Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

I'm glad this thread was resurrected. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and have bookmarked it for future reference.

:sniff:

I am still enjoying the thread. It has addressed some of the concerns I've had since my relatively recent "deconversion" from Christianity. Namely, since I no longer believe in a god, what about those "God-given" rights I've held as sacrosanct for pretty much all of my life. No god = no rights?? Were those damned commies right all along? I realize that a lot of the philosophy that's been referenced here probably seems elementary to most of you, but not everyone is as erudite as the average Rat, and I'm new around these parts. I've been meaning to read Hume, Locke, Paine, etc. but I've been too busy*.

If someone wants to come up with form libertarianism that doesn't rely on a person being born with natural rights then there is a conversation to be had. Anyone who starts with that believe really has no basis in reality to form any sensible view of politics.

Rights are created by people (with the word created being the important one) and are implemented via government, no government no rights

I would have zero moral problems in robbing someone house if that was the only way I could get enough food to eat (no I'm not going to ask as if I'm told no it making robbing the house a lot harder), luckily we have a safety net so that possibility should never happen. Without such a safety net I don't think there is a moral case for locking that person up

MrJonno,

I find your apparent position mind-boggling. I don't mean that as a judgment, I really can't get my mind around the concept of believing my right to life and/or liberty is derived only through the consent of a government. A government which is necessarily composed of people who would have no more claim to natural rights than I. And who, therefore, grant themselves their own rights, while I cannot?? Hardly seems sporting to me. If your rights are granted exclusively by the government, would it not naturally follow that in the event the government decided the nation was overpopulated and there was to be a lottery to determine which fifth of the population would be exterminated to relieve this condition, no one would have any standing to complain? After all, none of you have an inherent right to life if the government says you do not. And as I typed that sentence, it occurs to me this has been done over and over again, particularly in the last century. Surely these atrocities show we cannot accept the idea that rights are derived only through the consent of government?

I apologize if I misrepresent your position, and I hope you won't take this as an attack, I really want to understand where you are coming from. While I probably don't have the philosophical chops to claim full comprehension of the libertarian arguments that have been presented, I feel like I can agree with them because they make sense to me (doubtlessly in no small part because they square with my preconceived biases). Your position on the other hand is currently utterly incomprehensible to me. I guess I am asking from where you derive your philosophy so I can try to get a better grasp on it (if for no other reason than to understand how someone could arrive at the notion that they have no inherent value other than that assigned to them by the state).


*I debated typing lazy, which is more to the point, but why lay all my cards on the table.


[EDIT] When I typed "this has been done over and over again, particularly in the last century", I did not, obviously, mean a literal lottery was held. Only that governments engaged in systematic exterminations of "undesired populations".

The point about "rights" is that they are meaningless unless they protected by some power/force/whatever. So you might feel legitimate in claiming that you have a natural right to life, and Jonno and I might claim that no such right exists; but without the state (or some other substitute) to protect your "right", we all end up in the same reality - that is, we don't really have a right to life. That's the idea behind a constitution or bill of rights or whatever. Now I know that this is going to set Jonno off on some bollocks (as we've been there and done this with him for years ), so we'll just have to deal with that when it comes. Essentially, the only right you can bank on in the world is "Might is right". It sucks, I know, but that doesn't change the reality. And you're far better off dealing with reality, as shitty as it might be, than living in a fantasy. And if you deconverted from Christianity at some point, then you have already had to deal with a similar issue.

[pErvinalia]

I find your apparent position mind-boggling. I don't mean that as a judgment, I really can't get my mind around the concept of believing my right to life and/or liberty is derived only through the consent of a government. A government which is necessarily composed of people who would have no more claim to natural rights than I. And who, therefore, grant themselves their own rights, while I cannot?? Hardly seems sporting to me. If your rights are granted exclusively by the government, would it not naturally follow that in the event the government decided the nation was overpopulated and there was to be a lottery to determine which fifth of the population would be exterminated to relieve this condition, no one would have any standing to complain? After all, none of you have an inherent right to life if the government says you do not. And as I typed that sentence, it occurs to me this has been done over and over again, particularly in the last century. Surely these atrocities show we cannot accept the idea that rights are derived only through the consent of government?

That's the cognitive disconnect of the collectivist mind. It cannot reason logically and sees the collective as having some power that is greater than the sum of its parts. Collectivists like Mr. Jonno look at government as some organic being that exists independent of the individuals who make it up, and they think that this vaguely conceived organism is somehow better, more ethical, more caring and more concerned about the individual in the collective than in the agenda of the collective as a whole. They expect government to care about taking care of THEM, and that it is some sort of nearly-omnipotent and omnibenevolent god-like being that exists solely to serve their personal needs and concerns.

They cannot think or argue in the abstract about the philosophy and actual operation of governments throughout history, because this causes cognitive dissonance and discomfort when they are forced to address the simple fact that government is people, and people in government have a vested self-interest in aggregating, securing and perpetuating THEIR personal power and interests, and that therefore government is the enemy of liberty and freedom and is inherently evil. It's a necessary evil to be sure, but it's like fire, to be used wisely, as little as possible and only as absolutely necessary, and it's a terrifying thing when it rages out of control.

And the more collectivist and less individualist the government and laws, the more likely it is to disregard and disrespect the rights and needs of the individual in favor of the aggregation and securing of power by the elite, and secondarily securing the interests of the collective irrespective of the impact on the individual.

And once the pogroms and purges begin, they are very hard to stop, and the only savior for the people themselves are the arms that they have or can find to use to fight the tyrannical despotism that is unconstrained government.

How many populations, how many millions of people have to be sent to gulags and shot in the neck and dumped in ditches by despotic socialist/communist regimes before idiot collectivists come to understand the tiger whose tail they are holding between pinched index finger and thumb, and how easily the government that they trust can and will turn on them and kill them without mercy or thought?

Evidently, to Mr Jonno, millions more are an acceptable loss if it reduces his paranoid panic at the thought of other people exercising liberty. It would be sad if it weren't such a widespread pathology that's so very dangerous to free people. As it stands, his sort of attitudes are extremely dangerous to the rest of us who wish to maintain our liberty.

TL;DR, as it's the same uninformed rubbish you've been dribbling for years. The fact of the matter is that Libertarianism is based on a fantasy that totally fails to to incorporate human psychology into it. Psychology totally debunks nonsense like "rational actors" and similar shit. No libertarian should speak a single word until they've studied psychology and understand it.

[Drewish]

Noticing pattern to this thread. 4 libertarians make a point, and only Seth get's responded to. Not sayign that happened jsut now, but back in this thread quite a bit. Wonder why? Oh well, back to druinking...

[pErvinalia]

For me the "why" is that i've been ignoring this thread, but finally decided to take a peek by just starting on the last page. I haven't read anything from before that page. To be honest, though, it would be highly unlikely that anyone brought up a point that I haven't heard and either debunked myself in the past or seen someone else debunk it. It's a totally flawed ideology. It's fantasy. I like fantasy too, but I remember that it is only fiction.

[Wandering Through]

The point about "rights" is that they are meaningless unless they protected by some power/force/whatever. So you might feel legitimate in claiming that you have a natural right to life, and Jonno and I might claim that no such right exists; but without the state (or some other substitute) to protect your "right", we all end up in the same reality - that is, we don't really have a right to life. That's the idea behind a constitution or bill of rights or whatever. Now I know that this is going to set Jonno off on some bollocks (as we've been there and done this with him for years ), so we'll just have to deal with that when it comes. Essentially, the only right you can bank on in the world is "Might is right". It sucks, I know, but that doesn't change the reality. And you're far better off dealing with reality, as shitty as it might be, than living in a fantasy. And if you deconverted from Christianity at some point, then you have already had to deal with a similar issue.

I do, thus far (since no one has yet convinced me otherwise), feel legitimate in claiming natural rights (though I could not give as eloquent a reasoning as several others in this thread have). That said, I also agree with you insofar as rights become effectively meaningless in the face of a challenge by an overwhelming opponent. I may, in fact, have a right to life, but it means exactly squat if a bunch of hoodlums overpower me and hang me from the end of a rope so that they may help themselves to my property. As you say, "Might is right". It is at this point that you invoke the need for the State (or some other substitute) to protect/grant (MrJonno) my rights. I feel this is premature, however, because we have not yet considered the obvious "first responder" -me. I would venture that this reality is why most of the libertarians I've listened to count the right to armed self-defense just as important as the right to life, liberty, and property. Essentially, I am the "power/force/whatever" ultimately responsible for protecting my rights.

This is, as you succinctly put it, a rather shitty reality. Because it means that I must constantly go about my business armed to the teeth, ever-vigilant for signs someone may be about to deprive me of my rights. I must do this by default, because even though I believe that the vast, vast majority of people are rational actors who would just as soon conduct their business without resorting to force or fraud (particularly if they have not been preconditioned to an entitlement mentality), anyone intending to deprive me of life or liberty is likely not going to announce his/her intention a week in advance. Obviously, this constant state of vigilance and burden of arms is going to interfere with my specialization of labor and productivity, not to mention my happiness.

It is at this point (in this grossly simplified analogy) that I think a legitimate role for the State can be found. Rather than everyone needing to be in a constant state of individual readiness to ward off force or fraud despite the relative unlikelihood that any one of the group will experience force or fraud at any given time, the members of a group agree to create a government. To this government, they grant a few of their (intrinsic) rights, including the right to use force to prevent, halt, or punish the use of force or fraud against an innocent member of the society (including providing for a common defense against "outsiders"). However, any rights the government has were granted it by those who formed it, and are actually vested in them, and only on loan to the government with the continuing consent of the governed. We agreed to form a government to specialize in the safeguarding of our rights, not to grant those rights to us! The idea that my rights are granted to me by some amalgam of nincompoops who couldn't be arsed to get real jobs and instead went into politics defies my capacity for credulity.


At any rate, that is the (very) rough version of my (mis)understanding of political philosophy so far. I expect there are many who disagree with it, and I actually look forward to reading the destruction of my naïveté. Just... be gentle (ok, not really, have at it, tell me why I'm wrong.)

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

tl;dr version: I think I may be one of them!

[pErvinalia]

It is at this point (in this grossly simplified analogy) that I think a legitimate role for the State can be found. Rather than everyone needing to be in a constant state of individual readiness to ward off force or fraud despite the relative unlikelihood that any one of the group will experience force or fraud at any given time, the members of a group agree to create a government. To this government, they grant a few of their (intrinsic) rights, including the right to use force to prevent, halt, or punish the use of force or fraud against an innocent member of the society (including providing for a common defense against "outsiders"). However, any rights the government has were granted it by those who formed it, and are actually vested in them, and only on loan to the government with the continuing consent of the governed. We agreed to form a government to specialize in the safeguarding of our rights, not to grant those rights to us! The idea that my rights are granted to me by some amalgam of nincompoops who couldn't be arsed to get real jobs and instead went into politics defies my capacity for credulity.

I think this paragraph sums up most people's understanding of the state. Essentially you've just described a 'social contract'. Traditionally, libertarians get a bit frothy at the mouth over this concept. In relation to the "granting of" vs "safeguarding from" thing, I don't think it functionally matters. They are essentially the same thing. What it boils down to is that without that social contract, you really are at the gates to the wild.

[Wandering Through]

TL;DR, as it's the same uninformed rubbish you've been dribbling for years. The fact of the matter is that Libertarianism is based on a fantasy that totally fails to to incorporate human psychology into it. Psychology totally debunks nonsense like "rational actors" and similar shit. No libertarian should speak a single word until they've studied psychology and understand it.

I missed this before I posted my last response. I grant that I have not studied psychology as you apparently have. I've not seen the studies to which you refer, would you mind pointing me in the right direction? I may not be able to understand them completely, but I'd like to give it a whirl.

A quick google search turned up:

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-individual ... prior.html (conducted on secondary students, not sure how helpful that is)

Actually, the wikipedia page on Rational Choice Theory has a pretty robust criticism section, I'll start there when I have some time. Probably all over my head.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that link should contain all the info. Basically, there have been literally thousands of studies that all show that humans don't make rational choices a lot of the time. I've never actually read enough to discover exactly why that is, but I assume it's down to an evolutionary beneficial behavioural strategy. That is, it suits us in the long run (evolutionarily speaking) to make some inaccurate decisions quickly rather than accurate decisions slowly (i.e. devout the time and resources to thinking them out properly). But keep in mind, none of these strategies ever developed in the context of financial markets.

Aside from this stuff, there's other ways to take anarcho-capitalism apart. The most obvious one is information asymmetry, and monopolies. Shit, there's so many more too, but you'll see them all if you hang around long enough.

[pErvinalia]

Just had a look at the link, and it doesn't list any of the specific studies that show humans aren't very rational. Later on I'll hunt a few down and post some here.

[MrJonno]

MrJonno,

I find your apparent position mind-boggling. I don't mean that as a judgment, I really can't get my mind around the concept of believing my right to life and/or liberty is derived only through the consent of a government. A government which is necessarily composed of people who would have no more claim to natural rights than I. And who, therefore, grant themselves their own rights, while I cannot?? Hardly seems sporting to me. If your rights are granted exclusively by the government, would it not naturally follow that in the event the government decided the nation was overpopulated and there was to be a lottery to determine which fifth of the population would be exterminated to relieve this condition, no one would have any standing to complain? After all, none of you have an inherent right to life if the government says you do not. And as I typed that sentence, it occurs to me this has been done over and over again, particularly in the last century. Surely these atrocities show we cannot accept the idea that rights are derived only through the consent of government?

Rights are a product of the society both nationally and internationally you live in ( they are implemented via government). If you have a democracy they come from the people in a democracy via a social consensus if you have a dictator those rights are direct from him. Either way they aren't natural or inherent.

Now as civilization has progressed what these rights are have changed, I like to think of them as the equivalent of the minimum wage ie the minimum standard of living both economically ,'spirtually' and emotionally that a person requires to be happy. As well as a degree of speech (not unlimited), it includes food, medical care and shelter.

Now these rights are good things but again no more inherent than the minimum wage.

I've mentioned before the first time I ever heard of inherent rights was in Mein Kampf and Lebensraum not the Magna Carta or the US constitution. That makes me highly suspicious of inalienable inherent rights

[Coito ergo sum]

Some famous libertarians, in no particular order.

Dave Barry
John Popper of the Blues Traveller.
Walter Williams
Robert Heinlen
Thomas Sowell
Dean Koontz
Drew Carey
Clint Eastwood
Trey Parker
Penn Jillette
Teller
Tommy Chong
Kurt Russell
Milton Friedman
Ludwig Von Mises
Neil Peart
Howard Stern
Mark Cuban
Bill Maher

[MrJonno]

Arent there lots of lefty socialist/communist types into libertarianism

[Coito ergo sum]

Arent there lots of lefty socialist/communist types into libertarianism

Lots? I don't think "lots"... I think there may be six or seven "anarcho-communists" out there....but, their philosophy is so convoluted and counter-intuitive that I don't think even they understand it....

[MrJonno]

Arent there lots of lefty socialist/communist types into libertarianism

Lots? I don't think "lots"... I think there may be six or seven "anarcho-communists" out there....but, their philosophy is so convoluted and counter-intuitive that I don't think even they understand it....

Predates 'right wing' libertarianism doesn't it, emphasizes freedom from (disease, hunger, rain) as opposed freedom to. Recognizes possessions that you use but if you don't use after a 'reasonable' time it is no longer recognized as a possession, ie if you own a house but never live in it the state takes it away possibly with some compensation and gives it to someone who is homeless.

I think its the most common for libertarianism outside the US, met a few, tended to be weird smelly hippies who have large trust funds from their parents

[Coito ergo sum]

Anarcho-communism is one of those stateless nonsensical regimes, where there wouldn't be any "state" to take away property after a reasonable time. The idea of private property is supposed to be abolished, along with money.

It's nonsense, of course, since money isn't something that can be abolished. If you do away with federal reserve notes, for example, people will just go back to privately minted coins, or gold pieces made into little handy sized chunks. As long as money is useful, it can't be abolished.

And, private property, likewise, can't be abolished because people like to own stuff.

The anarcho-communist idea of abolishing wage-labor is downright silly. It can't be done, because people will always give something of value to someone else to help them do stuff. That's the heart of wage-labor --- you come to my house and help me build my fence, and I'll come to your house to help you farm your field. Add to that a medium of exchange (pieces of gold or silver, or whatever), and you now have wage labor.

In short, it's nonsense.