Bringing in libertarianism

Thats exactly what i thought. Thanks for clarifying.

Accept, lib-socs are different from anar-synds because they believe in a state.

Hmmmm....state, i don't know sounds like tyrrany

 

.

Uh...the jury in my brain is still out. If I could have my way we'd all be back living as hunter gatherers in communities that value social responsibility as opposed to the gaining of wealth...but that will never happen again.

Uh....well...a lot of anarchist beliefs are inspired by old tribal models. And often, but not always, property was regulated by tribal battles. It worked very effectively. But i don't like the idea...I don't wan't to have my head chopped off and taken to the village witch doctor to be shrunken.

Anyway...back to the real world...I have to read more about anarcho-syndicalism I guess.

Personally, I think there are various models that need to be experimented with. Ie. in large communes or communities. After all anarchism is about the natural ability of a population to organise itself according to what suits everyone best.

 

And hot chicks

 

I like my chicken medium...oh wait thooooooooose chicks!

 

I think we are in agreement the difficulty seems to be in the term.

The thing is that most of the libertarian groups on the net and the individual libertarians I’ve met here seem mainly to be of the right wing variety.

Those with more left wing libertarian viewpoint seem to prefer to call themselves anarchists.

 

yes, but anarchists dont even believe in a minimal state...

 

You are right. Many libertarians subscribe to that position...a position that borders on anarchism. Personally I subsribe to constitutional libertarianism, and believe the federal government should have all rights afforded to it in the consitution. The rights that are not afforded to the federal government I believe should be afforded to the state and local governments...as the 10th Amendment says. The idea that almost everything, such as road construction, should be left to private entitites is a radical branch that sucessfully alienates many people from the party.

I may have missed a couple of your concerns...just bring them up again and I will try and reply.

 

^^^^

Thanks lad. Fine job

You are an inspiriration to libertarianism.

As for those Anarcho-capitalists...aaaargh (shakes fist)

 

You think my secret organisation isn't 10 steps ahead of you?

 

You ever seen Cooloner drink anything but Vodka? I sure havent. :sunglasse

 

He drinks moose urine once in a while. Those canadians...

 

Well Pumpkin Eater I first have to say thank you, it seems you are alone among the believers in a libertarian type system in that you seem whiling to defend your views having both the courage and the courtesy to answer our questions.

So again thank you.

**

Now on to the debate.

It seems to me that there is a rather large fault in your reasoning.

You seem to claim that it is fundamental to your ideas that money is not ‘stolen’ from the individual to fun community projects, because such things always have an element of wealth distribution in them.

But you seem to say that you believe that a community fund should be raised to pay for such things as education and road construction.

Yet the taxes that would need to be paid to make such a fund possible would in your terms be immoral and go against you fundamental beliefs.

There seems to be a contradiction that is unresolved.

**

You say that you are in favour of the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, tolerance toward homosexuality and you think abortion should be left to the states - although you personally are pro-choice.

(Is there any rational reason why people should not tolerate homosexuals)

I’m also in favour of the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, in fact I’ve helped out at the Legalise Cannabis Campaign festival a few times and one of the organisers is a friend of mine. But it should always be remembered that such things as the legalisation of drugs and prostitution come with a price tag.

At what age do you allow drug taking and the selling of ones body for sex?

21, 18, 16, lower? (In the UK we recently had a case of a 11 year old girl who collapsed at school after smoking heroin, and child prostitution was common in Victorian Britain, before it was clamped down on)

Are there to be regulations? If there are to be regulations who makes sure they are kept?

What is to be done for children born addicted to heroin or crack?

Who sells the drugs? Are licences involved if so who does the licensing and how is quality tested? Are people to be educated about how to take drugs safely? Are people to be given help if they wish to give up? Are needles to be given to people to stop the spread of diseases?

Who checks if someone is a willing prostitute or not? Are diseased prostitutes allowed to carry on infecting people? Are there to be licences?

As to abortions who pays for them?

**

I agree that a person’s economic position can be changed through education. But what is the best system and when should education start?

But remember uneducated adults are more likely to produce uneducated children.

People that have more resources and a better education are able to use those resources to give their children a head start even before they reach public school age. Such people are more likely to be able to buy their children educational toys and books. While many parents are likely to understand the need for such a head start and be concerned to give it to their children the more wealthy and well educated ones are more likely to have the resources to actually give it. For example a child that has ready access to a good computer and the latest software is more likely to develop better computing skills than someone that has to use inferior public facilities, (if they are available).

Also for working parents wealth can dictate the type of childcare a child receives, poorer people often use equally uneducated relatives, while richer people can afford crèches that involve them in educational play (mine actually teaches French to its pre-school kids)

You say that people have to make smart decisions and you give the example of someone having a child at 17, but what about the decisions that you have no control over? For example what about the child of that 17 year old, does the innocent child have to suffer for the mistakes of it’s parents?

So you can see a lot of the battle can be lost before the child even gets to public school age.

But let us say they do and they do well, and so we come to the scholarship system over the community fund system.

One of the largest donors of scholarships to the poor in the US is the military. Now first off this is just a form of publicly funded education. The second it comes at the price of having to wait to get into the private job market until after do your military time.

Also are there enough scholarships for every student that might want to go to university? Imagine that you had a very good education system and every student that finished school had the appropriated qualifications that they could go to university and wanted to go to university?

As far as I know (non-military) scholarships are fought for by many students and only given to the best, which means some must not get scholarships?

So if someone is of one socio-economic class they have to compete for a scholarship or get in hock to the military while those from richer socio-economic groups can just pay to get into a good university even if their grades are not that hot?

So it is possible that good students don’t go to university while bad ones can?

That seems silly.

**

 

Your very welcome. Let me try to clear up my views and answer your questions. This might take a couple posts. First off let me clarify that I am an idealogical libertarian. I believe its the way things should be. I don't believe its possible for our government to transition straight into that line of thinking.

I would say that all things such as this have an element of wealth distribution in them. What I meant by wealth distribution is taxes taken from an individual and given to another individual (not the community) in the form of some monetary gain. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Most community projects would not follow in this line of thinking.

I do not however believe that community projects such as damns and road construction should be supported be the federal governement through direct payments or grants. The same applies to education, and I personally believe the federal government should have no control over an issue left the states via the 10th amendment.

I don't like income tax, at either the state or federal level. I accept it, as it is constitutional but I don't like it. Personally I believe another alternative such as a national sales tax..a flat tax of something other than income, and dramatic decrease in federal spending would be necessary to fund federal projects without the use of an income tax. To go back to what I said earlier, the elimination of the income tax would be ideal, but you and I both know this wont happen, so there is no use with me dwelling on it.

My major concern, as I have expressed, is direct income distribution by the federal government, not in the form of community projects, homeless shelters, etc...but in the form of monetary gain in a way that I personally see as immoral. I have attacked welfare, medicare, and social security which are primarily supported by the democratic party. However my view in income distribution also applies to farm subsidies and business bailouts...both of which are often supported by Republicans.

Even though I am not a fan of government regulation, I recognize the need for regulation of the above things. However, I want that regulation to happen at the state and local levels, not the federal one. I consider pressure by the federal government to conform to its standards (often through the threat of withdrawl of grants and money) to be a form of regulation.

Society draws the line at 18 for entrance into legal adulthood. I think this is fair line, unlike most drinking laws in the states. I think it is also fair to say that 18 is a good line to regulate things like drug laws, prostitution, etc. I would support he legalization of marajuana at a lower age..such as 16. I think there would be a very large price tag, and I also think there would be a drop in crime. Lets face it, a large percentage of robberies, organized crime, and thefts are a result of the drug trade in one form or another. Legalization of drugs drops the incredible inflation rate...causing less need for crime.

I believe in regulation of drugs during pregnancy, operation of a motor vehicle, and other things. I believe the state governments should be responsible for enforcement of these regulations. I am not familiar with the English Parlimentary system, so Im not sure if you can analogize my compairisons of state and federal governments. I believe that education should be a responsiblility of the state, but not the idea of giving out free needles...as it would be cantamount to taking my taxes and giving it to an individual for thier own personal use. I would hope private organizations would so things such as these.

I think that people who use prostitutes, should also be responsible for the risk. I don't believe that a license should be necessary for prostitution, but I do think it should be available for those that chose to stay tested and healthy, at the prostitutes own cost. This allows personal choice to come in to play, as someone has the option of knowing weather or not a woman is cleans.

I probably skipped a couple of the questions in the first half of your post, but I hope this gives you a general answer. I'll get to the second half at a later time.

 

Hi PE

Again I have this problem of knowing from where you are arguing.

Are you arguing from a theoretical or realistic standpoint?

Are you saying that theoretically libertarian ideology would work but only within a perfect theoretical model whose perimeters are dictated by yourself. A utopian ideal that the presenter knows (or suspects) would not work in the real world.

Or are you arguing that libertarian ideology could work within the real world and could be brought in by increments or by revolution.

I’m confused because your comments seem to have hinted at both.

**

Your reply to my comments about the seeming contradiction between your fundamental idea about taxes being stolen from you by the state to be distributed to others and your seeming support for community projects paid for by taxes that are then distributed, seems to remain.

You say that you think all such schemes are distributive in nature, but that to you some are acceptable and others not is this part of libertarianism or a personal viewpoint?

The rule that you seem to wish to apply is that taxes should not be taken from one individual and given to another individual. But being a communal pot how is that determined even with the things that you agree to pay for? Virtually all communal pots are going to assist some people over others so your criteria as to what is acceptable and what not doesn’t seem to stand.

**

You seem to say you would get rid of all welfare, social security and medicare? What would you have in their place? As I’ve said in no period of history has charity been able to give the cover of a modern welfare system, so innocent people would suffer. At the same time the removal of welfare and healthcare has a much greater impact on the poorer in society rather than the richer, increasing inequality and reducing peoples choices and opportunities which libertarians claim they wish to increase.

**

You want to regulate the age that people can do drugs and become a prostitute plus you would like the regulation of drug taking during pregnancy, operation of a motor vehicle, and “other things”.

But how would you do this and who would do it?

Also isn’t it another fundamental principle of libertarianism that people can do what they want? They take the responsibility for their actions?

As a critic of libertarianism I’ve argued against this idea, because it can hurt the innocent and is likely to cause more harm that good. But here you are seeming to reject yet another fundamental of libertarianism by imposing restrictions on the rights of the individual by the state. For example to even find out if someone was pregnant while taking drugs all women drug takers would have to undertake mandatory pregnancy tests? What if they refused to stop taking their heroin while pregnant?

**

You say that people who use prostitutes should be responsible for the risk of getting diseases. But again what about the innocent? If someone is irresponsible but then passes on a decease to someone else that is innocent (such as a partner), does the innocent have to pay for that persons irresponsibility and the failings of the system?

What about the prostitute they probably didn’t want to get infected either? Also if someone’s sole means of income is from prostitution then they are unlikely to stop even knowing they have a disease and that is very much increased if there is no regulation in place or welfare, social security or medicare as a back up.

The same with needles, there is an increased risk of infections spreading to the innocent through shared needle use.

The thing is that diseases don’t recognise the responsible from the irresponsible, the guilty from the innocent or the rich from the poor nor do they respect the boundary between the individual and the community.

**

I’m unsure why you keep coming back to the State over the Federal system I would have thought that the libertarian ideology would be the same under one as it would under the other? Or are you saying that if Federal authority was diminished and State power in the ascendant somehow libertarian principles would just apply?

You still don’t seem to be addressing the problem of how a system that favours the rich over the poor is meant to bring a better life to all people? As I’ve said it would seem more likely to lead to an exploitative plutocracy.

As I see it a problem with the libertarian outlook is that there is too much emphasis on the individual without realising that nearly all individuals have connections with other individuals within a community. Also it has to be remembered that not all things that happen to an individual are under the complete control of that individual, only someone that can accurately predict the outcome of every action would be able to always make the correct decisions.

 

*whispers* hey pumpkin, shhh, I don't think balbus likes libertarianism

 

Sushhhhh Lying in a field, I thought he wouldn’t notice????

But seriously. The problem I have with libertarianism is that it just doesn’t seem to stand up to even the mildest of examinations.

It is seems grossly unfair
It seems incapable of achieving its claims
And those that say they believe in it seem incapable of defending it (that is so far, PE may be different)

This is a personal viewpoint but it is one based on study and many conversations and debates with libertarians.

 

^^ As someone said in another thread. "The problems with libertarians is that they're completely out of touch with reality". I'm inclined to half agree with that.

 

I havent left. just havent had that much time to respond. should have some free time this weekend, maybe at work.

 

It's interesting that you've brought this up! There are some schools here in the States which cater to disadvantaged youth. They are operated by churches or private charities. The students pay no tuition, but the schools survive on grants and donations.


**

One problem with libertarians is that many of them tend to be a bit reclusive and are notorius for debating about inane matters. I'll admit that while I try to avoid getting into these sort of debating circles, I'm not as well read as I would like to be, but when I know that I don't have the answer on a given matter, I'll try to find the answer, even if it may take me a while. While many Libertarians claim to support the constitution, both explicitly and implicitly, many do not understand it as well as they should. FTR, I do not agree with a flat tax or a national sales tax as I feel that both will do more harm than good.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/