Are Libertarians For Real?
I would like to see a discussion based on this premise-
Libertarianism is an impractical governing philosophy.
I have a couple other questions .
What is the basis for ownership of private property , absent a governing body?
Let say you "own" a house by a nice lake. You leave to go on a vacation 500 miles away. While you are gone I come to the location of your lake house, and move in, taking "ownership" of it.
Now what?
Tags
Who is online
474 visitors
My position is that property rights do not exist without government.
They existed before government, like all fundamental human rights.
Says who?
If you are not home and I go into your house and take over, and I have more guns than you do, are you fucked without a government to enforce your "rights"?
Why is it that you progressives assume libertarians are for anarchy and opposed to all forms of government. In all my life I've never heard any libertarian party official or candidate for office say anything like that. All of our individual rights were given to us by God. Government that governs best constrains those rights the least.
The "purest" form of libertarianism is anachro-capitalism. It is true there are dilutions and adjustments by other lesser forms of libertarianism.
You are for the type of "freedom" that you approve of. At least the pure libertarians have more permanent beliefs.
As soon as you stray away from the pure "no government" theory you are into arbitrary forms of government that favor one class or interest over another. (For example, court proceedings favor those who can pay the most for their legal representation). If you remove safety regulations corporations can endanger the lives of the public or their workers. Keeping the regulations is arbitrary and removing them is arbitrary. You are back to depending on the collective wisdom of the voters, who have rejected libertarianism over and over.
Libertarianism is an impractical governing philosophy.
Absolutely. It's just another word for anarchy. Without government enforcement property right are un-enforable unless one has a private army. Of course then the members of the army are not really Libertarians, they are either capitalists (paid for their service) or are conscripts of some type (slaves).
Then the person calling them-self a Libertarian still has to have a from of assembling wealth or income to sustain their life and lifestyle. Theft or working for it. Something non-libertarian.
It's just another word for anarchy.
Based on the public violence of the "progressive" movement , the same description applies to them .
Libertarianism is an impractical governing philosophy.
My position is that property rights do not exist without government.
Which one do you want to discuss?
Discuss whatever you want.
I am always interested in why and if libertarians think their philosophy is practical in governing America.
I'm thinking your statement on "pure" libertarianism may somewhat limit the discussion. My personal beliefs would probably place me somewhere between min-statist and min-archist.
The only kind of "pure" political philosophy that has been tried is democracy. That one didn't last too long and killed one of it's greatest thinkers.
These are statements from the 2016 Libertarian Party platform
The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society....
Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection....
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution....
We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education....
The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals....
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government....
. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. ...
Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions......
etc.
While not specific proposals, these principles , and others, if enacted would change the US completely.
No social safety net, no public education, no income tax, no mandated safety regulations for food or products or the workplace. Nogovernment supplied health care for the elderly or the needy, No minimum wage, no foreign aid, etc.
There isn't a chance that such a program could be enacted once the voters became aware of it, imo.
Good stuff - I love it.
The Libertarian Party has been on various state ballots for president, governor, senator, etc for a few decades now. They rarely draw more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote.
Is libertarianism impractical?
One needs first to define practical.
of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
So then, what is it that government is supposed to do? Of what practical use is government?
According to the founding fathers, government's job is to secure the rights given to us from above. But if my rights come from a power greater than government, how can a government secure them for me? Am I not capable of securing them myself? Am I not capable of building a safe place to house them or buying such a thing?
If I am already endowed with certain rights, is it not my right then to protect, or not protect, them myself, just as I would protect my life from attack or protect my body from heat or cold?
Why do I need a government to secure rights which are already part and parcel of me, just as my limbs are part of my body?
Libertarianism allows you to have and keep the rights you already possess. It doesn't attempt to install an additional layer of potentially tyrannical "government". In that sense, libertarianism is a supremely practical "government".
I think as a utopian vision libertarianism is fine, although I think there are some serious holes in it, but as a practical governing plan, not so much.
Most libertarians of the less extreme type want some government, they just want to pick and choose what that government will do. Property rights are often at the top of the list, and libertarians support government to protect property rights. But who says property rights are more important than, for example, everyone having enough to eat? Both those choices for government activity are arbitrary.
I don't think, as a practical matter, you can have property rights without a government to enforce them , and in fact to create them ( a deed, for example) . "God given" rights are not enforceable , they are something to talk about in debates.
Who says people don't have a right to eat? Supposedly the human race began at a place where luscious food was laying all around for the taking. (Garden of Eden)
The political makeup of societies is not natural, it is arbitrary. They choose this or they choose that as the norms.
We have "elections" to make those decisions nowadays.
Well said. The only thing that all Libertarians have in common is their certainty that they personally know the answers. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that no two of them think exactly alike. Nobody knows all of the answers, and it takes smart networks of broadly experienced individuals to govern.
The question still remains the same, what practical use is government?
You speak as if you were on a presidential debate stage. Don't answer the question directly, but deflect.
If you wish to have a real discussion then answer the question, or at least provide your own definitions so that a conversation may go forward.
If not, just reply "Fuck it".
Okay
But if my rights come from a power greater than government, how can a government secure them for me? Without government , the "securing of rights" is a power struggle. If someone stronger than you wants your stuff, they can take it. Am I not capable of securing them myself? Probably not. Am I not capable of building a safe place to house them or buying such a thing? Probably not. A "government" will inevitably evolve, who says it is better or worse than what we have now?
If I am already endowed with certain rights, is it not my right then to protect, or not protect, them myself, just as I would protect my life from attack or protect my body from heat or cold? How do you protect intangible rights by "yourself" without having the so called Hobbesian society of every man for himself? Do you think "every man for himself " would be better than what we have now?
Why do I need a government to secure rights which are already part and parcel of me, just as my limbs are part of my body? Because human nature until now involves aggression and conflict.
Property rights do exist without government. If you take my property you will die. Then I will call government and so they can remove the trash.
Actually in your scenario your "right" is dependent on you having more firepower than me.
Government grants nothing. That is a false believe held by fragile man children.
And you live in an imaginary non existent utopia.
If you think you own your house even if there is no record of your ownership and no paperwork to prove it, you are deluded.