), or avoids the "tragedy of the commons".

I don't see how this is applicable. The "commons" model is used to demonstrate the erosion of resources when people are allowed to feed at the public trough. Since Libertarianism does away with the public trough, there will be no "tragedy of the commons." Unless, of course, you feel that you can make money by resorting to the courts, or by waging war...But those situations would not be materially different than they are now. If it's not a problem now, it wouldn't be under a Libertarian model.

I also pick up, perhaps incorrectly, a "devil take the hindmost/led them eat cake" attitude for the poor or otherwise incapable. I could be wrong.

What you seem to be describing is that Libertarians somehow "shirk" the "obligation" of a government to mitigate the misfortunes of its citizens. This was the concept pioneered by FDR with his "New Deal".
However, up until the Great Depression no one understood this to be the case; Lincoln and Jefferson would both have been stunned if anyone had broached the idea to them.

The purpose of government is to provide security from force and fraud, which is a type of force. The rest is up to you. Freedom to succeed comes wrapped part and parcel with freedom to fail. Should the indigent and or/misfortuned be helped? Certainly. Is it government's job to do so? No. That is left up to the free choice of individuals to put their lives and property to use for that purpose.

The problem with the welfare state is that it absolves all of us from personally caring about the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill. We don't need to concern ourselves--Government will take care of it. Under Libertarianism, your conscience is your guide. Government should encourage people to be charitable to the less fortunate. However, such charity should neither be made a public institution nor be supported with public money. (That, by the way, is a perfect example of the "tragedy of the commons"...)

[jeff]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Since the primary purpose of government is to protect the citizenry,...snip...

I'll let this stand for now for sake of argument, but it seems to beg the question by saying that therole of government is what Libertarians say it is. This premise needs to be justified. That said, what I'm getting is is that courts and armed forces are legitemate functions of government. Did I get that right?

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Since Libertarianism does away with the public trough, there will be no "tragedy of the commons."

There are public assets though: if I can make a financial killing while polluting, by overfishing, or (original context) letting my cattle consume all the grass own the town commons, then I can despoil a public asset - the commons - for my personal advantage. It has nothing to do with the idea of a public trough furnished by the government.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

What you seem to be describing is that Libertarians somehow "shirk" the "obligation" of a government to mitigate the misfortunes of its citizens. This was the concept pioneered by FDR with his "New Deal". However, up until the Great Depression no one understood this to be the case; Lincoln and Jefferson would both have been stunned if anyone had broached the idea to them.

That might well be so - but the counter arguments are that we've become a lot more advanced since those days, and that the pre-New Deal "solutions" were inadequate to the task. If they had worked, there would not have been a New Deal.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The purpose of government is to provide security from force and fraud,

The "purpose of government" needs to be debated first before it's used the basis of other claims.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Freedom to succeed comes wrapped part and parcel with freedom to fail. Should the indigent and or/misfortuned be helped? Certainly. Is it government's job to do so? No. That is left up to the free choice of individuals to put their lives and property to use for that purpose.

Okay, if that's the L position (I'm tired of typing the whole word), that that's the position. It does not seem to me to differ much from "devil take the hindmost".

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The problem with the welfare state is that it absolves all of us from personally caring about the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill. We don't need to concern ourselves--Government will take care of it. Under Libertarianism, your conscience is your guide. Government should encourage people to be charitable to the less fortunate. However, such charity should neither be made a public institution nor be supported with public money. (That, by the way, is a perfect example of the "tragedy of the commons"...)

Does it really absolve all of us? I think that needs to be justified, too.

And if not enough people are charitable, and they die in the streets (I like a vivid scenario)
or develop untreated TB that eventually spreads to the good burghers of the town who didn't pony up aid - then what?

Anyhow, thanks for the resonses.

[mrbiggs]

I think that the whole concept might hypothetically work (in the same way communism might hypothetically work), but it has one major flaw-the "spontaneous government" thing. The concept is that humans automatically make laws to protect one another and themselves, and if let loose, with no government control, will fall into equilibrium. This doesn't work because in nature, humans are pack animals. Bob and Bill the Libertarians are getting along with Dick, the last Libertarian. Dick seems to be trying to get some of Bill's land, but it all got worked out. But then, Dick calls his three brothers, and then they go and steal Bill's land. Effectively, Dick is screwing Bill. Then Bill gets a few friends...ad infinitum! (Ha! Latin! I can't be wrong! )
It would just lead to gangs, as shown in EVERY model I can think of where a human population has been completely let loose. (With the exception of mob mentality situations, such as the French Revolution.)

[S. Hunter]

I think that the whole concept might hypothetically work (in the same way communism might hypothetically work), but it has one major flaw-the "spontaneous government" thing. The concept is that humans automatically make laws to protect one another and themselves, and if let loose, with no government control, will fall into equilibrium. This doesn't work because in nature, humans are pack animals. Bob and Bill the Libertarians are getting along with Dick, the last Libertarian. Dick seems to be trying to get some of Bill's land, but it all got worked out. But then, Dick calls his three brothers, and then they go and steal Bill's land. Effectively, Dick is screwing Bill. Then Bill gets a few friends...ad infinitum! (Ha! Latin! I can't be wrong! )

Please download and watch the first video from the link above. It will point out some of the issues you address in your statement - Libertarianism actually supports government, just a constitutional government, and some of its most basic principals are not all that radical, actually.

Again, could everyone who wants to know about the libertarian party and the basic premises behind it and a constitutional government: DOWNLOAD THE FIRST VIDEO FROM HERE!

[mrbiggs]

I'm about halfway through the first movie.

It seems that the entire basis of the party, if it is what he says, is based on faulty logic. "If it's my property, I can do what I want with it". Michael Badnarik also quotes examples of property tax and zoning ordinances as violations of this basic right. This is......wrong....but I'm not going to argue until I learn more about this.

He also calls a quote of Thoedore Roosevelt "Socialist". Roosevelt basically said that although you have individual rights to property, sometimes those rights must be sacrificed for the good of the community.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that the whole concept might hypothetically work (in the same way communism might hypothetically work), but it has one major flaw-the "spontaneous government" thing. The concept is that humans automatically make laws to protect one another and themselves, and if let loose, with no government control, will fall into equilibrium. This doesn't work because in nature, humans are pack animals. Bob and Bill the Libertarians are getting along with Dick, the last Libertarian. Dick seems to be trying to get some of Bill's land, but it all got worked out. But then, Dick calls his three brothers, and then they go and steal Bill's land. Effectively, Dick is screwing Bill. Then Bill gets a few friends...ad infinitum! (Ha! Latin! I can't be wrong! )
It would just lead to gangs, as shown in EVERY model I can think of where a human population has been completely let loose. (With the exception of mob mentality situations, such as the French Revolution.)

i swear, i was going to post this exact thing except i decided against comparing it to communism and didn't feel it was worth it to throw these points against something i don't know too much about. biggs is a mindreader.

vote for pedro

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'll let this stand for now for sake of argument, but it seems to beg the question by saying that therole of government is what Libertarians say it is. This premise needs to be justified.

To which all I can say is: "History is written by the winners."

One's concept of the proper role of government is what fundamentally delineates any political party/movement from another. Everything else is derivitive.

To put it another way, how one defines the proper role and scope of government is what distinguishes a Libertarian from a Liberal, a Conservative, a Nazi, or a Communist. As such, it is far from begging the question: it IS the question.

[mrbiggs]

I take it back, this guy is a lunatic.

He thinks that if you have a magical paper, and MSO, that will give you complete ownership of the car. This is incorrect, you have complete ownership of the car. By preventing your state government from getting the MSO, you are hiding the car from them, thus preventing them from taxing it. You don't have ownership, you're just evading taxes.

He then argues that because it's your car, you don't need a license or registration. OK, fine. Now we have 300 million people on our roads, driving with cars that are shaped weird, and that don't conform to regulations. The drivers have no idea what they're doing. This results in crashes, deaths, and choas. And this is only a small part of his opinion, that he is alredy implementing.

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I take it back, this guy is a lunatic.

He thinks that if you have a magical paper, and MSO, that will give you complete ownership of the car. This is incorrect, you have complete ownership of the car. By preventing your state government from getting the MSO, you are hiding the car from them, thus preventing them from taxing it. You don't have ownership, you're just evading taxes.

He then argues that because it's your car, you don't need a license or registration. OK, fine. Now we have 300 million people on our roads, driving with cars that are shaped weird, and that don't conform to regulations. The drivers have no idea what they're doing. This results in crashes, deaths, and choas. And this is only a small part of his opinion, that he is alredy implementing.

I see that you don't know what libertarianism is...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Sarah

I see that you don't know what libertarianism is...

Well, I thought I did. Then I watched that movie, and the guy, who ran for president as the libertarian cadidate said what I posted above. It's true I haven't seen the whole set of 8, so to be fair I am jumping the gun, but that IS what he said is the basic concept of libertarianism.

[Sarah]

I don't agree with all of his policies, but I must say that I like them much more than Bush's or Kerry's. Libertarians are all about freedoms... not restrictions. The most basic that you can get on our philosophy is 'You man do what you want as long as it does not harm others'.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Sarah

'You man do what you want as long as it does not harm others'.

Yes, but there must be a person who is willing to enforce that, and therefore, to harm others.

[Epeecurean]

I've tended to vote Libertarian but I generally fall in the camp of "small l" libertarians as exemplified by the Cato Institute:

www.cato.org

The Cato Institute aims to shift the public policy debate to giving greater consideration to the ideas of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. It tries to encourage a libertarian approach across the political spectrum.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

That might well be so - but the counter arguments are that we've become a lot more advanced since those days, and that the pre-New Deal "solutions" were inadequate to the task. If they had worked, there would not have been a New Deal.

The "purpose of government" needs to be debated first before it's used the basis of other claims.

But here's the good part. We don't need to debate the "purpose" of (federal) government, because what it can and cannot do is clearly stated in the Constitution. The problem is the Constitution is ignored by almost every single politician.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

To which all I can say is: "History is written by the winners."

In which case, the Libertarian movement clearly doesn't write history. If the market has so thoroughly rejected Liberarianism, then perhaps (based on its own principles) it should simply surrender?

Originally Posted by lochinvar

One's concept of the proper role of government is what fundamentally delineates any political party/movement from another. Everything else is derivitive.

To put it another way, how one defines the proper role and scope of government is what distinguishes a Libertarian from a Liberal, a Conservative, a Nazi, or a Communist. As such, it is far from begging the question: it IS the question.

Right, but I was hoping for explanation, not a circular argument. "This is what the role of government is because..." rather than "Libertarianism is right because it uses government in its right role - and vice versa"

[jeff]