The Libertarian "State"

[Hermit]

Gotta love the repetitive appeal to the American Constitution as the Eden of Libertarianism, where half of the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners and none of them advocated the right for women to vote.

[Warren Dew]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

Well, in that case, poorly designed regulation rather than too much regulation. A big problem is the sheer amount of financial clout that the big financial sharks can bring to bear. They can afford whole forms of specialised lawyers, and the near-corrupt ways they can influence government by well-heeled lobbyists and direct payments in elections shows that power in western economies can be highly asymmetrical...

And the "too big to fail" thing is usually because governments foresee that the turmoil caused by the death throes of one of the giants will be blamed on the government, rather than the company or the system, so they work desperately to prop them up, at much cost...

Believing that you can get more well designed regulation than poorly designed regulation is like believing in Marxist utopia - it relies on perfect behavior against one's own self interest, which doesn't happen in the real world.

[Gallstones]

The French had a more balanced view.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
(Freedom, equality, and brotherhood)

I disagree that preventing people from excelling and enforcing social conformity is a "more balanced view".

They made freedom important, but not the only thing that was important. Equality and brotherhood (My apologies to the women here. Will you accept that I include you in the sexist term 'brotherhood'?) means caring about others. Freedom does not mean selfishness. Individual freedom does not remove the duty to help others. The French have their version of socialism, so that others are helped.

Socialists don't help through their own efforts. They just redistribute, hurting as many as they help.

In a libertarian "state", you'd see a lot more people actually helping others out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily.

Interesting. It would seem Libertarians are more akin to atheists who do good works because they do them out of a sense of compassion and at least partial altruism. Whereas Socialists are more akin to theists (esp Judao-xtian-islamic types) who do good works out of a dogma sense of obligation and coerced duty.

[Gallstones]

In a libertarian "state", you'd see a lot more people actually helping others out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily.

There would also be those that abuse their position of power gained by economic dominance.

How do you propose to limit that?

Assassination.

[Seth]

I've explored your "ideas" briefly and found them to have little regard for anything other than your personal interpretation of the intents of people you've never met and who died long before you were born, handwaving centuries of Constitutional authority, legislative action, and Supreme Court decisions as mere fallacies of common practice in your quest to insert your onanistic oughts into eminently practicable and organically derived iss.

What is and what ought to be are not inexorably the same thing. The fallacy of appeal to common practice here is not my "personal interpretations" or arguments about what happened in the past, it's YOUR response to the challenges I bring to the conventional wisdom. Rather than try to rationally justify WHY you believe that the "is" is correct or just you commit the fallacy of appeal to common practice by saying "That's the way it is, so that's the way it must and should be." This is just intellectual sloth on your part because evidently you are either too lazy to explain why you believe the status quo is preferable or you simply have no reasoned rebuttal to my objections to the status quo.

[Gallstones]

Contrary to current law, Libertarianism does not permit government to forcibly expropriate property, nor does it limit to "just" the amount of compensation that must be paid. Instead, Libertarianism holds that the public, or the community at large, through it's representatives in government have no better right to take what belongs to the individual against his will than any individual does, and that therefore all transactions between the government and the private individual must flow from voluntary contract.

Does a landowner have a right to property taken without voluntary contract?
Would that mean that all land taken by conquest would need to be returned?

In Libertarian terms I think it would depend morally upon the genesis of the conflict. The "NFNF" (No force, no fraud) principle does not permit Libertarians to initiate force under any circumstances, but it does not prohibit either defensive or retaliatory force when attacked.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an aggressive initiation of force against a neighboring country that fully justified a defensive and retaliatory response that would have justified Kuwait and/or the Coalition seizing control of Iraq and making it a vassal state in compensation for the damages of Saddam's invasion.

The same is true of Egypt's invasion of Israel in 1968. Israel kicked it's enemy's ass and took control of the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai and was therefore fully justified in claiming those lands as compensation for the aggression.

On the other hand, had Saddam prevailed in Kuwait, his claim would be illegitimate because he initiated the force and therefor any and all force used to oppose that occupation is legitimate.

Nothing in Libertarianism is unreservedly pacifist. To the contrary, Libertarians fully support the use of defensive and retaliatory force, they just eschew the initiation of force. That's why Libertarians strongly support the RKBA and laws like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

OK. What about for example, the land taken from Native Americans?
The history indicates that there were not always voluntary contracts in place.

There are no 'Native' Americans. Even the first people were immigrants and squatters. Humans did not evolve in the Americas. They came here from elsewhere. There are 'native' Americans, those people who are born here.

[Gallstones]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

Not really true. Many of the United States were pretty darn close to libertarian states until the early 20th century.

The reason is more that egalitarian democracy encourages people to vote themselves other peoples' money, thus biasing democracies towards socialism.

No, people bled to change the world into something better than effective Libertarianism. We evolved.

Politics, economics and social practices are not "evolution". Changes in politics, economics or social practices are not "evolution" either. You are misusing the term to imply that humas are headed in some direction with regard to civilization or society, and that certain changes are good while others are bad , the good being evidence of evolution happening and that is false.

[Gallstones]

Thank you, Jim. A nice precis.

What Americans sometimes forget is that Britain had a democratically elected parliament long before they got rid of kings. Parliament and royalty coexisted for centuries in a weird juxtaposition, till the Brits turned royalty into tourist attractions, to suck in gullible Americans.

I wonder how many Brits come to the US to visit Disneyworld?

[MrJonno]

Interesting. It would seem Libertarians are more akin to atheists who do good works because they do them out of a sense of compassion and at least partial altruism. Whereas Socialists are more akin to theists (esp Judao-xtian-islamic types) who do good works out of a dogma sense of obligation and coerced duty.

As Richard Dawkins said and I agree with , it doesn't take god to be good but it does take a policeman with a big stick

[rainbow]

The problem is, Seth.
Where do you draw the line between state control and personal freedom?

Libertarians become very vague when details are required.
We all would be happy to "let be" in an ideal world, but we don't have an ideal world.

The line is drawn at the point that the individual initiates force or fraud against others. What you need to understand is that "force or fraud" is a term that's capable of dealing with complex interactions, which is why I continue to suggest that you consider examples and allow me to describe how the principles of Libertarianism address them. That is the best way to get an honest view of Libertarianism in action.

OK. I live in a village where the only sweet water well is on my property. I sell the water for an exhorbitant price. The locals can walk 10km to the nearest river to draw water, which is polluted. They have a clear choice, get sick, or buy my water.

How does a Libertarian State deal with this?

[MrJonno]

OK. I live in a village where the only sweet water well is on my property. I sell the water for an exhorbitant price. The locals can walk 10km to the nearest river to draw water, which is polluted. They have a clear choice, get sick, or buy my water.

It doesnt because personal rights are more important than other people's health

Libertarianism is wrong from first principles not just practice. Property rights are simply not as important as the general well being of the public

[Gallstones]

The problem is, Seth.
Where do you draw the line between state control and personal freedom?

Libertarians become very vague when details are required.
We all would be happy to "let be" in an ideal world, but we don't have an ideal world.

The line is drawn at the point that the individual initiates force or fraud against others. What you need to understand is that "force or fraud" is a term that's capable of dealing with complex interactions, which is why I continue to suggest that you consider examples and allow me to describe how the principles of Libertarianism address them. That is the best way to get an honest view of Libertarianism in action.

OK. I live in a village where the only sweet water well is on my property. I sell the water for an exhorbitant price. The locals can walk 10km to the nearest river to draw water, which is polluted. They have a clear choice, get sick, or buy my water.

How does a Libertarian State deal with this?

This is a poorly thought out example.
If the river is polluted then your ground water will be too.

However.
I expect there are services and goods you require from the townspeople. You aren't completely autonomous. Besides you might get real sick and die unexpectedly, or have an accident and then your well would be free for all.

[piscator]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

Not really true. Many of the United States were pretty darn close to libertarian states until the early 20th century.

The reason is more that egalitarian democracy encourages people to vote themselves other peoples' money, thus biasing democracies towards socialism.

No, people bled to change the world into something better than effective Libertarianism. We evolved.

Politics, economics and social practices are not "evolution". Changes in politics, economics or social practices are not "evolution" either. You are misusing the term to imply that humas are headed in some direction with regard to civilization or society, and that certain changes are good while others are bad , the good being evidence of evolution happening and that is false.

The concept of "Guided Evolution" is ridiculous. And rigidly applying a biological definition to Δx/Δt is silly. Moreover, I used the verb form, not the noun.



"
evolve
  Use Evolve in a sentence
e·volve
[ih-volv] verb, e·volved, e·volv·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object)
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology . to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.
"

[Blind groper]

This is a poorly thought out example.
If the river is polluted then your ground water will be too.

Incorrect.

I have a spring on my property that produces the clearest, and purest water. It is not even a well, since I did not have to dig for it. It just bubbles out of the ground. Yet, less than 1 km away, the ground water is polluted to hell, and is rich in coliform bacteria.

The libertarian philosophy is not correct either, for the simple reason that humanity is a species that has always depended on mutual help. The concept of the liberated individual, self sufficient, is bullshit. We are all dependent on others, and we all extend our help to others. In a modern and humane society, this takes the form of some kind of socialism, in wich we pay taxes, and a part of those taxes is used to help out those who are less fortunate. This is the way it is, and it is also the way it should be.

[piscator]

I've explored your "ideas" briefly and found them to have little regard for anything other than your personal interpretation of the intents of people you've never met and who died long before you were born, handwaving centuries of Constitutional authority, legislative action, and Supreme Court decisions as mere fallacies of common practice in your quest to insert your onanistic oughts into eminently practicable and organically derived iss.

What is and what ought to be are not inexorably the same thing.

True. In fact, it's a grave logical error to go from an is to an ought, and getting the is wrong in the first place only aggravates the flaw.

In the course of making some wild declarations like the US Government is constitutionally barred from possessing any lands, you implied the US Government arbitrarily takes certain (mineral) rights from private landowners. I pointed out you were seriously in error. In fact, you're usually fucked up whenever you open your mouth about US land law, a subject in which I have a particular expertise and hence, a certain authority.

When I produce evidence to support the claim that you are batshit on a certain issue, you further my case when you repeat, 'Neener neener! Fallacy!!' ad nauseum. What's more, this behavior offers continuing strong support to the general proposition that "Seth is a gobby git".

Wind your neck in, get on the page, and quit making a twit of yourself. That is all.