|
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.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Renegade on May-11-2005 at 16:51
|
