Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[Seth]

Btw, it's bulimics who purge, not anorexics, and they don't purge bile.

Thanks, quite correct, but they do purge bile because bile is part of the digestive fluid.

[apophenia]

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights

Possibly but the ones who use the concept as a replacement or supplement for god are generally lunatics.

Freedom of action on the whole does more good than bad but thats does not mean its desirable for it to be absolute or that the less restrictions on a person or a society automatically make a happier person/society.

My understanding, limited though it is, is that Libertarianism is a form of utilitarianism. Under that theory, the most good is delivered to the most people if all are given the most choice they can possibly have. This is limited somewhat in that it is recognized that if people are allowed unlimited choice, some will exercise that choice to take advantage of others through coercion or fraud, and that exercise of free choice would actually reduce the total amount of good achieved. On the other end, restricting too many things as being (figuratively) coercive or fraudulent, restricting activities which aren't essentially harming anyone else's right to choose, that reduces the good that can be achieved overall compared to a less restrictive set of rules, which harm none, and yields greater freedom; accordingly, greater freedom means more overall good (under the theory that everyone's choice is a "little experiment" — the more little experiments done over a broader range of options, the higher the probability that a "good" result will be found). Libertarianism is basically the utilitarian belief that the point at which that maximization occurs is one in which the only thing people are coerced to pay for is the services required to prevent people's freedoms being restricted by being taken advantage of by other people. Any more restrictions reduces the efficiency of the whole to produce the good; any less reduces efficiency by resulting in exploitative, non-free choices as a consequence of another's scheming or force.

Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Seth, Coito, Audley et al. may disagree.

[Seth]

Socialism, of course, is not about balancing the autonomy of the individual vs the utility toward the common good.

Any sane politics aims to try and balance these aims but at least some libertarians lack the concept of 'the common good'

At least some of anything lack something. So what?

Libertarianism, as a political and social philosophy, does not lack the "concept of the common good" at all, in the least bit. But unlike socialists who use "common good" arguments as an excuse and justification for the initiation of force by one group against another group or against individuals, Libertarians, being rational, sane, compassionate, charitable, altruistic people with rational self-interest prefer serve the common good voluntarily, without attempting to impose by force their idea of what the "common good" is on others against their will.

Socialists simply presume that nobody is rational, sane, compassionate, charitable, altruistic or endowed with rational self-interest, and that only the government is qualified to determine what the "common good" is and how it must be served, and upon whom the imposition must be made in serving the "common good."

[Seth]

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights

Possibly but the ones who use the concept as a replacement or supplement for god are generally lunatics.

Freedom of action on the whole does more good than bad but thats does not mean its desirable for it to be absolute or that the less restrictions on a person or a society automatically make a happier person/society.

My understanding, limited though it is, is that Libertarianism is a form of utilitarianism. Under that theory, the most good is delivered to the most people if all are given the most choice they can possibly have. This is limited somewhat in that it is recognized that if people are allowed unlimited choice, some will exercise that choice to take advantage of others through coercion or fraud, and that exercise of free choice would actually reduce the total amount of good achieved. On the other end, restricting too many things as being (figuratively) coercive or fraudulent, restricting activities which aren't essentially harming anyone else's right to choose, that reduces the good that can be achieved overall compared to a less restrictive set of rules, which harm none, and yields greater freedom; accordingly, greater freedom means more overall good (under the theory that everyone's choice is a "little experiment" — the more little experiments done over a broader range of options, the higher the probability that a "good" result will be found). Libertarianism is basically the utilitarian belief that the point at which that maximization occurs is one in which the only thing people are coerced to pay for is the services required to prevent people's freedoms being restricted by being taken advantage of by other people. Any more restrictions reduces the efficiency of the whole to produce the good; any less reduces efficiency by resulting in exploitative, non-free choices as a consequence of another's scheming or force.

Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Seth, Coito, Audley et al. may disagree.

Pretty close, but I'd argue that Libertarianism doesn't accept as a premise that there is any justifiable coercion available to the collective as a whole, through the expedient of government, that can restrict the freedom of others except in cases where the exercise of rights or liberties by one constitutes the initiation of force or fraud upon another, or upon society generally. There are some close-case examples where things get a little grey, but by and large Libertarian philosophy does not recognize "exploitative" conduct because it presumes that everyone is a rational adult capable of making decisions for themselves and being bound by those decisions, for better or for worse.

There is no such thing as a "non-free choice" in Libertarianism I think. One is free to make any choice so long as it doesn't initiate force or fraud upon another. The pressure that one may feel to make a particular choice caused by circumstances or bad decision making are not relevant because no one else is obligated to consider such things as a part of a free and voluntary association and/or contract. There is no justification to impose a duty of care or performance on another person to consider whether one is "taking advantage" of someone else. Advantage is there to be taken in any voluntary association. It is up to each person to look to their own advantage and maximize their own profit or pleasure, and they are held personally responsible for the consequences of making bad judgments in looking to their own advantage. This is perfectly fair because the philosophy requires this of everyone, and considers everyone to be fully competent to look to their own advantage in their voluntary dealings with others.

In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others. Only if I make use of the services of a police force can I be compelled to pay for that service. Otherwise I may simply do without a police force and provide for my own protection at my own cost (including by hiring people to do it for me)...or not...at my own expense, if I have a need for such services. I must, of course, do so within the constraints of the law. I may not therefore take the law into my own hands and render justice to a criminal, but I may defend myself, apprehend the criminal, and bring him before the court...for which I'll have to pay, but for which I'm entitled to compensation from the criminal if I prove my case of initiation of force or fraud.

Now, this does NOT mean that I am not subject to the law or that I'm immune from a police force or judicial system acting to prevent or redress an initiation of force or fraud by me against another. Libertarians are not anarchists and they do believe in the rule of law and the authority of the government to enforce the law. They simply do not require that everyone contribute to such systems unless and until they choose to voluntarily make use of them in some way, therefore binding themselves contractually to pay for the services rendered. This applies to the person who initiates force or fraud just as equally, and he may be compelled (after proper judgment) to pay for the services required to investigate, prosecute and punish the wrongdoing.

[Audley Strange]

Libertarianism, as a political and social philosophy, does not lack the "concept of the common good" at all, in the least bit. But unlike socialists who use "common good" arguments as an excuse and justification for the initiation of force by one group against another group or against individuals, Libertarians, being rational, sane, compassionate, charitable, altruistic people with rational self-interest prefer serve the common good voluntarily, without attempting to impose by force their idea of what the "common good" is on others against their will.

Socialists simply presume that nobody is rational, sane, compassionate, charitable, altruistic or endowed with rational self-interest, and that only the government is qualified to determine what the "common good" is and how it must be served, and upon whom the imposition must be made in serving the "common good."

Which is insane yes? The people are savages they must be ruled, by a government, of the people, you know the ones we just called savages. OH NO SAVAGES ARE IN CHARGE!!!/

In fact I'd suggest that such a case is expressly a religion, a denial of what is self evident in favour of rule by a divine benevolent entity called Government.

[Audley Strange]

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights

Possibly but the ones who use the concept as a replacement or supplement for god are generally lunatics.

Freedom of action on the whole does more good than bad but thats does not mean its desirable for it to be absolute or that the less restrictions on a person or a society automatically make a happier person/society.

My understanding, limited though it is, is that Libertarianism is a form of utilitarianism. Under that theory, the most good is delivered to the most people if all are given the most choice they can possibly have. This is limited somewhat in that it is recognized that if people are allowed unlimited choice, some will exercise that choice to take advantage of others through coercion or fraud, and that exercise of free choice would actually reduce the total amount of good achieved. On the other end, restricting too many things as being (figuratively) coercive or fraudulent, restricting activities which aren't essentially harming anyone else's right to choose, that reduces the good that can be achieved overall compared to a less restrictive set of rules, which harm none, and yields greater freedom; accordingly, greater freedom means more overall good (under the theory that everyone's choice is a "little experiment" — the more little experiments done over a broader range of options, the higher the probability that a "good" result will be found). Libertarianism is basically the utilitarian belief that the point at which that maximization occurs is one in which the only thing people are coerced to pay for is the services required to prevent people's freedoms being restricted by being taken advantage of by other people. Any more restrictions reduces the efficiency of the whole to produce the good; any less reduces efficiency by resulting in exploitative, non-free choices as a consequence of another's scheming or force.

Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Seth, Coito, Audley et al. may disagree.

Not at all. I think in fact, that the best system is the one where you allow both free enterprise and national security which included things like health care. I genuinely think we got that sorted out in the fifties and democractic politics was essentially about fine tuning liberty and responsibility to the society. However the radical ideologues have been fucking up the system ever since. I don't recognise a difference between the militant left or the corporate Right, I recognise a difference in belief, but not in how they achieve that. Such have been cruel and unnecessary experiments upon the democratic body, leaving it essentially lifeless and increasingly violated.

[PsychoSerenity]

...another long post

Meh. I'm not bothered about defining socialism or liberal democracy or whatever - I was just trying to explain my understanding of one of the contradictions in libertarianism. If you don't see it that way, all I can say is, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view".

[amok]

Seth wrote:
In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others. Only if I make use of the services of a police force can I be compelled to pay for that service. Otherwise I may simply do without a police force and provide for my own protection at my own cost (including by hiring people to do it for me)...or not...at my own expense, if I have a need for such services. I must, of course, do so within the constraints of the law. I may not therefore take the law into my own hands and render justice to a criminal, but I may defend myself, apprehend the criminal, and bring him before the court...for which I'll have to pay, but for which I'm entitled to compensation from the criminal if I prove my case of initiation of force or fraud.

Now, this does NOT mean that I am not subject to the law or that I'm immune from a police force or judicial system acting to prevent or redress an initiation of force or fraud by me against another. Libertarians are not anarchists and they do believe in the rule of law and the authority of the government to enforce the law. They simply do not require that everyone contribute to such systems unless and until they choose to voluntarily make use of them in some way, therefore binding themselves contractually to pay for the services rendered. This applies to the person who initiates force or fraud just as equally, and he may be compelled (after proper judgment) to pay for the services required to investigate, prosecute and punish the wrongdoing.

I honestly don't see how that can work (perhaps with the exception of areas with a very low population density), because it doesn't take into account establishing the infrastructure before an individual makes a decision to make use of a service, even if they fully intend to pay for the specific service on an as-used basis.

[Coito ergo sum]

In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others.

With all due respect, what happened to your claim that this kind of thing was "democracy" in action?

You don't think democracy is bad, do you? That is what you asked me several times, isn't it?

Well?

[surreptitious57]

Professional Jurors
Fixed Term Elections
Abolition Of Marriage
Abolition Of Monarchy
Proportionate Taxation
Legalisation Of All Drugs
Proportionate Immigration
Free Universal Health Care
Legalisation Of Euthanasia
Legalisation Of Prostitution
Compulsory Prison Education
Lifetime Universal Credit Limit
Criminalisation Of Social Abortion
Free Education To University Level
Renouncement Of Nuclear Deterrent

[Seth]

In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others.

With all due respect, what happened to your claim that this kind of thing was "democracy" in action?

You don't think democracy is bad, do you? That is what you asked me several times, isn't it?

Well?

Ever hear of a term called "sarcasm?"

I'm no big fan of democracy, which is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority made manifest, which is why I'm glad the US ain't a democracy...it's a Constitutional Republic that happens to use some carefully-controlled democratic methods.

I like pointing out the common misunderstanding of socialists when it comes to democracy and their insistence that democracy is the only proper and just method for governing by illuminating the unintended consequences of poorly-thought-out support for democracy on the part of the lumpen proletariat by showing them what democracy REALLY means in practice, which is that if the majority happens to consist of theists, it's not only perfectly possible, but perfectly morally and ethically correct under the common socialist formation of "democracy" for that majority to impose a theocratic state on everyone.

Atheist Socialists tend to think that democracy is an unalloyed good and that all their problems with theism can be solved by just democratically extirpating it. I enjoy demonstrating to them what happens when Atheists aren't in the majority, hard-line theists are. It's a "be careful what you wish for" sort of thing.

MrJonno is a prime foil for this sort of demonstration. He maintains that nobody has any rights that the society they live in doesn't give to them, so I like to point out that this means that he approves of, for example, the Islamic Caliphate and Muslim extremism, since the majority of people living under Islam's rule actually like and support Islam.

I, on the other hand, believe in natural, inherent rights and that the tyrannous majority cannot take away those rights by popular vote. That's a belief that the Founders had and it's why they enshrined the notion of natural unalienable rights into the Constitution.

[Seth]

Professional Jurors

Never heard of that as a Libertarian principle.

Fixed Term Elections

All elections are fixed term already.

Abolition Of Marriage

Definitely NOT a Libertarian principle. Now, abolition of state control over marriage absolutely is a Libertarian principle. The state has absolutely no business whatever being anything other than a recorder of a contract of civil partnership (marriage) between any number of consenting adults of any gender mix.

Abolition Of Monarchy

Yeah, that's a Libertarian principle.

Proportionate Taxation

Nope. Proportionate to what? Libertarianism generally eschews all taxation (forcible seizure) in favor of voluntary donation to government projects or needs.

Legalisation Of All Drugs

Yeah, that's one.

Proportionate Immigration

Not sure what this means.

Free Universal Health Care

Absolutely NOT a Libertarian principle unless it's entirely funded by voluntary donations and not by taxes.

Legalisation Of Euthanasia
Legalisation Of Prostitution

Yes to these.

Compulsory Prison Education

Never heard of this, but as a matter of rational self-interest I would agree, since education and trade skills reduce recidivism and future crime.

Lifetime Universal Credit Limit

Nonsense. That's interfering with the right of the individual to make contracts.

Criminalisation Of Social Abortion

Not a Libertarian principle at all.

Free Education To University Level

Like health care, only acceptable if funded purely through voluntary donations and not through taxation.

Renouncement Of Nuclear Deterrent

This has to do with the initiation of force, which rules out pre-emptive strikes, but which does not rule out retaliatory strikes.

[Coito ergo sum]

In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others.

With all due respect, what happened to your claim that this kind of thing was "democracy" in action?

You don't think democracy is bad, do you? That is what you asked me several times, isn't it?

Well?

Ever hear of a term called "sarcasm?"

You seemed to make the argument seriously, when we were talking about religious groups imposing their religions on city government, in the form of prayers and displays. You said that it was democracy in action. And, you never admitted that you did not think they had the right to violate the 1st Amendment by majority vote.

[MrJonno]

MrJonno is a prime foil for this sort of demonstration. He maintains that nobody has any rights that the society they live in doesn't give to them, so I like to point out that this means that he approves of, for example, the Islamic Caliphate and Muslim extremism, since the majority of people living under Islam's rule actually like and support Islam.

I, on the other hand, believe in natural, inherent rights and that the tyrannous majority cannot take away those rights by popular vote. That's a belief that the Founders had and it's why they enshrined the notion of natural unalienable rights into the Constitution.

Correct if people want to turn a country into a shit hole thats up to them, if 51% of the population really are complete arseholes I wouldnt want to live there. Being a minority in a country that hates you is no way to live regardless of what form of government you have.

Do love your worship of a bunch of 18th century savages (founders)!

[Seth]

In other words, it is not within the power of government to coerce money from me to support a police force for the protection of others.

With all due respect, what happened to your claim that this kind of thing was "democracy" in action?

You don't think democracy is bad, do you? That is what you asked me several times, isn't it?

Well?

Ever hear of a term called "sarcasm?"

You seemed to make the argument seriously, when we were talking about religious groups imposing their religions on city government, in the form of prayers and displays. You said that it was democracy in action. And, you never admitted that you did not think they had the right to violate the 1st Amendment by majority vote.

Did I? Well, things are not always as they seem. As it relates to public expression of religion on public property I distinguish between displays erected and paid for by any level of government itself, and displays erected at private expense on public property that is otherwise open to the erection of public displays.

By the way, that's the same distinction that the Supreme Court makes when analyzing the constitutional propriety of religious displays on public property.

That is not, however, a distinction that groups like the FRFF make. They object to ALL religious displays on public property, regardless of their nature, who owns them, and who erected them. They incorrectly view the ministerial process of a government agency approving the installation of a display of ANY sort on public property as being an unconstitutional act if that act happens to be the approval of a religious display. They are wrong in this.

I use the "democracy" argument to highlight the irrationality of expecting democratic rule in one area and not in another.

Our system, however, is not a democracy, which I pointed out, so the reality is that it doesn't apply to the way things actually are in the US, where there is rather more nuance applied to such questions than just whether or not the majority approves or does not approve.