Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[surreptitious57]

Maybe you could then explain why this
particular principle of Libertarianism has
not been adopted by democracies such as yours
and mine ? Since there are obvious financial benefits
You need to address the moral issue which you appear to have
zero affection for. Even if an individual is in the situation they are
entirely of their own making do you not as a human being have a moral
duty to do your best for them - not necessarily financial ? This is why it has not
been adopted by North America or Europe - once people start dying of starvation a line
has been crossed which can never be erased - Libertarianism may work for individuals but not
a prescription for society. The most fundamental thing should be how we treat others and the best
reference for that is The Golden Rule - in some way the complete opposite of Libertarianism - and indeed
if this was universally adopted all problems pertaining to non materialism would disappear immediatedly and it
would cost no one anything either. So I reject Libertarianism because it fails to see humanity as a whole and instead
focuses on the individual - it may be practical in certain situations but too much focus on the self at the expense of many

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe you could then explain why this
particular principle of Libertarianism has
not been adopted by democracies such as yours
and mine ? Since there are obvious financial benefits
You need to address the moral issue which you appear to have
zero affection for. Even if an individual is in the situation they are
entirely of their own making do you not as a human being have a moral
duty to do your best for them - not necessarily financial ? This is why it has not
been adopted by North America or Europe - once people start dying of starvation a line
has been crossed which can never be erased - Libertarianism may work for individuals but not
a prescription for society. The most fundamental thing should be how we treat others and the best
reference for that is The Golden Rule - in some way the complete opposite of Libertarianism - and indeed
if this was universally adopted all problems pertaining to non materialism would disappear immediatedly and it
would cost no one anything either. So I reject Libertarianism because it fails to see humanity as a whole and instead
focuses on the individual - it may be practical in certain situations but too much focus on the self at the expense of many

Be careful - "a moral duty to do your best for them?" I think not. If that were the case, then you and i would have a moral duty to give all of our discretionary income to those more needy than ourselves, and limit our expenses and lifestyles only to the necessities, donating the rest to the needy.

Does society as a whole have civil or civic duty to provide a safety net? Yes, I think so.

However, if you impose a moral duty on each individual to help those who are in a bind, then what about the people in a bind? Do they have the same obligation? Clearly, many folks complaining about their heavy debt burdens are in far better shape than the panhandlers on the corner. Does my moral duty extend to having to support free college degrees? Or, can I prefer to help put food on the table of needy people?

[Seth]

Maybe you could then explain why this
particular principle of Libertarianism has
not been adopted by democracies such as yours
and mine ? Since there are obvious financial benefits
You need to address the moral issue which you appear to have
zero affection for. Even if an individual is in the situation they are
entirely of their own making do you not as a human being have a moral
duty to do your best for them - not necessarily financial ?

That would depend on the situation and what the situation is and how they got there. There is no blanket moral duty to assist people who have made decisions, even bad decisions, that negatively affect them. Too much ameliorating of consequences is bad for people because it leads them to believe that they will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions, which leads them to making more and more bad decisions. People learn by experience. Moreover, it is a violation of their individual sovereignty and privacy to intervene in their lives unless they ask for assistance.

This is why it has not
been adopted by North America or Europe - once people start dying of starvation a line
has been crossed which can never be erased - Libertarianism may work for individuals but not
a prescription for society.

Rational self-interest, compassion, altruism and charity that are natural to the well-formed adult human personality are sufficient to keep people from starving in most cases. Nobody starves to death in the United States, do they? The implicit proposition that you put forward suggests that only coercive force of government and government support is capable of keeping people from starving, but that's clearly not the case, since the vast majority of food bank programs in the US are private, local, community charity operations not funded by government.

The most fundamental thing should be how we treat others and the best
reference for that is The Golden Rule - in some way the complete opposite of Libertarianism - and indeed
if this was universally adopted all problems pertaining to non materialism would disappear immediatedly and it
would cost no one anything either. So I reject Libertarianism because it fails to see humanity as a whole and instead
focuses on the individual - it may be practical in certain situations but too much focus on the self at the expense of many

The Golden Rule is absolutely NOT the antithesis of Libertarianism, it's an explication of the concept of rational self-interest and compassion. The primary difference between Libertarianism and other forms of government is the lack of coercive force and the substitution of individual rational self-interest, compassion, altruism and charity instead. Libertarianism takes as a principle that a free people will see the wisdom in providing for the poor so that there are not starving people on the streets, which is bad for business and peace and order. When they are free to dispose of their wealth as THEY see fit, not as some government bureaucrat sees fit, they are much more likely to participate in local efforts to help the people in their community deal with their needs, in no small part because they will have more of their property to dedicate to caring for others.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fits in very nicely with Libertarian philosophy, and it is your gross misunderstanding of that philosophy that drives your faulty arguments.

Libertarians are not cruel and heartless people, they just don't like to have other people tell them how to dispose of their wealth, particularly when those who try to do so are doing so for their own benefit rather than the benefit of others. Politicians pander to the poor by promising them more largess from the treasury in return for votes, but they don't care where the money comes from or who has to suffer for those votes.

[MrJonno]

Accept living in society without obeying all laws and taxes even those you disagree with it is coercive force.

Want to live in a country and not pay taxes for a national health service, thats coercive force (and theft), want to live in a country and not pay taxes for the arts that a elected government wants to pay for thats coercive force. Want to exist in a country and not obey the law thats coercive force

[Seth]

Accept living in society without obeying all laws and taxes even those you disagree with it is coercive force.

Want to live in a country and not pay taxes for a national health service, thats coercive force (and theft),

How so? If I don't consume those public health resources, it's neither an initiation of force nor fraud. It's minding my own business and being responsible for my own health care costs.

want to live in a country and not pay taxes for the arts that a elected government wants to pay for thats coercive force.

How so? How is not doing something "force" pray tell?

Want to exist in a country and not obey the law thats coercive force

Perhaps, but that would depend on what law it happens to be. If it's an unjust law that constitutes theft or violation of my fundamental, natural human rights the fact that some dweebs voted for it and wrote it down doesn't give it legitimacy. The Supreme Court has said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and people are not obliged to obey it.

[MrJonno]

Perhaps, but that would depend on what law it happens to be. If it's an unjust law that constitutes theft or violation of my fundamental, natural human rights the fact that some dweebs voted for it and wrote it down doesn't give it legitimacy. The Supreme Court has said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and people are not obliged to obey it.

Luckily for 99.9% of humanity that is civilized we don't live by 'natural' laws designed by the other 0.1%

[Beatsong]

Perhaps, but that would depend on what law it happens to be. If it's an unjust law that constitutes theft or violation of my fundamental, natural human rights the fact that some dweebs voted for it and wrote it down doesn't give it legitimacy. The Supreme Court has said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and people are not obliged to obey it.

Interesting you raise your objection to laws based on your spurious invented conception of what is and isn't "natural", and then justify breaking them based on the Supreme Court's decision about what is and isn't "constitutional" - as though these somehow mean the same thing. Like, a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country have got nothing to do with "natural" law and could well be breaking it in the laws they draft. But when A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS sat around DRAFTING THE RULES OF A COUNTRY (the constitution), some golden heavenly glow descended upon them and imbued their words with an eternal "natural" rightness. 'cos of course, it's not like they were just a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country or anything.

Meh, natural schmatural. Been done to death, most recently here. You lost.

But then, I could just be pettifogging.

[amok]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of individuals being able to designate which expenditures their tax dollars pay for.

This year, I'm going to break down my my voluntary and willing tax payment in this way: 25% for the health-care system; 20% for the education system; 10% each for the environment, the social safety net & infrastructure; and 5% each for the policing/justice system & foreign aid & miscellaneous (because I'm sure there's something worthy that will come up which I can't lay my finger on at the moment).

That leaves 10%, which this year I'm going designate for national defence. This is an unusual expenditure for me (most years that would be either in the 5% category or even mixed in with misc.), but for now, like the "war" or not, we have to deal with taking care of our service people who have been in combat zones for yonks now and are coming home. And we also have to face up to the fact that because of the Arctic melt, now is the time we need, more than ever, ice-capable ships to maintain sovereignty of the North. It's not like I particularly trust the current government to do the right thing environmentally, but there are other countries that I trust even less. This is a multi-generational thing, which will likely be played out after I'm dead, but now's the time for the investment. In my opinion, of course.

Anyway, that's how my tax money is going to be spent, this year. People I don't like or respect can pay for the programs & and expenditures that I don't like or respect. Done.

[MrJonno]

All this assumes that you as an individual gets to decide how the country is run or even how ever aspect of your life is. Once you choose to live in a society you simple lose that right. The is no me or I in 'the people'. Democracy isnt just getting to elect the goverment its accepting you might not get a government you agree with but they still have the right to pass laws you don't like as they have been given legitimacy by the the people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Perhaps, but that would depend on what law it happens to be. If it's an unjust law that constitutes theft or violation of my fundamental, natural human rights the fact that some dweebs voted for it and wrote it down doesn't give it legitimacy. The Supreme Court has said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and people are not obliged to obey it.

Interesting you raise your objection to laws based on your spurious invented conception of what is and isn't "natural", and then justify breaking them based on the Supreme Court's decision about what is and isn't "constitutional" - as though these somehow mean the same thing. Like, a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country have got nothing to do with "natural" law and could well be breaking it in the laws they draft. But when A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS sat around DRAFTING THE RULES OF A COUNTRY (the constitution), some golden heavenly glow descended upon them and imbued their words with an eternal "natural" rightness. 'cos of course, it's not like they were just a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country or anything.

Meh, natural schmatural. Been done to death, most recently here. You lost.

But then, I could just be pettifogging.

I think both of you are missing the point.

The point of a constitution is to constitute a government - i.e. build it, make it, structure it, give life, bring it into being. The government is not real. It is a human construct, made up by humans, created from the human mind, and it is an organization of humans that structures power.

Why do we have a government? Generally, even a king is generally needed to defend and the people against external enemies, provide for order, and out of that order to secure the betterment of the people. If a king didn't do those things, he was liable to be replaced by a new king. Having kings and aristocracies led to gross abuses, however, because once the power was obtained, it could be used to solidify the king's position against said replacement. Replacement was difficult, and often bloody.

Under a constitutional system, the purposes for which the government is constituted is set forth explicitly - in the US, the purpose was to provide for the common defense (defense against external enemies), ensure domestic tranquility (order), and provide for the general welfare (the betterment of the people). The idea of the separating the powers vested in the government and providing a system for an orderly passage of power by some form of representative government was designed to try to get the bloody abuse part of my last paragraph out of the system. I.e. - take the needs of the king out of the equation, and make it about the purposes for which societies of people have governments.

The rights of the people - fundamental rights - natural rights - whatever you want to call them, are not mere piffle. They are interests that individuals have that are generally thought at the time of writing of the constitution to be supremely necessary to be within the province of the individual. It is part of the separation of powers idea, which says that SOME things are within the purview of the President/executive branch, some things are within the purview of Congress/legislative branch, some things are within the purview of the Judiciary, some things are federal, some things are state, and some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people.

What things are within the purview of the people? There is no mathematical precise line - no pre-written book to look it up in. One must resort to reason, and that is what Enlightenment thinkers thought we could do. We could reason it out. They concluded some very broad concepts: freedom of thought, meaning that the contents of your own head is sacrosanct, and the government ought not have the right to force you to believe something, or to force you to SAY you believe something, or to force you to NOT SAY what you believe. Freedom of speech is a rational outgrowth of freedom of belief in that respect. So is freedom of and from religion - we aren't to have a state or government prescribe religious belief or prefer religion over non-religion, or one religion over another. Freedom of the press - under the technology of the day "press" was a printing press, and as a rational outgrowth of freedom of speech, to have a healthy republic, we need to have people able to write their communications down and report on events without the interference or censorship of the government. Freedom of assembly - also part of freedom of belief - which says that if a bunch of people want to get together to chat and plot their politics or spread scurrilous ideas, then they have that right, irrespective of what the government things is best. And, the list goes on and on -

We could have a set-up where the cops can just knock on your door and say "routine search for contraband, show me your papers", but we feel that personal privacy necessitates that we be left the fuck alone, unless the government has some reason to think we are up to something. That's a natural right to privacy in one's home, one's person, one's houses, one's papers, and one's effects.

These provide guideposts, but they are not forever. Those who put together the American constitution did not envision it to last forever. Jefferson himself figured there ought to be revolution every generation or so. That's because what was a reasonable then as structure and order of government may not be reasonable later. However, as long as the whole of the people values certain things as fundamental to ordered liberty, then they will want those things protected and to remain an individual right.

However, the tree of that liberty, it was once said, must be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. That means that what is given by the "politicians and lawyers" in a written document are not mere paper scribblings. They are big ideas that must be fought for.

So, it's a more complex thing than just a bunch of douche politicians and lawyers made up a bunch of stuff and called them rights, and there is none of it means anything, as you seem to suggest. And, likewise, it is not that there is some extant stockpile of "natural" rights that are unchanging no matter how humanity changes over time (that's not what natural rights means, at least by any natural rights thinker I've ever read, whether Locke or anyone else.

[Coito ergo sum]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of individuals being able to designate which expenditures their tax dollars pay for.

This year, I'm going to break down my my voluntary and willing tax payment in this way: 25% for the health-care system; 20% for the education system; 10% each for the environment, the social safety net & infrastructure; and 5% each for the policing/justice system & foreign aid & miscellaneous (because I'm sure there's something worthy that will come up which I can't lay my finger on at the moment).

This is where it gets fishy -- when you say "20% for the education system" do you mean 20% of your federal taxes? See, your federal taxes really don't go to the "education system" except indirectly, maybe. In the US, at least, your state and local taxes are what funds education, for the most part. That is, to me, one of the biggest practical problems with the "select where your taxes go" model - they slap a label on something, and then convince everyone that the money goes to what the label implies. Often, it doesn't.

That leaves 10%, which this year I'm going designate for national defence. This is an unusual expenditure for me (most years that would be either in the 5% category or even mixed in with misc.), but for now, like the "war" or not, we have to deal with taking care of our service people who have been in combat zones for yonks now and are coming home. And we also have to face up to the fact that because of the Arctic melt, now is the time we need, more than ever, ice-capable ships to maintain sovereignty of the North. It's not like I particularly trust the current government to do the right thing environmentally, but there are other countries that I trust even less. This is a multi-generational thing, which will likely be played out after I'm dead, but now's the time for the investment. In my opinion, of course.

Anyway, that's how my tax money is going to be spent, this year. People I don't like or respect can pay for the programs & and expenditures that I don't like or respect. Done.

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

[MrJonno]

A consitution that says how a government should run, as in when/if there are elections, how should such a government be formed, how are laws passed, general procedues etc.
makes sense

However once you get into woolly rubbish like 'freedom, libertry' etc you are basically giving power to whoever is in charge of the constitution (give you a clue its not the people its judges). I also totally against constitution that states what a citizens rights are without saying what their responsibilities are (it assumes something for nothing).

Citizens obviously do have responsibilities and they lose their rights if they abuse them but not having in a constitution and people tend to forget that

[Coito ergo sum]

A consitution that says how a government should run, as in when/if there are elections, how should such a government be formed, how are laws passed, general procedues etc.
makes sense

However once you get into woolly rubbish like 'freedom, libertry' etc you are basically giving power to whoever is in charge of the constitution (give you a clue its not the people its judges). I also totally against constitution that states what a citizens rights are without saying what their responsibilities are (it assumes something for nothing).

Citizens obviously do have responsibilities and they lose their rights if they abuse them but not having in a constitution and people tend to forget that

A constitution, in the western European sense, says far more than how a government should run, and more often than not operates as sort of a legal code. The US model is of the short variety, which sets up the basic system.

Freedom and liberty may be "woolly," but it isn't rubbish. They are important human values. Liberty is in part why people ought to be able to think what they want, say what they want, and have consensual sex with who they want to get busy with. Just because there is a great debate over the limits of liberty doesn't make the whole idea "rubbish." Hardly any ideas that are worth anything AREN'T woolly.

As for a constitution setting forth the "responsibilities" of the people - well, hardly any constitutions do much of that, because the job of a constitution is to constitute the government, not the people. The responsibilities of the people are to obey the laws as properly created by the elected representatives. That's our responsibility as citizens. Among those laws are tax laws, which, if lawfully made by the legislature, are the responsibility of each person in the jurisdiction to obey. What else would you have the constitution say about our responsibilities?

A constitution is by its nature a document of limitations. Without one, those in power, whether a king or a group of folks, just make it up as they go along. So, while you may object to a constitution being created before you're born and by people you never met and may not agree with, it still serves as a restraint, not on you, but of the people in power. And, it can also be changed in an orderly fashion. If the greater part of the people want it amended or changed, it can be. We can eliminate the freedom of speech, but it doesn't allow that to be done lightly.

Yes, judge's have power to interpret the constitution, but there are checks against their power. The legislature can overrule courts, generally speaking, by passing laws, and they can overrule the Supreme Court's opinion on the constitution by amending the constitution.

If one advocates majority vote on everything, including what we call fundamental rights, then one needs to be careful what one wishes for. Does one want the legislature to be able to ban contraceptives? Isn't that what George Stefanopoulous just asked the GOP candidates? Can the states outlaw contraceptives completely? If one's answer is "yes" then one agrees with Rick Santorum.

[MrJonno]

If the people of nation want to ban contraception then your problem isnt whether the constitution allows or disallows this but the problem is infact with your people.
I'm all for a proper review of any laws politicans want to change (I actually like the fact that the House of Lords can seriously delay the passing of laws but can't veto them) but in the end of the day if 51% of the population thinks its ok to round up left handed people and stick them in concentration camps that what exactly is the point in having a constitution stop them. It's simply no longer viable for someone who is left handed to stay in such a moronic country (they wouldnt be safe whether it was legal to exterminate them or not).

I'm pretty sure the Weimar constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion was never revoked by the Nazi's

[Coito ergo sum]

If the people of nation want to ban contraception then your problem isnt whether the constitution allows or disallows this but the problem is infact with your people.

That's the point of it all - the people are often governed by vicissitudes, and you will have a situation where they seek to impose things upon the minority or the individual. It doesn't matter where the blame lies. What matters is that people will vote for nasty shit sometimes. There needs to be a check against the tyranny of the majority, just like any other tyranny.

I'm all for a proper review of any laws politicans want to change

How so? What's a proper review? What makes it "proper" if not a constitution or equivalent limitation on what is a proper law?

(I actually like the fact that the House of Lords can seriously delay the passing of laws but can't veto them) but in the end of the day if 51% of the population thinks its ok to round up left handed people and stick them in concentration camps that what exactly is the point in having a constitution stop them.

Because sober minds know that such a law would be wrong.

It's simply no longer viable for someone who is left handed to stay in such a moronic country (they wouldnt be safe whether it was legal to exterminate them or not).

They generally can't go anywhere else, and like the Jews in Nazi Germany, they wouldn't necessarily be given free passage.

I'm pretty sure the Weimar constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion was never revoked by the Nazi's

That's because the government stopped honoring the constitution, and the checks and balances were eliminated when dictatorial power was delegated to essentially one individual.

The point of a constitution is to disburse power. It's power that is the problem. And, a decent allocation of power to different levels of government, and different branches within each government, and between the government and the individual, is necessary to prevent gigantic abuses of power. Nothing can prevent abuse of power conceptually, but disbursing it across a broad spectrum means that the abuses tend to be smaller, crimes tend to identified, and vying/opposing parties have some incentive to keep each other in line. As power is funneled and centralized more and more, that declines.