You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 08:39:58 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Libertarian and not ashamed  (Read 9431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Libertarian and not ashamed
« on: April 03, 2011, 10:59:04 PM »
After looking through what appear to be some rather liberal leaning posts here in this forum, I'm wondering if there are any other libertarians out there in Elliquiy. Shout out if you're there.

Offline consortium11

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2011, 11:16:29 PM »
I'm not quite a Libertarian (I believe that the state does have a bigger role to play than a classical libertarian would assign it) but I'm very much on that side of a spectrum. In my perfect utopia I'm actually an anarcho-capitalist but I'm pragmatic enough to realise that's a complete pipe dream.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2011, 11:26:09 PM »
Depends on social issues I'm very pro libertarian but this includes being opposed to abortion on most grounds since I feel the unborn has also the same right to live as the mother barring a life at physical risk consideration for the life that is here. I'm for gay marriage, adoption by gays, gays in military service, legalizing drugs under careful laws, legalizing sex work within some basic guidelines, a free and open internet and other things. I also think parents should be the ones to educate their children and should have far more say than the government does with the rights of the parents to choose some educational things based on their own morals.

On other things not like I enjoy the idea of a socialized health care system, a safety net so everyone who is here legally is taken care of minimally as needed, taxes high enough to pay for things and government having a down to top approach and the like.

So I'm sort of mixed.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2011, 11:31:55 PM »
I'm not quite a Libertarian (I believe that the state does have a bigger role to play than a classical libertarian would assign it) but I'm very much on that side of a spectrum. In my perfect utopia I'm actually an anarcho-capitalist but I'm pragmatic enough to realise that's a complete pipe dream.
I dunno. Pragmatism got us to a huge debt, politicians who think "wartime" means censorship is okay, a counter-productive "war on drugs", and a series of needlessly over-sized economic recessions. Pushing for more liberty got us the end of slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, women's vote, the end of Jim Crow laws, the end of the draft, and recognition of the Second Amendment as protection of an individual right. I'm not sure pragmatism is all it's cracked up to be.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2011, 11:38:02 PM »
Depends on social issues I'm very pro libertarian but this includes being opposed to abortion on most grounds since I feel the unborn has also the same right to live as the mother barring a life at physical risk consideration for the life that is here. I'm for gay marriage, adoption by gays, gays in military service, legalizing drugs under careful laws, legalizing sex work within some basic guidelines, a free and open internet and other things. I also think parents should be the ones to educate their children and should have far more say than the government does with the rights of the parents to choose some educational things based on their own morals.

On other things not like I enjoy the idea of a socialized health care system, a safety net so everyone who is here legally is taken care of minimally as needed, taxes high enough to pay for things and government having a down to top approach and the like.
That last part doesn't sound libertarian at all, actually. Not that I'm a purist. Far from it. But what you described in that second part seems exactly contrary to libertarian thought. So I'm curious why you say you're "mixed" rather than, say, "liberal". No judgement either way. I'm just wondering.

Offline consortium11

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2011, 11:45:43 PM »
"Pragmatism" also led to anti-discrimination laws, anti-fraud laws, anti misleading advertising/labelling of products, a fire service that you don't have to individually specifically pay for, a certain level of employment law, effective health care systems (and I personally support the Swiss and Singapore setups), mechanisms to control/monitor immigration, the whole "fire in a crowded theatre" limitations on free speech and countless other reforms.

It's worth noting that most of the thinkers held up as true "Libertarians" aren't; at least in how I define Libertarianism which is basically a very strict reading of Mill's harm principle.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2011, 12:58:40 AM »
There is at least one libertarian socialist here, do they count? >_>

There are a lot of libertarians here, of various tropes.

I'm a pro-nuclear, anti-gun control progressive, myself. Though I do think that having one overarching supergovernment is a problem and that it should be split up somehow (divide it into three or four superstates, each with their own tax revenues and expenditures, though individual laws of certain types and tax revenues could be set nationally).

I dunno. Pragmatism got us to a huge debt, politicians who think "wartime" means censorship is okay, a counter-productive "war on drugs", and a series of needlessly over-sized economic recessions. Pushing for more liberty got us the end of slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, women's vote, the end of Jim Crow laws, the end of the draft, and recognition of the Second Amendment as protection of an individual right. I'm not sure pragmatism is all it's cracked up to be.

...what sort of definition of pragmatism are you working with?

Your statement simply does not follow. The War on Drugs is partly pushed by the support of the prison labor industry - it's slavery by another name. And subsidized slavery, at that. We pay to put people in jail so they can earn nothing while they provide labor for some private company. It's how America remains 'competitive' in some areas while respecting free trade. Censorship is a strictly authoritarian bent. It concerns itself with hiding facts - when it is actually facts. Not many people complain that we delete spam from the forums here >_>

The current liquidity crisis is caused by, if anything, an amazing lack of pragmatism - people have too much debt, people do not have money to spend, so people are not spending the money they don't have. And yet the people in power think that our problems are supply-sided. Give more money to the rich in the hopes that they will hire, rather than enabling the poor so that they can give reasons for the rich to hire.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2011, 08:52:07 AM »
That last part doesn't sound libertarian at all, actually. Not that I'm a purist. Far from it. But what you described in that second part seems exactly contrary to libertarian thought. So I'm curious why you say you're "mixed" rather than, say, "liberal". No judgement either way. I'm just wondering.

Because most liberals ,hating the label, have a habit of sticking their noses into matters that should be private. A good example and being disabled I can point this out the American With Disabilities Act on one hand I get it we want to help the disabled but they went to far crossing into the private sphere with its application it rightly should have affect and and all public domains and the government including granting of contracts. They had no right penalizing a private business for no complying that should have been left to tax incentives, consumer pressure and use the government to lead people to do what they wanted. I feel the same about many other laws.

There are cases though the government must act take health care everyone uses it, its clearly to me interstate and international in scope and fundamentally not something that should be able to grossly profit from the sick so I favor a good government run system and if not the government oversight with laws to get it done. I would prefer again local to county to state to Federal government doing this for the people in that order of priority but it is a duty of the government to me. Another area is trade I like the idea of a tariff system based on the treatment of other nations we import from to their workers to create a hopefully global package of benefits and fair pay over time. If you make Widgets in China they should have workers treated fairly with a living wage that is humane say $20 a day for an eight hour shift 40 hours a week, health care, a retirement plan of some sort that if adequete, environmental and worker protection, worker rights in other areas and such OR face a comparative quality of life tariff by the importing nations. And this should be a UN standard as in global enforceable on all nations.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2011, 11:47:08 AM »
"Pragmatism" also led to anti-discrimination laws, anti-fraud laws, anti misleading advertising/labelling of products, a fire service that you don't have to individually specifically pay for, a certain level of employment law, effective health care systems (and I personally support the Swiss and Singapore setups), mechanisms to control/monitor immigration, the whole "fire in a crowded theatre" limitations on free speech and countless other reforms.
Did it? I suppose that depends on how you define pragmatism.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2011, 12:09:20 PM »
...what sort of definition of pragmatism are you working with?
The one which goes along with the notion that libertarian ideas sound good but we can't use them because they aren't pragmatic. To be honest, as best I can determine, the libertarian ideas are the ones that are actually pragmatic because they allow individuals to find their own solutions rather than trying to force on them solutions from other folks who don't know the individuals or their situations or their preferences.

The War on Drugs is partly pushed by the support of the prison labor industry - it's slavery by another name. And subsidized slavery, at that. We pay to put people in jail so they can earn nothing while they provide labor for some private company.
Which private company makes extensive use of prisoners?

As best I can tell, the war on drugs is perpetuated by folks who believe it is pragmatic to try to control what people put in their own bodies.

It's how America remains 'competitive' in some areas while respecting free trade.
That implies we have free trade. We really do not.

Censorship is a strictly authoritarian bent. It concerns itself with hiding facts - when it is actually facts. Not many people complain that we delete spam from the forums here >_>
I won't complain about that either. But politicians who want to suggest that because we're at war (and yet without a declaration of war) the government should punish certain speech, that I will complain about.

The current liquidity crisis is caused by, if anything, an amazing lack of pragmatism - people have too much debt, people do not have money to spend, so people are not spending the money they don't have. And yet the people in power think that our problems are supply-sided. Give more money to the rich in the hopes that they will hire, rather than enabling the poor so that they can give reasons for the rich to hire.
Actually, we don't need politicians to do either one. What we need is for government to mostly (I said mostly, not entirely) get out of the way. Stop bailing out the wealthy, and stop standing in the way of the lower economic classes. But perhaps that is what you meant by enabling the poor.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2011, 12:29:29 PM »
There are cases though the government must act take health care everyone uses it, its clearly to me interstate and international in scope and fundamentally not something that should be able to grossly profit from the sick so I favor a good government run system and if not the government oversight with laws to get it done.
If I thought that would work, I might agree with you. But as best I can determine, it doesn't. Not to mention the fact that it opens the door to letting government tell you what you should eat, how much exercise you should be required to do, all sort of things to control health care costs for everyone. And please don't tell me it wouldn't happen. A government which mandates that everyone must buy health insurance and which promotes a "war on drugs" in the name of protecting people will most certainly end up doing those things if it gets control of the health care industry. I think it's a bad idea all around.

I would prefer again local to county to state to Federal government doing this for the people in that order of priority but it is a duty of the government to me. Another area is trade I like the idea of a tariff system based on the treatment of other nations we import from to their workers to create a hopefully global package of benefits and fair pay over time. If you make Widgets in China they should have workers treated fairly with a living wage that is humane say $20 a day for an eight hour shift 40 hours a week, health care, a retirement plan of some sort that if adequete, environmental and worker protection, worker rights in other areas and such OR face a comparative quality of life tariff by the importing nations. And this should be a UN standard as in global enforceable on all nations.
That sounds nice, but I doubt the ability of a top down plan to actually make that happen. And why should the UN be meddling in what sort of work contract is made between an individual and a business? Don't get me wrong. If you want to campaign against products from China and promote a boycott of Chinese products because of working conditions in China, I might support you in that effort. But tariffs and UN regulations seems like just more government people deciding they know what is best for everyone else. And that is not a plan for equality, imo.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2011, 01:08:44 PM »
Did it? I suppose that depends on how you define pragmatism.

Per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of PRAGMATISM
1: a practical approach to problems and affairs <tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism>
2: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

Also:

Definition of PRAGMATIC
1:archaic a (1) : busy (2) : officious b : opinionated
2: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with … social morality — K. B. Clark>
3: relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism(see pragmatism)

Offline Vekseid

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2011, 01:35:32 PM »
The one which goes along with the notion that libertarian ideas sound good but we can't use them because they aren't pragmatic. To be honest, as best I can determine, the libertarian ideas are the ones that are actually pragmatic because they allow individuals to find their own solutions rather than trying to force on them solutions from other folks who don't know the individuals or their situations or their preferences.

Usually when people consider a libertarian position to be 'not serious', it involves the libertarian claiming that tolerating an externality should be done first and action should only be taken if that externality causes a provably bad effect. And if it does, the persons who died could then sue.

In the spirit of 'a stitch in time saves nine', market based solutions require an informed consumer base, active measures preventing fraud, and catching and correcting externalities. When libertarianism was first introduced to me, this was accounted for by making it very clear that fraud could not be tolerated. Most modern libertarians ignore that principle entirely or choose to impose consequences after the fact.

Ignoring fraud and externalities - or penalizing them after the fact - is not a serious solution. You can't sue after you're dead.

And market based solutions only really apply to traditional goods. Insurance, software (and other digital goods where cost of entry is being driven to zero), resource shortages, etc.

Quote
Which private company makes extensive use of prisoners?

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3440.shtml

Quote
Other companies which utilize prison labor, according to The Mandala Project’s 2001 web posting, “U.S. Prison Labor at Home and Abroad,” include: MicroJet, Nike, Lockhart Technologies, Inc., TWA, Dell Computers, Microsoft, Eddie Bauer, Planet Hollywood, Wilson Sporting Goods, J.C. Penney, Victoria’s Secret, Best Western Hotels, Honda, K-Mart, Target, McDonald’s, Burger King, “Prison Blues” jeans line, New York, New York Hotel/Casino, Imperial Palace Hotel/Casino, “No Fear” Clothing Line, C.M.T. Blues, Konica, Allstate, Merrill Lynch, Shearson Lehman, Louisiana Pacific, Parke-Davis and Upjohn.

If you're wondering what the tech companies are doing there, it's call centers: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/02/62430

For violent offenders, I don't have much sympathy. For drug based offenses, though, it's ridiculous.

Quote
As best I can tell, the war on drugs is perpetuated by folks who believe it is pragmatic to try to control what people put in their own bodies.

You make a word apply to everything, you rob the word of its meaning.

There was also a racial targeting component to it. See, for example, Harry Anslinger.

Quote
That implies we have free trade. We really do not.

Well, globalization.

Quote
I won't complain about that either. But politicians who want to suggest that because we're at war (and yet without a declaration of war) the government should punish certain speech, that I will complain about.

There are things that I would say don't deserve protection under free speech. The locations of people - including troops - would be one of these.

It's just a very limited caveat to what you're saying, though, and it's easy to construct well-defined limits for it.

Quote
Actually, we don't need politicians to do either one. What we need is for government to mostly (I said mostly, not entirely) get out of the way. Stop bailing out the wealthy, and stop standing in the way of the lower economic classes. But perhaps that is what you meant by enabling the poor.

In a liquidity trap, you need a government to get involved with something like small business grants or a works progress administration - a private solution entails the private entity either becoming the government or being absorbed by it. The problem is people aren't being paid enough to have a significant disposable income - disposable income has been collapsing since the Reagan era. Without that, recovery will be anemic, and partially jobless. This is actually intentional on the part of policy makers - to quote Alan Greenspan, "there's a wonderful thing about debt. It's solved the labor problem."

Lack of disposable income has been linked to political instability, however. Eventually this will get fixed because people won't stand for it.


Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2011, 02:40:42 PM »
Usually when people consider a libertarian position to be 'not serious', it involves the libertarian claiming that tolerating an externality should be done first and action should only be taken if that externality causes a provably bad effect. And if it does, the persons who died could then sue.

In the spirit of 'a stitch in time saves nine', market based solutions require an informed consumer base, active measures preventing fraud, and catching and correcting externalities. When libertarianism was first introduced to me, this was accounted for by making it very clear that fraud could not be tolerated. Most modern libertarians ignore that principle entirely or choose to impose consequences after the fact.

Ignoring fraud and externalities - or penalizing them after the fact - is not a serious solution. You can't sue after you're dead.
Most modern libertarians... which is who? I'm not aware of libertarians generally preaching that fraud can be ignored. Unless they are hardcore anarcho-capitalists, most libertarians, so far as I know, would agree that laws against fraud are important.

And market based solutions only really apply to traditional goods. Insurance, software (and other digital goods where cost of entry is being driven to zero), resource shortages, etc.
Based on what?

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3440.shtml
I am highly skeptical of the source, but even if I accept it, I am not convinced that it means the war on drugs is perpetuated to provide cheap labor. I would need to see something more directly indicating cause and effect.

You make a word apply to everything, you rob the word of its meaning.
I agree. I'm not trying to make the word pragmatic apply to everything. I'm trying to point out when, in my opinion at least, the so-called pragmatic solution has turned out to not be a pragmatic solution.

There was also a racial targeting component to it. See, for example, Harry Anslinger.
Yes, there was when the war on drugs started. (And that racial component was considered by some at least to be pragmatic reasoning.) But I was not talking about why the war on drugs was started. I was talking about why it is perpetuated now.

In a liquidity trap, you need a government to get involved with something like small business grants or a works progress administration - a private solution entails the private entity either becoming the government or being absorbed by it.
I fail to see why those are the only two options.

The problem is people aren't being paid enough to have a significant disposable income
I disagree. I believe the problem is the erosion of buying power, which is to say, inflation. Which is caused by the government. The amount of money means less than what one can buy for that amount of money. Saying people need to be paid more ignores the fundamental problem, in my opinion.

Offline consortium11

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2011, 04:46:26 PM »
Did it? I suppose that depends on how you define pragmatism.

All of the things I listed are deeply... and I do mean deeply... anti-libertarian. That's the "pragmatism" I mention...

If I thought that would work, I might agree with you. But as best I can determine, it doesn't. Not to mention the fact that it opens the door to letting government tell you what you should eat, how much exercise you should be required to do, all sort of things to control health care costs for everyone. And please don't tell me it wouldn't happen. A government which mandates that everyone must buy health insurance and which promotes a "war on drugs" in the name of protecting people will most certainly end up doing those things if it gets control of the health care industry. I think it's a bad idea all around.

Tell me more about Switzerland (a country that mandates health insurance) and how their government interferes with what their citizens should eat and how much exercise they should be required to do? That would be the same Switzerland that regularly either tops or comes near to the top of any "freedom" (political, social, economic) indexes out there.

That sounds nice, but I doubt the ability of a top down plan to actually make that happen. And why should the UN be meddling in what sort of work contract is made between an individual and a business? Don't get me wrong. If you want to campaign against products from China and promote a boycott of Chinese products because of working conditions in China, I might support you in that effort. But tariffs and UN regulations seems like just more government people deciding they know what is best for everyone else. And that is not a plan for equality, imo.

Do you believe anti-discrimination laws are wrong in principle?

Most modern libertarians... which is who? I'm not aware of libertarians generally preaching that fraud can be ignored. Unless they are hardcore anarcho-capitalists, most libertarians, so far as I know, would agree that laws against fraud are important.

If they believe that laws against fraud are important then they're not Libertarians... at least in the sense I've always seen libertarianism mentioned. As I've seen it Libertarianism is essentially a new name for classical liberalism once the turn liberal was corrupted and therefore takes most of its ques from there. The central ones of these is the harm principle: paraphrased, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent harm to others. Now, as it stands that phrase is so wide it's meaningless... I can use it justify anything from full on Libertarian values to the most overbearing government possible but Libertarianism generally has a very strict version of it: "harm" is purely physical and even then, interpreted tightly. That leaves fraud... an economic harm... firmly outside that spectrum.

Even if you disagree with the harm principle theory then the market based nature of Libertarianism rears its head. Another general principle of Libertarianism is that when the choice is between a market solution and a state one the market solution is not only normally more practical but also desirable in and of itself because it involves people freely doing business rather than being coerced. As fraud can be dealt with by the markets... because once someone has committed a fraud people would be highly unlikely to ever deal with them again... it leaves the question, why should the state interfere?

Offline Jude

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2011, 04:59:53 PM »
America already tried libertarianism during the industrial revolution.  And it worked OK until corporations became gigantic power-brokering entities that abused their influence on a massive scale.  It would work even worse today in our hyper technological society.

That isn't to say Libertarianism is necessarily a poor ideology, it has some valuable things to teach us, but strict adherence to any ideology is a recipe for failure.  No one philosophy is airtight, through the course of history they've all been shown to have problems, the only real way to have an effective government is to cycle valuable political philosophies so that we can employ the different toolsets that they possess to the varying challenges our country faces.

If you're facing a debt crisis (though I don't think we are now, but that's another story) you need a fiscal conservative.  If your country is drowning in antiquated practices you need a social progressive.  So on and so forth.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2011, 10:24:08 PM »
Libertarianism in the real world converts to plutocracy.  I know that's not what some Libertarians have in mind, and a few do follow versions of Libertarianism that might lead to something other than us all being rounded up and bar-coded concentration-camp style by the corporate elite.  But by and large, Libertarianism in practice would lead to us all being servants of the rich.  Some Libertarians (notably the Ayn Rand fanboys) would actually welcome corporate serfdom for the masses, though I know this lookout is far from universal amongst Libertarians.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2011, 10:46:24 PM »
All of the things I listed are deeply... and I do mean deeply... anti-libertarian. That's the "pragmatism" I mention...
All of them? I do not agree. Let's take a look.

"Pragmatism" also led to anti-discrimination laws, anti-fraud laws, anti misleading advertising/labelling of products, a fire service that you don't have to individually specifically pay for, a certain level of employment law, effective health care systems (and I personally support the Swiss and Singapore setups), mechanisms to control/monitor immigration, the whole "fire in a crowded theatre" limitations on free speech and countless other reforms.
I'm not convinced any of those are "deeply" anti-libertarian, but let's cover some obvious objections.

Effective health care systems... well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by effective health care systems. Libertarians are not against such, they just don't generally believe government run systems are effective.

Mechanisms to control/monitor immigration... I don't agree with him, but libertarian thinker Hans-Hermann Hoppe is, last I checked, very much in favor of controlling immigration. And I would venture to say many other libertarians are okay with a some immigration control, just not the level we currently have in the U.S.

The whole "fire in a crowded theater" limitations on free speech... Are there libertarians against that? I would be interested to see an argument from a libertarian against the not falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater limitation. I have certainly never seen one. Nor any against libel or slander or fraud limitations.

Tell me more about Switzerland (a country that mandates health insurance) and how their government interferes with what their citizens should eat and how much exercise they should be required to do? That would be the same Switzerland that regularly either tops or comes near to the top of any "freedom" (political, social, economic) indexes out there.
I'm not concerned with Switzerland. I don't live there. I live in the U.S. where politicians of various sorts are already trying to pass laws controlling things like salt and fat.

Do you believe anti-discrimination laws are wrong in principle?
Yes. And I also believe we wouldn't have needed them if we had not first had laws enforcing discrimination.

If they believe that laws against fraud are important then they're not Libertarians... at least in the sense I've always seen libertarianism mentioned.
I am still wondering who these fraud-tolerant libertarians are.

As I've seen it Libertarianism is essentially a new name for classical liberalism once the turn liberal was corrupted and therefore takes most of its ques from there. The central ones of these is the harm principle: paraphrased, the only legitimate use of force is to prevent harm to others. Now, as it stands that phrase is so wide it's meaningless... I can use it justify anything from full on Libertarian values to the most overbearing government possible but Libertarianism generally has a very strict version of it: "harm" is purely physical and even then, interpreted tightly. That leaves fraud... an economic harm... firmly outside that spectrum.
Again, I haver never seen any libertarian make the argument that fraud or economic harm is somehow acceptable. On the contrary, I have seen libertarians argue that fraud should indeed be illegal. (Of course, they argue that should apply to individuals, businesses and government.) Perhaps not all libertarians agree on that point, but your argument that it is unlibertarian simply does not accord with my libertarian philosophy, or in my experience with of that of libertarian thought in general.

Even if you disagree with the harm principle theory then the market based nature of Libertarianism rears its head. Another general principle of Libertarianism is that when the choice is between a market solution and a state one the market solution is not only normally more practical but also desirable in and of itself because it involves people freely doing business rather than being coerced. As fraud can be dealt with by the markets... because once someone has committed a fraud people would be highly unlikely to ever deal with them again... it leaves the question, why should the state interfere?
I have seen a similar argument made about many regulations, but never about fraud. Fraud is theft. If what you were saying were true, then libertarianism would be against anti-theft laws, and that is simply not the case. Some hardcore anarcho-capitalists might agree with the argument you presented, but the majority of libertarians, as best I can tell, are not hardcore or even moderate anarcho-capitalists. They support laws against theft and fraud because they believe in the protection of the right of property, which in turn means the government has a legitimate role in protecting that right, just as it does in protecting rights of life and speech and so on.

For a decent introduction on libertarian ideas try this: http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philosophy.of.Liberty.swf

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2011, 10:51:36 PM »
America already tried libertarianism during the industrial revolution.
You got a source for that?

And it worked OK until corporations became gigantic power-brokering entities that abused their influence on a massive scale.
Something libertarians are generally against.

If you're facing a debt crisis (though I don't think we are now, but that's another story) you need a fiscal conservative.  If your country is drowning in antiquated practices you need a social progressive.  So on and so forth.
Why can't we have someone both fiscally conservative and socially liberal? That is, in simplistic terms, what a libertarian is.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2011, 11:01:24 PM »
You got a source for that?
Something libertarians are generally against.

Most Libertarians mean well, but just don't understand human nature.  If everyone has the right to accrete as much wealth as they wish, wealth distribution will inevitably skew out of control.  Those who get a little ahead will use their wealth to game the system to make sure they get more and more...and more.  The little guys will inevitably be locked out.

I can hear the objection now.  "But under a Libertarian system no one would be allowed to violate the rights of others, no matter how rich they were.  Everyone would have rights."  Yeah.  Kind of like that holy book that talks about "and the lion shall lie down with the lamb."  A wonderful idea...as long as you don't mind frequently replacing the lamb.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2011, 11:08:54 PM »
Libertarianism in the real world converts to plutocracy.
Pardon my German, but that's bullshit.

I know that's not what some Libertarians have in mind, and a few do follow versions of Libertarianism that might lead to something other than us all being rounded up and bar-coded concentration-camp style by the corporate elite.  But by and large, Libertarianism in practice would lead to us all being servants of the rich.
Nonsense. You seem to have confused libertarianism with crony capitalism. It is a common confusion. Libertarians were among the loudest voices decrying the corporate bailouts and are among the few who routinely condemn corporate welfare. The idea that libertarianism is some sort of pro-corporations-do-anything-they-want ideology is flat out wrong. The notion that libertarianism would necessarily lead to everyone but a wealthy few being serfs has no more basis in reality than the notion that ending the war on drugs would lead to the U.S. becoming a nation of lazy drug addicts. Which is to say, no basis in reality at all.

Offline XajowTopic starter

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2011, 11:18:41 PM »
Most Libertarians mean well, but just don't understand human nature.
Oh boy. Here it comes.

If everyone has the right to accrete as much wealth as they wish, wealth distribution will inevitably skew out of control.  Those who get a little ahead will use their wealth to game the system to make sure they get more and more...and more.  The little guys will inevitably be locked out.

I can hear the objection now.  "But under a Libertarian system no one would be allowed to violate the rights of others, no matter how rich they were.  Everyone would have rights."  Yeah.  Kind of like that holy book that talks about "and the lion shall lie down with the lamb."  A wonderful idea...as long as you don't mind frequently replacing the lamb.
Seriously?

Those who get a little ahead will use their wealth to game the system and the little guys will inevitably be locked out... Yes, if everyone who gets a little ahead is a greedy, selfish bastard with the same philosophy. And you think libertarians don't understand human nature? Is that really your objection to libertarianism? I don't believe you've thought this through.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2011, 11:29:01 PM »
Oh boy. Here it comes.
Seriously?

Those who get a little ahead will use their wealth to game the system and the little guys will inevitably be locked out... Yes, if everyone who gets a little ahead is a greedy, selfish bastard with the same philosophy. And you think libertarians don't understand human nature? Is that really your objection to libertarianism? I don't believe you've thought this through.

Indeed I have thought it through...and have seen what happens in the real world when people are given unlimited ability to indulge their whims.  And I say again, this notion that some guy with $1,000,000,000 is going to hesitate to screw over someone with $1,000 is wishful thinking.  If there's a thread that runs through human history from Day One it's that the strong will take advantage of the weak the moment they have the opportunity to do so.

The irony here is that Libertarians make the same error that the Marxists kitty-cornered from them on that political versus economic freedom chart make: that human nature is basically benevolent.  Like the Libertarians teach that corporate overlords will conscientiously respect the rights of the common man, so the Marxist teaches that the dictatorship created during the revolution will good-naturedly devolve its absolute power to the people and the State shall wither away.  Good luck with that one, too.

Not to put too fine a point on it...people are assholes, and power corrupts.  Whether it's the power of the State, or the power of wealth in a society where wealth is allowed to buy whatever it pleases makes no difference.

Offline consortium11

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2011, 11:38:42 PM »
All of them? I do not agree. Let's take a look.

Let's...

I'm not convinced any of those are "deeply" anti-libertarian, but let's cover some obvious objections.

Let's...

Effective health care systems... well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by effective health care systems. Libertarians are not against such, they just don't generally believe government run systems are effective.

1) Name the effective Libertarian systems that have existed. There have long been state's where libertarian health care has been implemented... how many were effective by the times standards?

2) List what makes the Swiss or Singaporean systems ineffective.

Mechanisms to control/monitor immigration... I don't agree with him, but libertarian thinker Hans-Hermann Hoppe is, last I checked, very much in favor of controlling immigration. And I would venture to say many other libertarians are okay with a some immigration control, just not the level we currently have in the U.S.

So the government can have near total control of who you can and can't hire? That's virtually the antithesis of libertarianism.

The whole "fire in a crowded theater" limitations on free speech... Are there libertarians against that?

Yes. If they're not then it's hard to argue they're libertarians.

I would be interested to see an argument from a libertarian against the not falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater limitation. I have certainly never seen one. Nor any against libel or slander or fraud limitations.

Here's a simple one: it's an unacceptable limitation on free speech. It is the state controlling what you are allowed to say because of the way others react. You are causing no direct harm to anyone yet will still commit a crime.

Let's look at where the example actually comes from; anti-war protesters handing out leaflets opposing the draft. According to the "fire in a crowded theatre" doctrine, a crime and therefore a situation where free speech should be curtailed. Is that a libertarian position?

I'm not concerned with Switzerland. I don't live there. I live in the U.S. where politicians of various sorts are already trying to pass laws controlling things like salt and fat.

So when you said "A government which mandates that everyone must buy health insurance and which promotes a "war on drugs" in the name of protecting people will most certainly end up doing those things if it gets control of the health care industry" you were saying what exactly?

Yes. And I also believe we wouldn't have needed them if we had not first had laws enforcing discrimination.

Please expand on this. I can somewhat see what I assume your logic is with regards to race, sex or gender but I struggle to see it for other areas covered by such legislation.

I am still wondering who these fraud-tolerant libertarians are.

Again, anyone who's a true Libertarian instead of just using the term because it sounds nice.

Again, I haver never seen any libertarian make the argument that fraud or economic harm is somehow acceptable.

Em... I think you'll struggle to find any Libertarian who argued that economic harm wasn't acceptable...

On the contrary, I have seen libertarians argue that fraud should indeed be illegal. (Of course, they argue that should apply to individuals, businesses and government.)

Once again, at that stage they stop being a true Libertarian and come far closer to what I am.

Perhaps not all libertarians agree on that point, but your argument that it is unlibertarian simply does not accord with my libertarian philosophy, or in my experience with of that of libertarian thought in general.

Which says more about so called libertarians...

I have seen a similar argument made about many regulations, but never about fraud.

As above.

Fraud is theft.

No, it isn't. Theft is a direct offence against property where as fraud is essentially a bad bargain with the inclusion of deliberate deceit. The entire reason fraud as a doctrine exists is because it is not theft.

If what you were saying were true, then libertarianism would be against anti-theft laws, and that is simply not the case.

Theft isn't fraud and fraud isn't theft. Outside of the fact both involve property there are little to no similarities.

Some hardcore anarcho-capitalists might agree with the argument you presented, but the majority of libertarians, as best I can tell, are not hardcore or even moderate anarcho-capitalists.

An anarcho-capitalist would be definition be against all fraud or theft laws created by the State. So it would not be "some" and it wouldn't require them to be "hardcore."

They support laws against theft and fraud because they believe in the protection of the right of property, which in turn means the government has a legitimate role in protecting that right, just as it does in protecting rights of life and speech and so on.

And as set out above and in previous posts fraud is simply bad bargain with deliberate deceit. Following libertarian theory the government should have no role in mitigating bad bargains and the market itself should be able to handle the deceit aspect... which leaves the state somewhat flapping in the wind when it comes to dealing with fraud.

For a decent introduction on libertarian ideas try this: http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philosophy.of.Liberty.swf

Rather than a flash video I find it's generally best to go back to the original sources. Such as this, this or this.

Offline Jude

Re: Libertarian and not ashamed
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2011, 12:02:51 AM »
You got a source for that?
I concede your point, we did not live in a libertarian society.  My point was that our approach to dealing with corporations was libertarian and it didn't work.
Something libertarians are generally against.
Libertarians are against gigantic corporations abusing their power, that's true, but irrelevant because they don't believe government should have the power to do anything about it.  They therefore put the responsibility on the masses and history has shown us time and again that when it's the public versus corporate, corporate wins unless government intervenes on behalf of the public.
Why can't we have someone both fiscally conservative and socially liberal? That is, in simplistic terms, what a libertarian is.
I didn't say we couldn't have someone who was that.  There are definitely times in America's history where having a libertarian president would've been the right move.  I was making a broader point on political philosophy that no philosophy is without its weaknesses and errors and all of them excel at dealing with certain issues.  My point was the futility of ascribing solidly to one philosophical stance as the end all be all.