Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[Coito ergo sum]

Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

Well, you see, the imagery breaks down when you try to do that. Libertarianism advocates the idea that force against another to take their property is, well, improper, even when it is done by the majority against the minority through the machinery of the State. Socialism advocates the forcible separation of property from certain individuals. I mean - that is what both philosophies involve, expressly.

[PsychoSerenity]

Well, you see, the imagery breaks down when you try to do that. Libertarianism advocates the idea that force against another to take their property is, well, improper, even when it is done by the majority against the minority through the machinery of the State.

Well it claims to, but it gets round the problem by not considering the threat of homelessness, starvation and being otherwise trampled to the bottom of society, to be a form of force. Sure it's more subtle than pointing a gun at someone, but for that it's a lot more effective on a large scale.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you see, the imagery breaks down when you try to do that. Libertarianism advocates the idea that force against another to take their property is, well, improper, even when it is done by the majority against the minority through the machinery of the State.

Well it claims to,

Well, a philosophy is what it claims to be. Utilitarianism "claims" to be concerned primarily with the utility of actions toward the greater good.

but it gets round the problem by not considering the threat of homelessness, starvation and being otherwise trampled to the bottom of society, to be a form of force.

I don't think that it is true that libertarianism doesn't "consider" things like homelessness, starvation and "trampling to the bottom of society." I think that libertarianism offers a different solution to those problems, and libertarians think that socialism nominally or ostensibly tries to solve these problems, but ultimately cannot sustain such solutions, thereby kicking the can down the road and ultimately creating dramatically worse problems.

Sure it's more subtle than pointing a gun at someone, but for that it's a lot more effective on a large scale.

I think this is where there is a basic disagreement in philosophy. But, nevertheless, as a matter of principle, libertarians are opposed to one person taking stuff away from another person by force, fraud, duress or coercion, and they are also against the State doing so. There is a spectrum in libertarianism, though, wherein one may be of the anarcho-leaning kind which really is close to anarchism and/or statelessness, and others are more of the civil liberties variety that think that part of the common good and part of the "good of humanity" requires respect for individual autonomy in certain areas and a certain liberty of thought, speech and conduct.

Moreover, many libertarians argue that socialism creates more misery than it solves, ultimately, at least in situations of the non-Norwegian-like variety, wherein a small population is cocooned in an economy that produces immense dollar values of resources. The amount of oil and other naturally resources controlled by Norway is so disproportionately high, that with little effort its 4.5 million people can be supported and there is still a surplus of stuff to sell abroad, resulting an annual surpluses in their economy. In that kind of environment, socialism can work to a degree, because nobody feels the bite very hard.

[PsychoSerenity]

but it gets round the problem by not considering the threat of homelessness, starvation and being otherwise trampled to the bottom of society, to be a form of force.

I don't think that it is true that libertarianism doesn't "consider" things like homelessness, starvation and "trampling to the bottom of society." I think that libertarianism offers a different solution to those problems,

I didn't say it doesn't consider them, I said it doesn't consider them to be a form of force. So they can claim to be against taking another's property by force, while taking advantage of the power over people who are in a desperate situation to take more of their property in a "deal" than they would otherwise be able to.

Anyway boring derail, I'm not going to get into it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This discussion moved from "Things I have to post" cos it's political argument - and NOBODY has to post that!

[MrJonno]

I think this is where there is a basic disagreement in philosophy. But, nevertheless, as a matter of principle, libertarians are opposed to one person taking stuff away from another person by force, fraud, duress or coercion, and they are also against the State doing so.

Except that ignores the fact that people think they can havethe right to property, citizenship , freedom of speech etc without paying it, ie natural rights.

Once you see that natural rights are just something made up by libertarians you see that wanting to live in a country without paying for that society is basically theft.

There is nothing and I mean absolutely nothing that doesnt have a cost either in actions/inactions or financially (ie taxes). You are born with zero rights but society produces these (not nature) which you pay for.

No natural rights and libertarianism simply is theft

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Seth]

Well, you see, the imagery breaks down when you try to do that. Libertarianism advocates the idea that force against another to take their property is, well, improper, even when it is done by the majority against the minority through the machinery of the State.

Well it claims to, but it gets round the problem by not considering the threat of homelessness, starvation and being otherwise trampled to the bottom of society, to be a form of force. Sure it's more subtle than pointing a gun at someone, but for that it's a lot more effective on a large scale.

It's sophistry to suggest that allowing other people to live their lives as they see fit and allowing them to suffer the consequences of their actions is a "form of force.''

Libertarianism expects people to act rationally and with well-formed adult personalities, and one of the principle tenets of Libertarianism is enlightened rational self-interest. Also, charity and altruism.

Libertarians are no less charitable or altruistic than anyone else, and they understand that people sometimes require assistance. The difference is that LIbertarianism allows people to make up their own minds about who is worthy of their charity and altruism, as opposed to the socialist model, or even the progressive model, that holds that the government knows best who is worthy. Indeed, Libertarians in a libertarian society are probably more likely to be willing to support those in legitimate need, such as the "starving" and "homeless," than socialists are because they will be paying less in taxes and thus have substantially more income to devote to charity, and they will feel more like doing so because their money is not being stolen from them by force by the government to give to others who may be entirely unworthy of the fruits of their labor.

The US, for example is more libertarian than, say, the EU, and the statistics for charitable giving demonstrate that Americans are twice as generous in their individual charitable giving as people in the EU are. And that doesn't include our government foreign aid programs, which exceed everybody else's on the planet.

Rational and enlightened self-interest also drives voluntary efforts to care for the indigent and needy. Society does not function well when people are starving in the streets or are living on the streets in large numbers. It is therefore in the rational self-interest for people to voluntarily support programs to help such people in order to avoid the dire consequences of crime, disease, disorder and civil unrest that comes from failing to take care of the poor.

The canard you pose, that Libertarianism is about nothing but greed and allowing people to starve to death is just that, a canard, and it's an egregiously false claim that all critics of Libertarianism trot out in their ignorance of actual Libertarian philosophy.

It's a false claim that is rooted in the Socialist and Progressive presumption that only government is capable or qualified to deal with hunger and homelessness, and that therefore government must extract taxes from everyone in order to provide the necessary programs to save the poor from starvation and deprivation.

This, of course, is a complete and utter falsehood. The real purpose of socialist and progressive entitlement programs is not to serve the poor, it's to bind them to perpetual poverty and dependence on the government, so that the government can maintain its power. By keeping the lower classes dependent on government largess, they keep the "democratic" votes under their power.

As Alexander Tytler said, once the dependent class overtake the productive class in numbers, and learn they can simply vote themselves more entitlement programs (largess) from the treasury, they will always and forever after vote for the person who promises them the most largess. This was seen in the election of Barack Obama, who made vague promises of "hope" and "change" and promised yet more largess, and this resulted in an entirely unqualified person who has never held an actual job in his life being elected by the dependent class.

Libertarianism does not say in any way that poor people should be left to starve, it merely says that it's up to the altruistic and charitable instincts of the people who make up the society to care for them, and it's not within the power of government to forcibly extract money from the unwilling to fund such efforts.

In Libertarianism, the government would be a booster for charitable giving. It would use money granted to it voluntarily to advertise and persuade people of the benefits of enlightened self-interest and get them to donate to relief efforts where needed rather than sending out jackbooted thugs with machine guns to steal the fruits of someone's labor to serve the cupidity of the dependent class.

So, you see, your error lies in your gross misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy and your parroting of the false claims that big-government collectivists purvey using the Big Lie techniques of Marxism.

[Seth]

You are born with zero rights... (additional twaddle deleted)

Maybe you were, but not me. I was born with all rights, in unlimited supply. How those rights are balanced against the equal rights of others is what civilization and government are all about.