TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Libertarians: Do They Care About Anything Except the Unimpeded Pursuit of Wealth?

Libertarians: Do They Care About Anything Except the Unimpeded Pursuit of Wealth?

If we accept the dictionary.com definition of a "libertarian", in the broadest of senses, as "one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" then there would seem to be a marked dicontinuity between these broad goals of the libertarian philosophy and the goals of many (if not most) nominal libertarians. I'm only basing this on my limited experiences with these so-called "nominal libertarians" on messageboards such as this one and in real life, but it seems to me that - for all this noble talk of commitment to "individual rights" and "minimising the role of the state" - many libertarians don't really seem to be overly outspoken on, or committed to, anything within the libertarian philosophy other than the unimpeded pursuit of personal wealth.

Perhaps it's just my imagination - or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places - but when I read libertarians discussing their commitment to "freedom", "liberty" and "individualism" it almost always seems to be framed in an economic context and usually in a very narrow economic context at that. The hot-topics for such libertarians tend to include the reduction of taxes, the abolishion or minimisation of government funded instututions (included health-care, education, welfare etc.) and precious little else. Here, it seems, that these libertarians have interpreted the concept of "personal freedom" in solely materialistic terms and that any infringement on the "right" of the individual to accrue property and capital must therefore be a direct infringement on his inherent personal freedoms. The problem here, I believe, stems from a (usually willful) misunderstanding of the mechanics of "human freedom", how it may best be preserved and how the right to the individual maximisation of wealth fits into all this.

Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

To quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice:

quote:

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to mike land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism...justice_03.html

In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded.

Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably.

(This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.)

If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa.

Thirdly - and this is my main criticism of the "nominal libertarians" I mentioned earlier - rights to property and the accrual of wealth are important rights, but not the most important ones (much less the only ones). To again quote Thomas Paine, this time from Dissertation on First Principles of Government:

quote:

[T]he principle [of representative civil government] requires that every man, and every kind of right, be represented, of which the right to acquire and to hold property is but one, and that not of the most essential kind. The protection of a man's person is more sacred than the protection of property; and besides this, the faculty of performing any kind of work or services by which he acquires a livelihood, or maintaining his family, is of the nature of property. It is property to him; he has acquired it; and it is as much the object of his protection as exterior property, possessed without that faculty, can be the object of protection in another person. I have always believed that the best security for property, be it much or little, is to remove from every part of the community, as far as can possibly be done, every cause of complaint, and every motive to violence; and this can only be done by an equality of rights. When rights are secure, property is secure in consequence.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism...first_prin.html

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all.

As an example, I point to GOP voting libertarians (such as Shakka, Neo Phono and Imokruok - although not just to these posters, nor only to GOP-voting libertarians) who appear to condone - or at least fail to be vociferous in their opposition to - many of issues that should be central to the libertarian philosophy.

For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against:

• Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.)
  
• Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.)
  
• Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.)
  
• Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies.
  
• Massive, unstainable levels of government spending.

• Low taxes.
  
• A desire to reform social security and reduce "dependancy" on welfare.
  
• [A lack of] gun control.

Re: Libertarians: Do They Care About Anything Except the Unimpeded Pursuit of Wealth?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against: Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.) Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.) Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.) Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies. Massive, unstainable levels of government spending.

Great thread idea.

My aunt & uncle were very active in the founding of the modern Libertarian Party here in IL years ago. Actually they are two of the most knowledgeable people I've ever known in terms of their awareness and interest in items like humans rights abuses & international events.

Despite Fox News' attempts to label them as a liberal organization, the ACLU is more of a libertarian group, which is why they have a variety of liberal & conservative politicians who work with them on free speech issues.

I'd say the problem is that with the U.S. 2 party system, the libertarian perspective gets split between the 2 parties, siding more with Republicans on economic freedom and more with Democrats on social freedom, although technically it is an ideology on the right end of the perspective. The reason the libertarian economic perspective seems more vocal in my opinion is largely (but not completely) due to the GOP's platform, which almost identically echoes the libertarian message on such issues, while the social freedoms are often complicated by religious ideology, national defense and a lack of a concise message from Democrats on such issues. Right now it seems only reforming the Patriot Act has been promoted heavily as an issue of individual personal freedom outside of economics.

quote:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,�"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,�"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

quote:

"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography, Chapter 2

I believe foremost in individual liberty and personal freedom, am an advocate of laissez-faire government, collective altruism and moral responsibility. I greatly oppose corporate excess, institutionalized corruption, and the ever broadening dumbification of society as a whole.

I wish I hadn't drank so many beers this afternoon, because I'm struggling to fully articulate my thoughts in regards to this post. Damn it, this means that I'll have to get back to this tomorrow.

I'm not much of a libertarian, so I don't presume to speak for any of them on this particular issue. That said, I do have some comments to share on this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

Anyone who truly values individual freedom must be willing to give up the power to control everyone around them.

You cannot say, "everyone should be free to live as they like," and then say "but my neighbor shall not be free to steal my lawn chair." If your neighbor should like to live as a thief, then you've crafted a contradiction.

Even if we turn to anarchy and set no law, and leave everyone completely "free," one should make no mistake: power abhors a vacuum. If everyone is free to live as they like, then those who would like to live as tyrants will do so, and then no-one else will be free to live as they like for long.

It seems to me that what most people want when they ask for freedom is not really freedom at all, it is power. But unlike freedom, the struggle for power is a zero-sum game, for power is only valuable insofar as you have more of it than somebody else.

quote:

In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded. Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably. (This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.) If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa.

I've always been a strong advocate of individual freedom (as opposed to individual power), and equally a strong advocate of individual responsibility as i've discussed previously: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=175792

The pursuit of wealth is, in my view, a hollow and ultimately unfulfilling pursuit, and therefore undesirable even to the most egocentric individual, provided that individual can see beyond the wasteland of materialism.

quote:

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all.

I'm not sure that very many government programs of "wealth redistribution" can rightly be classified as "[measures] to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in society." What constitutes a "basic living standard" is an awfully subjective matter. I should hardly think, for instance, that access to the most cutting-edge medical technologies qualifies as such, given that our ancestors lived fulfilling lives for thousands of years without access to these "wonderful" but usually unnecessary innovations. That said, I don't believe that "property rights" are particularly sound objection to these programs, so much as that the programs themselves, regardless of who is paying for them, are inherently wasteful and superfluous.

It's true that many libertarians seem to neglect the many of the issues that should concern them the most, but that's not a characteristic that seems to be exclusive to them. "Liberals" spend far more time in my experience squabbling over racial statistics - when race can't even be objectively said to exist - then they do making meaninful strides to improve public education. And I need not point out that "conservatives" seem content to ignore the massive government spending they're "supposed" to abhor in favor of ridiculous crusades against ephemeral "terrorist" spooks.

I find that the "rabble" (to borrow from Nietzsche) simply regurgitate the issues that the power players spoon feed to them: the materialistic "property rights," all those damn closet racists, and the turban-wearing hatemonger are more red herrings than anything else, crafted specifically to enflame the emotions of the rank-and-file rather than to make any kind of legitimate philosophical or political statement. And that's precisely why they're the ones you hear so much about.

Good post, I�ll try to address it thoroughly but to do so I�m going to have to do it in bits and pieces (I can�t stay up too late tonight). You can feel free to wait until the conclusion of my arguments before you address them.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If we accept the dictionary.com definition of a "libertarian", in the broadest of senses, as "one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" then there would seem to be a marked dicontinuity between these broad goals of the libertarian philosophy and the goals of many (if not most) nominal libertarians. I'm only basing this on my limited experiences with these so-called "nominal libertarians" on messageboards such as this one and in real life, but it seems to me that - for all this noble talk of commitment to "individual rights" and "minimising the role of the state" - many libertarians don't really seem to be overly outspoken on, or committed to, anything within the libertarian philosophy other than the unimpeded pursuit of personal wealth. Perhaps it's just my imagination - or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places - but when I read libertarians discussing their commitment to "freedom", "liberty" and "individualism" it almost always seems to be framed in an economic context and usually in a very narrow economic context at that. The hot-topics for such libertarians tend to include the reduction of taxes, the abolishion or minimisation of government funded instututions (included health-care, education, welfare etc.) and precious little else. Here, it seems, that these libertarians have interpreted the concept of "personal freedom" in solely materialistic terms and that any infringement on the "right" of the individual to accrue property and capital must therefore be a direct infringement on his inherent personal freedoms. The problem here, I believe, stems from a (usually willful) misunderstanding of the mechanics of "human freedom", how it may best be preserved and how the right to the individual maximisation of wealth fits into all this.

Hmmm well it seemed to me that the libertarians on this forum were myself, Neophono, and Trancer-X. I thought the others you mentioned were Republicans, or am I wrong? Anyway from the group of people I outlined, I�m not sure that it can be said that we, or I, wasn�t as committed towards individual freedoms as economic freedoms.

quote:

Firstly, it seems to be a common misunderstanding that freedom can only be cultivated and preserved on an individual level - that is, that a "free" society is one in which individuals have the maximum amount of "freedom" to act as they please. This perspective is ignorant of the fact that it is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them). In this sense, the notion of "individual freedom" as many libertarians envisage it (i.e. freedom from society and one's responsibility to it) is self-defeating, as such economic liberty cannot be preserved on an individual basis, only on a societal one.

I think you�re misconstruing the general libertarian philosophy. Sure you can find offshoots of libertarianism who are almost anarchists, which you seem to depict as the average libertarian, but we�ve been through this argument so many times when conservatives have attacked socialism. Obviously there is a wide spectrum of socialists such that we it would be erroneous to attempt to pigeon hole the socialism philosophy as a whole into one specific all defining argument or generality.

The most basic definition for libertarianism to me is limited government and individual rights. Not no government, not no society, and not even limited society. Libertarianism to me does not restrict, in any way whatsoever, societal interactions and cooperation. As a matter of fact, I�ve never heard a libertarian argue for freedom from society. I thought of libertarians as those who argue that human beings are ends in themselves, that they have rights (either natural, consequential, or existential) and who argue that these rights precede government. Because rights precede government, libertarians argue that there are things that government may not do, not dismiss government altogether. The reason why libertarianism is not simply anarchism is because its philosophy recognizes the need to maximize societal prosperity without the infringement of individual freedoms, and this requires some government role. As a matter of fact, I think that one of the general libertarianism causes for complaint is that the current state of government disrupts and restricts free societal interaction, not that the theory of societal interaction and cooperation itself is the problem. As a matter of fact the absence of societal coherence would undermine libertarianism, not just the movement but the philosophy itself. If in an anarchistic society where one is allowed unlimited individual freedoms, invites the violation of another individual�s freedoms through theft, murder, and crime in general. Thus calling for the abolishment of society or government in general goes against the libertarian movement. Anyway, I can address the rest of your arguments tomorrow.

Oh what the hell, let�s just get it out of the way now. I�ve read your later comments and I don�t think 50% of them are directed towards me or the actual libertarian philosophy anyway .

quote:

To quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice: http://www.cooperativeindividualism...justice_03.html In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "individual property rights" without acknowledging the fact that such rights can only occur within the context of society and the libertarian mantra, therefore, that wealth is accrued individually, solely through hard-work and initiative (and that - therefore - no sense of responsibility is owed to the collective) is completely ill-founded.

I somewhat disagree with that assessment depending upon the definition you have for what kind of responsibility is �owed� to the collective. Do you have a responsibility to repay society what society provided to you to succeed? Of course. If you had the advantages of a good education, good health care, unemployment insurance, etc., that was provided by society that allowed you to succeed or helped you if you had failed, than you have an obligation to provide as equal an opportunity to others. But should you have a responsibility to society beyond that if every member of society has had the same opportunities as yourself except they lacked the individual hard work and initiative that you displayed? Not in my opinion.

quote:

Secondly, to continue from the last point, there seems to be some confusion about the correlation between between the concepts of "freedom" and "responsibility". These concepts don't have an inverse relationship (i.e. reponsibility declines as freedom increases), but rather a direct one (i.e. responsibility increases in direct proportion to the increase of freedom). So, as more personal freedoms are granted, the responsibility placed upon the inidividual to act morally increases commensurably. (This is a difficult existential concept to simply explain, but think of it like this: there is a greater personal onus on the individual with a wide scope of choice to act morally than there is on the individual with a narrow scope of choice. If we are prepared to reject authoritarian moral determinism - that is, institutional moral orthydoxy from the government, churches etc. - and accept, therefore, that we are condemned to choose freely from a virtual infinity of courses of actions, we must also accept that we - solely - are responsible for the actions we commit to. In this sense, if libertarians wish to preach a doctrine of individual freedom, then they must also accept the notion of individual moral responsbility in both a personal and societal context.) If we therefore view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal freedom, then it stands to reason that we we must also view libertarianism as a doctrine of the maximisation of personal responsibility - both to ourselves and to our fellow man. If the egoistic pursuit of wealth ever transcends this sense of responsbility (and I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then it becomes an inauthentic and self-negating political philosophy. Freedom cannot exist where responsiblity does not and vice-versa. [quote] Thirdly - and this is my main criticism of the "nominal libertarians" I mentioned earlier - rights to property and the accrual of wealth are important rights, but not the most important ones (much less the only ones). To again quote Thomas Paine, this time from Dissertation on First Principles of Government: http://www.cooperativeindividualism...first_prin.html

No disagreement there.

quote:

It never ceases to frustrate me when I see the fervor with which these sorts of libertarians defend the right to the "fruits of their labour" (i.e. paying as little tax as possible) or voice their opposition to the concept of "wealth redistribution" (i.e. any measure that attempts to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in a society) on the grounds of their inherent "right to hold and acquire property", only to see them conspicuously absent in discussions on the preservation of other, more fundamental, issues of human rights and civil liberties. Am I suggesting that no libertarians consider broader freedoms and liberties to be as important as those concerning property? Hardly, but - again speaking only from my limited on-line and real-life experiences - it seems as though many nominal libertarians use this broader philosophy of "maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state" to justify their own egoistic pursuits, rather than through any inherent, strongly-held beliefs about the inherent rights of human beings to genuine freedom and liberty. Many fail to realise that it is only through the fervent defense of other, more primary rights, that the right to property can exist at all. As an example, I point to GOP voting libertarians (such as Shakka, Neo Phono and Imokruok - although not just to these posters, nor only to GOP-voting libertarians) who appear to condone - or at least fail to be vociferous in their opposition to - many of issues that should be central to the libertarian philosophy. For instance, where is the outrage - that is, the same outrage always directed against progressive taxation and public welfare - against: Human rights abuses. (Here's a good place to start.) Infringments on civil liberties. (For instance anti-choice doctrines concerning gay marriage, abortion and euthenasia, the imposition of the PATRIOT Act, Orwellian "free-speech zones" etc.) Federalism. (Denying states the right to legislate, independently, on above issues and others.) Unambiguously interventionalist foreign policies. Massive, unstainable levels of government spending. Among other things. In fact, the only things that I see the GOP and libertarians as having in common currently are: Low taxes. A desire to reform social security and reduce "dependancy" on welfare. [A lack of] gun control. Where the government, under the current administration, has grown far larger in far more areas than it ever was under Democratic governments, it seems that the libertarians are prepared to remain quiet so long as no infringements are made on their "property rights" (or, in some cases, "gun rights"). Why is this so? To the GOP-voting libertarians, how can you overlook their gross infringement on so many essential freedoms and liberties (that, in most cases - if you are to believe myself and Thomas Paine - are necessary to preserve these "property rights")? To the non-GOP-voting libertarians (Capitalizt etc.), why do you seem so indifferent in your defense of these liberties? Have I just not been noticing you, or do you genuinely only really care about your "right" to the unimpeded pursuit of wealth? Note that this isn't just an open slight on the libertarian philosophy, but rather an expression of disappointment in the commitment of some libertarians to its essential aims. As someone who considers himself a "classicial liberal" (influenced heavily, in case you couldn't guess, by Thomas Paine) I should be finding myself siding with you on many, if not most issues. As it happens, though, I seem to find myself either disagreeing with you on many issues (mainly economic ones) or left feeling completely abandoned by your complicit silence on most others (human rights, civil liberties etc.) So, come on libertarians, here's an open question to all of you: What do you consider to be most important: the preservation of freedoms and liberties or the size of your wallet? [Apologies for the long post. It was only meant to be a couple of paragraphs when I first started it. ]

Ok now it seems like you�re addressing your arguments to specific group of people as opposed to �libertarians� in general .

why economic issues are so important

Your body and your labor are what you use to earn property. Without property rights, by definition, you are a slave. This is why economic freedom is so important to Libertarians. Without freedom in the economic realm, your other rights and "freedoms" are absolutely meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I somewhat disagree with that assessment depending upon the definition you have for what kind of responsibility is �owed� to the collective. Do you have a responsibility to repay society what society provided to you to succeed? Of course. If you had the advantages of a good education, good health care, unemployment insurance, etc., that was provided by society that allowed you to succeed or helped you if you had failed, than you have an obligation to provide as equal an opportunity to others. But should you have a responsibility to society beyond that if every member of society has had the same opportunities as yourself except they lacked the individual hard work and initiative that you displayed? Not in my opinion.

You'll find the most successful libertarians to also be the most generous philanthropists...
They understand that giving back to the society that has rewarded them for their personal efforts is only right.
Of course there will be the odd tightwad that will paint libertarians as 'greedy' but that has never been in my personal experience.
Those that act greedy I've found look and smell good but really aren't truly wealthy; they've skimped and penny-pinched their way to riches but in doing so have become jaded and paranoid towards those that ask for money from them.

I guess as a self-proclaimed libertarian and perhaps part of the "nominal bunch" talked about, I should throw in my own views on the subject.

I consider myself to perhaps a hybrid libertarian, in that besides the basic functions of the government; defense, coining of money, etc., it has one important role that most libertarians do not believe it should have. That being educator.

I believe for a truly libertarian society to exist, it needs to be well educated. The assumption I have as a libertarian is that others have the ability to make informed, educated decisions for themselves that will not only help the individual but society as well. This also falls into line with my other belief that that government should not be setup to run for society's lowest common denominator.

Getting to the point that renegade is making in that most libertarians are economically oriented, I would agree, but only in that economic discussions tend to dominate most areas in which libertarians tend to comment. I personally believe individual freedoms should extend in all areas, such as legalization of marijuana, etc., but taxes do play a major role in my beliefs as a libertarian. Going back to my original statement, I tend to believe that the educated individual is much more efficient in handling his/her money when it comes to the things the government tries to do for us, such as welfare, retirement savings and other "entitlement" programs. However, the educated individual is also vastly superior in being able to make decisions about other personal freedomes.

I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

Exactly. Good points

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

Agreed, let us survive on our own merit. I would write a long well thought out post....but I need to keep my job so I can pay for everyone else.

If you have the time for several pages of postings, your career must not be that demanding of your time.

Cheers for the responses guys. I've been working a fair bit recently, have had uni work piling up and was sick over most of the weekend so I haven't had the chance to reply for a while, but it's coming as soon as I get the chance...

And we're back.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure that very many government programs of "wealth redistribution" can rightly be classified as "[measures] to preserve even the most basic living standards for all those in society." What constitutes a "basic living standard" is an awfully subjective matter.

I would suggest that the most "basic living standards" are simply those essential to conventional human existence. These would include, primarily, access to food, shelter, clothing and health-care. As I discussed in another topic with you, I believe that these are services that society is obliged (through the proxy of government) to provide to everyone within that society, where feasible.

quote:

I should hardly think, for instance, that access to the most cutting-edge medical technologies qualifies as such, given that our ancestors lived fulfilling lives for thousands of years without access to these "wonderful" but usually unnecessary innovations.

And they were lucky if they lived to half our current average life expectancy.

There are limits, of course, to the level of health-care that can be provided to the citizens of a nation, but the government should always endeavour to maintain the best possible quantity and quality of coverage (even if that includes costly access to cutting-edge medical technology), insofar as it can be afforded.

quote:

That said, I don't believe that "property rights" are particularly sound objection to these programs, so much as that the programs themselves, regardless of who is paying for them, are inherently wasteful and superfluous.

I agree and it's this often wasteful nature of government sponsored programs that makes me an advocate (where it is deemed practical) of privitization in all areas of everyday life, including health-care.

quote:

I find that the "rabble" (to borrow from Nietzsche)

Wow, never would have picked you as a fan of Neitzsche...

quote:

I find that the "rabble" simply regurgitate the issues that the power players spoon feed to them: the materialistic "property rights," all those damn closet racists, and the turban-wearing hatemonger are more red herrings than anything else, crafted specifically to enflame the emotions of the rank-and-file rather than to make any kind of legitimate philosophical or political statement. And that's precisely why they're the ones you hear so much about.

All valid observations, but, in the case of the libertarians I'm talking about, it seems to work the other way. The philosophy is generally sound (although there are many aspects to it that I simply can't stomach - it's rampant emphasis on egoistic individualism for one) and promotes the sorts of concepts I discussed towards the end of my first post. The Libertarian Party, too, seems to genuinely concern itself as much with the preservation of "civil liberties" as it does with "property rights". However, rather than the phenomenon I'm discussing being a case of these "power-players" (i.e. the libertarian philosophers and the LP) "spoon-feeding" the "rabble" with mindless axioms in order to "enflame [their] emotions", it seems to be a case of the "rank-and-file" deciding that they would like to become rich with as few impediments as possible, would like to be able to justify this egoism in a moral context (hey, why do you think Rand is so popular?) and therefore associate themselves with the philosophies and the politics that most closely support this aim. However, since they've only arrived at these philosophical and political conclusions to satisfy their own narrow pursuits, the broader, more universal aspects of these perspectives become lost amidst the cries of "flat tax now!" and "less benefits for the undeserving!"

Those who draw their economic conclusions from a thorough commitment to libertarian ideals will not, generally, have the same lop-sided priorities as those who nominally subscribe to the libertarian philosophy merely in order to justify their own materialistic egoism. Perhaps this is a misguided impression, but - drawing from my own experiences - it seems to be a valid one.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm well it seemed to me that the libertarians on this forum were myself, Neophono, and Trancer-X. I thought the others you mentioned were Republicans, or am I wrong? Anyway from the group of people I outlined, I�m not sure that it can be said that we, or I, wasn�t as committed towards individual freedoms as economic freedoms.

My post wasn't aimed at the libertarians who are as committed to individual freedoms as they are to economic freedoms. I understand that there are many of you out there, but - at times - you seemed to be grossly outnumbered by the Randian ethical egoists. Like I said in my first post:

quote:

This isn't just an open slight on the libertarian philosophy, but rather an expression of disappointment in the commitment of some libertarians to its essential aims.

quote:

The most basic definition for libertarianism to me is limited government and individual rights.

Agreed and this is more or less the definition I've been working from all along (see top of first post).

quote:

Not no government, not no society, and not even limited society.

Duly noted, but I wasn't arguing that the libertarian philosophy discounts the existence of society altogether (how could it?), rather that, with their emphasis on "individual freedom", the role of society in creating and preserving "individual freedoms" and "individual liberties" is often lost. Similarly, while I understand that there is nothing inherent in the libertarian philosophy that states otherwise, I was also giving a gentle prod to those who may misunderstand the correlation between freedom and responsibility, in the sense that freedom within society is not the same as freedom from society.

quote:

Libertarianism to me does not restrict, in any way whatsoever, societal interactions and cooperation.

Again, agreed. In fact voluntary, intersubjective "co-operation" is the alternative provided by many libertarians to, among other things, the welfare problem (through charities, volunteer work etc.).

quote:

As a matter of fact, I�ve never heard a libertarian argue for freedom from society.

But how often have you heard libertarians talk about society at all...?

quote:

I thought of libertarians as those who argue that human beings are ends in themselves, that they have rights (either natural, consequential, or existential) and who argue that these rights precede government.

They may precede "government", but they certainly do not precede society. In fact the concept of "human rights" only has meaning within a societal context - how can human rights exist when there is no-one there to violate them?

As I said before:

quote:

It is only within the context of a "society" - that is, a mass of people living in close geographic proximity with other, sharing a very broad, general ethos - that such freedoms can ever arise (is it possible to be free, for instance, within an anarchic collection of individuals acting, as objectivist libertarians would argue that they would, entirely egoistically? Can such a concept as an inherent right to personal property, for instance, ever exist in such a "society"?). Furthermore, it is only through the method of inter-subjective codification of societal norms that freedoms can ever be preserved (i.e. the concepts of personal property can only ever be preserved where the vast majority of citizens assent to and abide by them).

Or, in other words, what we call "human rights" are not concepts inherent in nature, they are codified ethical constructions created by society, agreed to by society and protected by society. If this is not the origin of "human rights" then what is? Without society there to protect them, what meaning does the term "human rights" actually have? How can individual liberties be preserved where the society itself is not free?

Furthermore, if we view government - in a democratic society - as the people that society has elected to represent itself politically, then the lines between government and society become blurred and the statement that "rights precede government" can be called into question. These rights almost certainly precede our current governments, perhaps the formation of our first governments, but they do not precede the society that created that government in the first place. This again comes back to what I was saying about many libertarians, perhaps, misunderstanding the very real and very necessary correlation between individual freedoms and the society that upholds them.

quote:

Because rights precede government, libertarians argue that there are things that government may not do, not dismiss government altogether.

And if we view government as a societal construct, then the limitations that have been placed on government are just another instance of society protecting members of that society from other members of that society, through "the codification [through law] of societal norms".

Also, I haven't been trying to suggest that libertarians subscribe to anything anarchism, I'm just been using anarchism as an example of what happens if you discount the necessity of society in the preservation of individual freedoms.

quote:

The reason why libertarianism is not simply anarchism is because its philosophy recognizes the need to maximize societal prosperity without the infringement of individual freedoms, and this requires some government role. As a matter of fact, I think that one of the general libertarianism causes for complaint is that the current state of government disrupts and restricts free societal interaction, not that the theory of societal interaction and cooperation itself is the problem. As a matter of fact the absence of societal coherence would undermine libertarianism, not just the movement but the philosophy itself. If in an anarchistic society where one is allowed unlimited individual freedoms, invites the violation of another individual�s freedoms through theft, murder, and crime in general. Thus calling for the abolishment of society or government in general goes against the libertarian movement.

I agree, in this case, both with what you've said about the philosophy and with the philosophy itself.

quote:

I somewhat disagree with that assessment depending upon the definition you have for what kind of responsibility is �owed� to the collective. Do you have a responsibility to repay society what society provided to you to succeed? Of course. If you had the advantages of a good education, good health care, unemployment insurance, etc., that was provided by society that allowed you to succeed or helped you if you had failed, than you have an obligation to provide as equal an opportunity to others. But should you have a responsibility to society beyond that if every member of society has had the same opportunities as yourself except they lacked the individual hard work and initiative that you displayed? Not in my opinion.

But how can the access an individual has had to these "opportunities" be measured? Can you say, "well, sorry, you dropped out of college, therefore you had your opportunity, so you're free to starve for all I care"?

I understand that people should not be given a free ride when they're not even willing to help themselves, but people on welfare can very rarely be classified in such a poor light. I'm not too sure about the system in the US, but here in Australia, receiving "the dole" means that you are obliged to apply for a certain number of jobs within a two week period (and provide proof for this) and often have to perform unpaid community work as well (the "Work for the Dole" scheme). As someone once put it, due to all the criteria that need to be fulfilled, staying on the dole is a full-time job itself. If you wanted to do nothing and still stay alive, there are probably easier ways to acheive this end.

Besides, for every individual exploiting the system, there are at least ten genuinely deserving of its support. Sometimes - regardless of how hard you work - things will go against you for at least a small period of time, and the safety net needs to be there to protect all the people unable to survive on their own means, not just those that we arbitrarily deign to be "deserving" of it. Being responsible to "society" means to be responsible to all of society, even including the lazy, the non-entrepreneurial and - god bless 'em - the hopelessly stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Your body and your labor are what you use to earn property. Without property rights, by definition, you are a slave. This is why economic freedom is so important to Libertarians. Without freedom in the economic realm, your other rights and "freedoms" are absolutely meaningless.

Without "personal freedoms", the concept of "economic freedom" is meaningless. You can't have "economic freedom" without the individual liberties a free society should provide you. This is why I would have thought it in the best interests of libertarians to expend as much energy on the preservation of civil liberties as they do on the concepts of "property rights".

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You'll find the most successful libertarians to also be the most generous philanthropists...

Care to back that up with examples, champ?

quote:

They understand that giving back to the society that has rewarded them for their personal efforts is only right.

Or, at least, they should understand that, which was precisely why I was driven to create this thread in the first place...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I consider myself to perhaps a hybrid libertarian, in that besides the basic functions of the government; defense, coining of money, etc., it has one important role that most libertarians do not believe it should have. That being educator. I believe for a truly libertarian society to exist, it needs to be well educated. The assumption I have as a libertarian is that others have the ability to make informed, educated decisions for themselves that will not only help the individual but society as well. This also falls into line with my other belief that that government should not be setup to run for society's lowest common denominator.

I agree that an informed populace is essential to the preservation of any free democratic society and that "lowest-common-denominator" politics is one of the main political dangers facing our respective societies, but I would argue that the role of "educator" is indeed one of the functions of government, if not the most important.

I fully understand that this isn't the sense you meant the word "educator", but, as I said a couple of nights ago, a strong, government-funded public schooling system is vital in both an economic context (so that we have the power to compete with other economies) and a moral one (so that everyone in our society has access to a similar set of opportunities). The government shouldn't be telling us what to think, I agree, but they sure as hell need to make sure that we know how to think...

quote:

Getting to the point that renegade is making in that most libertarians are economically oriented, I would agree, but only in that economic discussions tend to dominate most areas in which libertarians tend to comment.

But that's what I'm asking - why do libertarians seem to be more drawn to a debate on flat-taxes than they are to debates on infringements of civil liberties?

quote:

I personally believe individual freedoms should extend in all areas, such as legalization of marijuana, etc., but taxes do play a major role in my beliefs as a libertarian. Going back to my original statement, I tend to believe that the educated individual is much more efficient in handling his/her money when it comes to the things the government tries to do for us, such as welfare, retirement savings and other "entitlement" programs. However, the educated individual is also vastly superior in being able to make decisions about other personal freedomes. I guess the bottom line for me is that the educated individual will always be superior in managing freedoms, money and what is best for the individual and society than a large, disorganized, slow, expensive government.

I'd agree with your perspective on say, an individuals right to manage his own fincances (that is, to spend his money in the way he chooses) and to make his own arrangements for retirment funds or health-care if he so chooses, but - at the same time - an individual is poorly equipped to make decisions in the best interests of the society in which he resides. With regards to societal welfare or publically funded health-care, it is unlikely that he will surrender any money, voluntarily, for programs he will get no direct benefit from. If, as the objectivists argue, man acts primarily out of self-interest, a society in which man is left entirely to his own devices cannot function as a society.

I agree that the inefficiencies of government need to be ironed out where possible, but that doesn't eliminate the necessity of having a large, centralised, socially-mandated organisation to manage programs that benefit society as a whole and that individuals, if left to their own devices, would be unable or unwilling to fund / manage themselves. I agree with small government, but I also believe in society's right (via the proxy of government) to dictate that a substantial portion of what an individual makes within society is reinvested back into that society, for society itself (again, via the proxy of elected government) to spend on what it believes, as a whole, to be most important to the maintenence of that society.

In truth, I don't think we disagree substantially on any of this, but I thought it should be said.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I agree that an informed populace is essential to the preservation of any free democratic society and that "lowest-common-denominator" politics is one of the main political dangers facing our respective societies, but I would argue that the role of "educator" is indeed one of the functions of government, if not the most important. I fully understand that this isn't the sense you meant the word "educator", but, as I said a couple of nights ago, a strong, government-funded public schooling system is vital in both an economic context (so that we have the power to compete with other economies) and a moral one (so that everyone in our society has access to a similar set of opportunities). The government shouldn't be telling us what to think, I agree, but they sure as hell need to make sure that we know how to think...

Actually, I am proposing a strong public schooling system by the government. I hestiate to use the words "how" or "what" when describing the manner in which the government should teach us however. Individuals will each have their own way of thinking, but they can have the same encyclopedia of knowledge (I'm using this for lack of a better term), from which to derive their thinking. This level playing field of knowledge is what I believe to be key. You will always have people due to genetics and I hestitate to say even environment, that will be at an advantage to others when it comes to intellegence, and this will always be the case. However, starting everyone off with the ability to reach the same level of knowledge and understanding is what I believe needs to be had. I'm sorry if this sounds a little esoteric, it is a bit difficult to describe succinctly.

quote:

But that's what I'm asking - why do libertarians seem to be more drawn to a debate on flat-taxes than they are to debates on infringements of civil liberties?

Well, it is a very important issue to libertarians, perhaps even the keystone issue for us. It can be said that this issue can be used as a template for the core beliefs of a libertarian. I also think the issue tends to come up a lot more than other issues that libertarians might be inclined to participate in. Look at this board for example. How many posts deal with taxes, personal finances, etc. compared to other topics concerning personal liberties? I think we tend to see libertains comment more on taxes because the issue comes up more often.

quote:

I'd agree with your perspective on say, an individuals right to manage his own fincances (that is, to spend his money in the way he chooses) and to make his own arrangements for retirment funds or health-care if he so chooses, but - at the same time - an individual is poorly equipped to make decisions in the best interests of the society in which he resides. With regards to societal welfare or publically funded health-care, it is unlikely that he will surrender any money, voluntarily, for programs he will get no direct benefit from. If, as the objectivists argue, man acts primarily out of self-interest, a society in which man is left entirely to his own devices cannot function as a society. I agree that the inefficiencies of government need to be ironed out where possible, but that doesn't eliminate the necessity of having a large, centralised, socially-mandated organisation to manage programs that benefit society as a whole and that individuals, if left to their own devices, would be unable or unwilling to fund / manage themselves. I agree with small government, but I also believe in society's right (via the proxy of government) to dictate that a substantial portion of what an individual makes within society is reinvested back into that society, for society itself (again, via the proxy of elected government) to spend on what it believes, as a whole, to be most important to the maintenence of that society. In truth, I don't think we disagree substantially on any of this, but I thought it should be said.

I disagree with the thought that individuals, given complete control will not act to help the society around them. Perhaps the best example of this is the United States prior to FDR. Many people say that the amount of people recieving free health care, unemployment aid and even retirement options was higher than it is today, even with all of our entitlement programs, due to charities and private organizations. Call me idealistic, but even if people aren't forced to shell out money for others, they will for three reasons.

First, it makes them feel better about themselves. It is the same reason people volunteer or give to charities today. They feel obligated to help those around them, especially in their local community. Secondly, no one wants to live in a society where they are aware that the people around them are suffering or literally dying due to the lack of basic resources. This relates back to my first reason for charity, but it also has to deal with the crime involved with the tragically poor as well as the eyesore and hindrance of living in such an environment. Lastly, is just makes sense to an "educated" individual. In order for a society to progress, it must be known that some individuals are either born unable to care for themselves or will hit hard times, and will need assistance from other members of the society. Without that help the entire society suffers due to the side effects of the individual that is unable to care for themselves.

I also disagree that we need a "large centralized government" to take care of socialized programs. In fact I would argue that our current model is the exact opposite of what it should be. The local government should be the one recieving the majority of the power, followed by state and lastly by the federal government, which may have some basic regulatory authority, but should be drastically limited from what it is today down to what the constitution originally called for.

A large central government by nature is unable to meet the needs of people on a local level in a swift and efficient manner. Only a government that deals on the local level can. Allow the smaller "governments" that live their lives with the problems their constituents face make the policies, unlike the blanket policies that the federal government passes that many times do not solve the issues that people would like to have solved. The needs of social programs also vary from region to region and should be addressed as such. There is no "one America" in a country of 300,000,000 people and one central government trying to treat it as such is unrealistic and inappropriate.

Okay, there's some more to chew on.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.