Yeah, there’s little I like better than some sweet snarky skewered Libertarianism.
Of course, if you don’t like it, you could always go complain in the comments over there.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
strange,
And yet, you keep responding to my posts.
Argument by assertion.
I’m a bot.
“I’m a bot.”
*grin* If that’s the case, I would like a copy of your source code and specs on the computer that’s running you because damn, you pass the Turing test with flying colours! XD
strange,
Fuck ya, I am.
Your apoplexy is delicious.
I hope others will notice that I have tried to stay on topic and civil (if occasionally sarcastic) whereas you have not. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, just lacking in self-control.
“I hope others will notice that I have tried to stay on topic and civil (if occasionally sarcastic) whereas you have not. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, just lacking in self-control.”
Ok, and?
Curiosis:
Property rights are already protected by legislation under our legal system; do you mean you want more legislation, or you want stronger legislation, or you want stronger enforcement, or you want greater adherence to principle, or something else?
That’s a touch too vague for me to follow.
What, do you actually imagine that I’m angry? Talking shit makes this more interesting for me, because you, unflavored, are sublimely boring.
Zomg, I’ve been on topic and uncivil. I’m a terrible, terrible person.
You imagine that people only curse when they can’t control themselves? Show your work. I find most people do it just for fun.
Justin,
An entire point release? Cool! And if by obtuse, you mean not bowing down to strange’s infinte wisdom, then yeah, I am.
Allow me to summarize:
I disagree with strange.
strange thinks I’m a boring, repetitive, ignorant, contemptuous troll. I may also be a fuckwit or a fucktard, I’m not sure which. Could be both.
Hilarity ensues!
That, or maybe, not responding to substantive points which are raised against you, and not reading the thread before vomiting standard libertarian talking points that were already addressed.
Fuckwit. I’ve met many mentally retarded people who are much more decent than you.
“strange thinks I’m a boring, repetitive, ignorant, contemptuous troll. I may also be a fuckwit or a fucktard, I’m not sure which. Could be both.”
Well, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble (not to mention making people think you’re a complete idiot) by reading the thread up until you jumped in and therefore NOT MAKE THE EXACT SAME POINTS THAT WERE REFUTED EARLIER!
I’m just saying…
Curiosis,
We noticed you’re not averse to indulging in what you condemn in others, yeah.
We don’t care much about that, and we don’t care much about the language or tone; we care about substance and engagement.
Anyway, carry on, do enjoy the freedom to criticise even as you decry others for so doing, but get on with it.
Justin@511, I think you may already have already downloaded my nightly build?
already have already
Please file a bug report.
Haha great minds and all that! ;)
Justin,
Thanks. I thought so too.
The Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;”
He’s pretending that “general welfare” means actual welfare. It doesn’t. If Congress can spend money on whatever it wants, then why have enumerated powers? The results of Congress’ powers is what the clause refers to. Madison said as much in the Federalist Papers.
“He’s pretending that “general welfare” means actual welfare. It doesn’t. If Congress can spend money on whatever it wants, then why have enumerated powers? The results of Congress’ powers is what the clause refers to. Madison said as much in the Federalist Papers.”
I’m not American. I know diddly.
Citation needed.
It does, but not just in the modern meaning of welfare. It’s more generally well fare. What that should mean is up to us.
Justin,
So anything that a person should do must be required by law?
If I don’t adopt an orphan, then no one will. Mandatory adoptions!
If I don’t take in the victim of a natural disaster, then no one will. Everyone gets a hurrican victim! Get’em while they last!
Just because something is the right thing to do doesn’t mean that it should be enshrined in law. The government should only be stopping us from doing bad things, not forcing us to do good things.
We all have differring ideas about the right things to do. For some, it is giving time and money to help the homeless. For another it might working for thr preservation of our national parks. Someone else might think cancer reasearch is the most important. I say that they are all right. They have decided for themselves what is important. Isn’t that better than the government deciding for all.
“It does, but not just in the modern meaning of welfare. It’s more generally well fare. What that should mean is up to us.”
Ha I was just going to say that, that welfare IS looking after the well fare of the nation, but welfare is not the exclusive way to do so.
“Just because something is the right thing to do doesn’t mean that it should be enshrined in law. The government should only be stopping us from doing bad things, not forcing us to do good things.”
That is not the point I’m trying to make. The point is that if you don’t want to help people, then it’s likely that other people don’t want to either.
BUT, the needs of the poor outweigh your personal feelings on the matter, so we’re barred from neglecting the poor.
strange,
“Fuckwit!” And here I thought it might have been “fucktard.” Boy is my face red.
Believe it or not, libertarians are not clones.
I agree that a roving pack of starving people would be a bad thing. But if I hand over my money so that they won’t steal it from, isn’t that just extortion. I have an interest in people not starving not out of self-defense, but out of simple humanity.
“If I don’t adopt an orphan, then no one will. Mandatory adoptions!”
Try orphanages and foster care centres. Because we’re not allowed to neglect children without families.
“If I don’t take in the victim of a natural disaster, then no one will. Everyone gets a hurrican victim! Get’em while they last!”
How about disaster centres and shelters because we’re not allowed to ignore the plight of people who suffer natural disasters.
I could go on in this vein…
Boring. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1555894
Boring. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1552324
Justin,
And I do follow the laws. But please don’t pretend I agreed to have my property taken.
Don’t like paying protection to the Don, well you can always git outta town. Right Vinny?
I agree. Once people can convince their elected officials to take other people’s money and give it them, they’re unlikely to give that up.
You’re the only one who’s used that word, troll.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is extortion. Your neighbors don’t want the roving hordes to come into the neighborhood. If you don’t pay, you’re endangering your neighbors too. So they make you pay your fair share. Better that than the horde. Grownups learn that the real world requires compromises. But go ahead, keep stomping.
Boring. You’ve decided to take advantage of the benefits of living in America. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1548968
Now you pay your dues. That’s fair. You libertarians all want to be freeloaders.
strange,
Who then built a road that I value. I still got something out of it.
Onomatopoeia. That new enough for ya?
You’re still replying.
Wow. And here I thought I was the one who kept repeating themselves.
So it’s not enought that he pay for what he uses, he needs to pay for other people to use it too?
So, what then? You’re going to just spend the rest of your life complaining? Try gardening, it’s better for your nerves.
You did benefit. And it was still redistribution. See, now you’re learning.
I can do this while watching TV. Aisha Tyler was funny.
He profits disproportionately, so he pays disproportionately. Also http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1549645
strange,
I don’t remember seeing “constitutional democracy,” just “representative democracy.” If I missed it I apologize. I’ve got several of you giving me the smackdown, so I’m sure I’ve missed a few posts.
You quoted it while not remembering it. That’s fail. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1555809
Is that tongue in cheek, or are you at self-aware enough to realize that you kind of suck at this?
strange,
Imagine a man who is not allowed to own any possesions. Would you consider his rights curtailed? Would you say that he is free?
Our property is an extension of our selves. They may be ties to the past, like a watch owned by your grandfather. Or, it might be the tangible form of your work and ingenuity, like income.
I’m not advocating dualism. I was afraid it might come across that way. Your body it an object, a thing. As such, it is a possession of yours that you should have complete ownership of. It is the ultimate property, and no one should be able to dictate how you use it so long as you don’t harm another.
From this comes the right of choice for women, the right to eat or drink what you want, even take whatever drugs you want (thought I don’t recommend it). It’s the reason that a court must agree that blood or tissue can be taken from you.
What a fantastic list that would be! OK, here’s my sleepy start (some of which I’ve recommended here before):
Polanyi, The Great Transformation
Rediker and Linebaugh, The Many-Headed Hydra
Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts
Said, Culture and Imperialism
Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost
The Corporation (film)
Life and Debt (film)
Authors (aside from Kropotkin, Goldman, and Marx):
Eduardo Galeano
Howard Zinn
Michel Foucault
Naomi Klein
Vandana Shiva
I know I’m forgetting so many. Suggestions?
John,
Yes, there are many protections for property rights. Quite simply, I would like to see the government stop redistributing wealth. Playing Robin Hood is a noble idea, but only ethical if all the rich have stolen from the poor. If a rich man has earned his wealth by providing products or services that were voluntarily paid for, why does he owe more money to those same people?
Sorry, I got in trouble the last time I was specific.
strange,
I have tried to substantively answer every question I’ve been asked. You just won’t ever accept any of my answers. You decided I was wrong before my first post.
Thanks for clarifying. And how exactly have I been indecent?
Thank you, SC!
strange,
I did read the previous posts, except the ones about the guy who worked for Enron. That didn’t seem on topic.
And they were refuted according to you and those who agree with you. Hardly an unbiased bunch.
John,
I accused strange of being uncivil. Please point out where I have done likewise.
Any substance I have will be dismissed because I don’t believe as you do. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
Enough with the hypotheticals, already.
strange,
Here’s the citation as linked by Wikipedia.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm
Curiosis:
You equate taxation with “playing Robin Hood”? I suppose it depends on whether you view it purely as providing social welfare or more broadly as sustaining social infrastructure, and on whether you consider yourself one of the rich…
Justin,
I do want to help others, but, of course, I recognize that many will not. However, their property is not mine to do with as I choose. I can’t just take something that isn’t mine because I feel like I have a better use for it. That is the antithesis of liberty.
Everyone has needs. That doesn’t necessarily imply that there is a legal obligation to fulfill them. If I see someone injured in a car wreck, they need medical help. They may even die without it. Should I be required by law to help? I think we all agree that I’d be a dick if I didn’t, but should I go to jail for just standing there?
If you think I should then there’s not much more to say. If you don’t, then apply that same reasoning to this topic.
I can just as easily conceptualize property as a privilege that is assumed to stand, unless there are more compelling reasons to tax it. That seems to be the situation now, in fact. I keep most of what I have, but some of it goes to save the lives of some people who would otherwise starve or freeze. And I feel free. If you don’t feel free, you’re free to move to another country, and you’re even free to take your property with you.
Still sounds like dualism. My body is my self.
You could call that property. You could also call it autonomy of the self, and/or bodily autonomy. I don’t see any necessity of adding property as an extra layer of abstraction on the self.
Because he used the public infrastructure to get to where he is today, so he has dues to pay.
What you’ve actually done is repeated shit that other libertarians said earlier, instead of building upon or working from the replies that were already given.
Because I’ve heard it all before and wasn’t convinced then either. If you want a more receptive hearing, there are libertarian forums where you can all stomp around in rhythm.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/psss_libertarians_go_pester_ga.php#comment-1556232
Your stance that it’s better for poor people to die of starvation than receive public welfare is thoroughly indecent.
“And I do follow the laws. But please don’t pretend I agreed to have my property taken.”
You agree to the rules that you follow by deciding to continue living here.
And if you don’t like it, that’s too bad. Reality sucks sometimes. Use government to change it, or stop whining.
“I did read the previous posts, except the ones about the guy who worked for Enron. That didn’t seem on topic.”
They weren’t (the posts with the troll trying to put words in my mouth), but that does beg the question why you think that your tired arguments deserve another airing…
“And they were refuted according to you and those who agree with you. Hardly an unbiased bunch.”
Using facts and logic. Damn that liberally biased reality!
“I think we all agree that I’d be a dick if I didn’t, but should I go to jail for just standing there?”
No, but you’re paying (in part) for any medical or police assistance (in Canada at least) that they will receive, so you’re off the hook. If you didn’t, then you would have a moral AND a legal obligation.
“I do want to help others, but, of course, I recognize that many will not. However, their property is not mine to do with as I choose. I can’t just take something that isn’t mine because I feel like I have a better use for it. That is the antithesis of liberty.”
Good thing it’s not you taking anything but the government that we all agreed to that is doing the taking with our consent.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm
First, the Federalist Papers were propaganda, and not all of the signers agreed with Madison. This is his opinion of what the general welfare clause should be interpreted to mean, but it would not be any definitive answer in a Supreme Court case.
Second, I can think of another parsimonious explanation besides the Federalist’s:
The enumerated powers that follow the general welfare clause are those that will be assumed constitutional, should a particular law be challenged in the courts. The general welfare clause allows other powers as well, but if these laws are challenged on their constitutionality, it would be the burden of the state to demonstrate that they actually do contribute to the general welfare, this being an empirical question.
(I would be interested in Walton’s opinion of that reading.)
strange,
Do I suck at trying to convince you to see any side but your own, yes, absolutely.
When your position starts out as “libertarians are evil fuckwits” then discussion isn’t really going to amouunt to much.
That’s okay. I knew that going in and I went in anyway.
This is where I get off. It was an interesting ride, but ultimately pointless in the end. Mores the pity.
You may now hurl insults at my receding silhouette to your hearts content. I’m going to bed.
“Dumbest Libertarian of the Thread” signing off.
Just remember, morphing and carrying on is not signing off.
Bye.
I think Justin’s response is better than mine, but I’ll add that there’s a substantive difference between this car wreck and taxation.
It’s not exactly clear what you should do in the case of the car wreck. Should you call 911? (If you can, but also,) Should you provide first aid? Resuscitation? (What if you’re not trained, or poorly trained?) Should you move them, leave them where they are? If the car is on fire should you risk your own life? There are probably too many factors to address by law. The law can’t know ahead of time what’s going to happen, and you can’t know ahead of time that you’ll find yourself in this situation.
But in the case of taxation, we’ve worked out ahead of time what the money will be used for and why it’s needed. The law is clear, and your choice is clear: pay your dues for the benefits of America, or find a new country. You aren’t being subjected to the same kind of multiple factor ambiguity, and most importantly, you knew ahead of time what was coming and you decided to stay.
An arrogant presumption. Fact is I’ve seen it your way already, and discarded that ideology as useless.
Do I suck at trying to convince you to see any side but your own, yes, absolutely.
We see your side, just as we see the side of Intelligent Designers and Global Warming deniers. But in all cases the “sides” are based on factual error and illogic. What, you don’t think that’s possible?
“As a libertarian, I believe in maximized liberty for each individual.”
Your libertarianism is conceptually incoherent, on a par with “too complex to have evolved”. The liberties of individuals conflict; thus it’s necessary to have a resolution mechanism. For libertardians like you, the resolution is based on a dogma of “inviolable property rights”. But there’s no good reason to make that the basis of resolution and many reasons not to. An important consideration is where property came from — how did anyone come to own property in the first place? You want to talk about ownership of your body. Fine — what gave you the right to steal all those molecules from the commons? Everything that anyone owns is composed of molecules that, at some time in the past, belonged to no one. Most markedly, the goods produced by corporations are mined from materials that don’t belong to them — what gives them the right? If you do away with government and stick to free markets and contracts, how do materials get into the market? Who are they contracted from? The current distribution of property — any distribution of property — can be traced back to a history of theft and coercion, so the distribution is inherently unfair. And even if it weren’t, even if we could start fresh and distribute all property evenly, we would soon see disparities based on luck, on willingness to cheat, on concern for the future, on acquisitional behavior, on concern for others … such a system tends to reward those with moral outlooks least conducive to a humane and civilized society. And luck here includes being able-bodied, being smarter or stronger, etc. Libertardians — liberated-from-morality-ians, think that’s just peachy keen, that’s the way it should be — they are social darwinists. Other folks vary one how much disparity is tolerable, but grasp that an “inviolable” principle that guarantees that the old and infirm suffer immensely is not a good one on which to base a functioning society. People struggle with how to build fair and humane social structures — it’s difficult, but neither “inviolable property rights” nor “maximized liberty” (where liberty is defined in terms of property and the liberty to be healthy and happy are discounted) is a viable option.
Tis Himself:
I’m sure the late Milton Friedman would have been rather amused to hear himself described as an “economic illiterate” by some guy on a blog. Unless you’ve won a Nobel Prize in economics and are keeping rather quiet about it?
It’s tenable, though I don’t like it. The trouble is that all these clauses were a compromise between the followers of Jefferson (who wanted weak federal government and strong state and local government) and Hamilton (who wanted a strong central government); much of the wording was probably deliberately vague, for this reason.
I would urge everyone to bear in mind, however, that when reading a phrase such as “general welfare of the United States”, the term “the United States” would not have conjured up the same connotations in the minds of people of the eighteenth century as it does today. Until the Civil War, it was standard usage in official documents to say “The United States are…” rather than “The United States is…” My reading would therefore be that this clause was intended to give Congress power to institute programmes for the general welfare of the states, not the people.
In any case, I would contend that the biggest issue is not whether the Constitution has been read wrongly regarding the powers of Congress; rather, it is the fact that, in many areas where Congress has no ability to legislate, it does so indirectly through the mechanism of conditional grants. For instance, as I understand it, Congress has no power to impose a minimum drinking age of 21; but it is able to do so by the threat of withholding various federal grants from the states unless they comply with the standard drinking age. The cause of this, of course, was the introduction of federal income tax, giving the federal government financial clout and allowing it to strong-arm the states into adherence to its wishes. This is why I do not believe that the Sixteenth Amendment was a good thing.
Certainly, many of the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to restrict itself to foreign affairs, defence, border control, regulation of interstate trade, and a few other matters which need to be standardised; and arguably, things were better in the days when it did so. But the Constitution can be read so as to permit much more than this – and that’s probably deliberate. Hamilton would probably have been fairly pleased with the way things have turned out in the long run (remember, he wanted the President to hold office for life except in case of impeachment, and was keen to have a much more powerful central government with a quasi-monarchical figure at its head).
Walton, the phrase “tend to be” is not normally interpreted as “without exception”.
Meh. I guess I’m more of a classical liberal than a hardcore libertarian. Like Adam Smith – and, indeed, to some extent Friedman and Hayek also – I do advocate some government involvement in society beyond the barest minimum. Public roads; public education (albeit with a school voucher system to allow free competition); basic medical and nutritional assistance and other forms of minimal welfare; these are acceptable in a free society. While there should always be a presumption in favour of freedom and against government intervention, this presumption can be rebutted by strong evidence that government intervention in a particular field is essential to the general welfare. So I’m not quite a minarchist.
First off, I said “libertarians tend to be economic illiterates.” [Emphasis added] Do I have to explain what the verb “tend” means? I hope you’re not illiterate in English as well as in economics, political science, history, and general knowledge.
Second, while Friedman deserved his prize (not, strictly speaking, a Nobel Prize, but that’s a quibble), he got it for purely apolitical economics like his “permanent income hypothesis” and his discussions of inflation and unemployment. His later work on monitarism has been discarded by mainstream economics. Conservatives and libertarians are in love with Friedman’s monetary policies, but governments, central banks, and most economists don’t pay any attention to them any more.
Third, I am an economist with a graduate degree in the field and over thirty years experience. I think that makes me qualified to judge if certain people know something about economics or are just talking out of their rectums. Incidentally, I’m not in the running for a Nobel, but I am known to and well regarded by my peers, both here and abroad.
Lastly, libertarians do actually tend to be economic illiterates. A fair number of you clamor for a return to the gold standard. In my post #454 I gave a real world reason why that’s a non-starter. If you want, I can give other reasons why a gold standard is silly, dangerous, or both. For instance, economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns. Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of recession. In spite of real world objections to the gold standard, many libertarians cling to the idea, which tells me that they’re
fucking nutseconomic illiterates.In much the same way as the money I spend on my car insurance does nothing for me personally unless I need to make a claim.
It’s interesting how moderate looneytarians grabbed the name of a respectable but defunct political movement in an attempt to give their nuttiness a facade of respectability. In real life, “classical liberalism” died when Gladstone retired as prime minister in 1894.
Yawn, the libertards are still morally bankrupt, and show it every time they post.
It’s also interesting how “libertarians” grabbed the name of a respectable but opposite political movement in an attempt to give their nuttiness a facade of respectability. In Europe today, the term still describes a leftist anti-hierarchical movement, as it used to in the U.S. many decades ago.
And now they’re trying to steal the work “anarchist” to entrench a class hierarchy. Huh?! I know what Inigo Montoya would say about that.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFint.html
That should be “word”, not “work”.
Which is not to say that those capitalists don’t steal others’ work, too.
‘Tis Himself: Fair enough, but I have never personally advocated a return to the gold standard. The reason so many libertarians like the idea is because it takes control of the currency away from the capricious whims of central bankers; but I see your point as to the disadvantages.
Says who? The ideals of classical liberalism live on. While the Liberal Party was largely co-opted by leftists in the early twentieth century (introducing statist measures such as compulsory “National Insurance”), the principles to which Gladstone adhered are still relevant in today’s world. Nineteenth-century classical liberalism was set apart from other political movements primarily by its ardent support for free trade; in a world where Western governments impoverish the Third World by an elaborate system of trade barriers, tariffs and subsidies, this is more important than ever. The legacy of radicals such as Cobden and Bright is something we need to value, IMO; we should not let the heritage of British liberalism be tarnished by its twentieth-century perversions.
That’s only because those European movements which would be described as “libertarian” in the United States are still largely described as “liberal” in Europe, that term not having been co-opted by leftists as it has in the English-speaking world. Parties such as the French Alliance liberale, or the German FDP, are within the Anglo-American definition of “libertarian” but are described in Europe as “liberal”. (This is perhaps because “socialist” never became a dirty word in Europe in the way that it did in the United States.)
We believe in liberty of the individual, rather than the subjugation of the individual to the collective. Both “liberal” and “libertarian” are terms which, stemming from the Latin libertas – freedom within the law – reflect this core belief.
Yeah, those perverted liberals, wanting peace and prosperity for everyone, not just the deserving rich. Insisting that monopolies and other restraints of trade be regulated. Thinking that oligarchies were not the finest forms of government. That’s real perversion.
Unfortunately, you don’t live on your little island, separate from the rest of the world. You live with the rest of us. Since the rest of us have determined that we need certain rules to keep from degenerating into chaos, we insist that you abide by these rules. That’s the price of living in a society. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad, unless you want to move to the libertarian utopia of Somalia.
A recognition of the fact that poverty is the most common restraint upon freedom would be most welcome.
The Constitution itself strongly implies otherwise. See the preamble, the most direct and plain explanation of the purpose of the document, where the phrase “general welfare” appears again. Emphasis mine:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Right there it’s explained as a document of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Some of the six goals could be interpreted as either for the states or for the people, or both, depending on one’s bias. But to “secure the blessings of liberty” makes little or no sense as a goal for the sake of the states as states. It’s a goal for the sake of the people, and this is immediately confirmed by the reminder that this is for “ourselves and our posterity.” Whose selves? Again, the subject of the sentence, “we the people of the United States.” To a less obvious extent, the goal to “establish justice” has the same tension. What is justice for a state, as a state? Disputes of interstate commerce, perhaps, but little else. In contrast, what is justice for an individual? A great deal more, necessitating several specific amendments in the Bill of Rights. Even without the glaring obvious “we the people” beginning, the goal of the people’s justice would be the more parsimonious explanation.
Under your reading, of the Constitution as serving the interests of the states, at least two of the six goals stand out as relatively inexplicable. Under my reading, all six goals make plain sense.
And getting down to the details, exactly how would the general welfare of the states differ from the general welfare of the people? What is the general welfare of a state, but the general welfare of its people? In this case I think you’ve made a distinction without a difference.
You’ll find that income tax precedes the Sixteenth Amendment.
Well I screwed up the emphasis tags:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
As Mike Huben put it so well:
All of which are institutions I support. I don’t “prefer you overlook” them.
The ACLU works to protect a limited subset of freedom and rights. It does good work, and I fully support its activities; but what it doesn’t do, and can’t do, is protect the right of individuals to keep and spend their own money as they choose. That’s where libertarians come in.
Of course they are. “Freedom” does not mean that society owes you a living, or that, being hungry and homeless, you have a right to feed and clothe yourself at your neighbour’s expense.
Walton:
You so didn’t get it.
You’re back to the “libertarians would have the poor starve on the streets rather than spend a penny in taxes to help them” argument. Some of us doubt the validity of this proposition.
The usual form of this statement is “I’ve got mine, fuck you.”
Look. Let’s try this again.
Let’s imagine X is dying of kidney failure, and you have two healthy kidneys. The doctors tell you that, if one of your kidneys is removed and implanted in X, you will probably survive and remain healthy, and X’s life will be saved. Should you donate your kidney to X? Yes. And I would do so in a heartbeat, as I hope you would. But the more difficult question is this: should the state force you to donate your kidney to X? For me, the answer has to be no.
Similarly, if you have worked and earned money, maybe you should share it with your neighbour who is starving. But does the state have a right to force you to? No.
You may protest that money is different from kidneys. But is it, really? Think about it. Your body is yours from birth for free; you didn’t “earn” it in any sense. By contrast, the money that you earn entails an investment of skill and labour on your part; thus, morally, you have more right to it than you do to the organs of your body.
We all owe many people moral obligations. I owe a huge moral obligation to my parents. I owe a moral obligation to those people who, in the past, have worked to make my country what it is and to enable the lifestyle and freedom which I enjoy. But do any of those people have the right to force me to surrender my kidney to them? Even if they were dying? No. Nor do they have the right, therefore, to force me to work for their benefit. I certainly should do so; but that isn’t the same thing.
And in any case, state welfare is generally less discriminating than that. I owe moral obligations to many different individuals. But I do not owe such an obligation to every individual who, by accident of birth, happens to live in my country. Why do I owe anything at all to a person who has done nothing for me?
Walton asks “Why do I owe anything at all to a person who has done nothing for me?”
OK, how is this different from “I’ve got mine, fuck you.”
Governments exist because there are things we can do collectively that we cannot do individually. Presumably, you do not object to government spending on defense. Correct? How about scientific and technological research and development? Physical infrastructure? How about human infrastructure: Education?
The problem Walton, is that commonwealth is wealth just as much as personal wealth. We need an educated, healthy population, a physical infrastructure, an intellectual infrastructure and a common defense to be a healthy, economically successful system. We all share the benefits of an industrialized society, stick a crow bar into your wallet and pay your frigging share.
Sigh. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the “the gummint can’t force you to give a kidney to some AIDS infested crack whore so why can they take MY money and give it to her?” argument from libertarians.
Taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, taxes are payment in exchange for services from government. It has been determined by the vast majority of citizens that government support of the indigent is a “good thing.” So even if you are not a beneficiary of welfare, the dole, etc., part of your taxes (a very small part) goes to welfare.
If you don’t want your taxes to support crack whores (and what other people besides folks like that would ever dream of accepting welfare?) then you can work to get a candidate running on the “none of Walton’s hard-earned pence for crack whores ticket” elected. That’s how representative democracies work. If you and your fellow libertarians can convince a majority of the populace to elect enough “none of Walton’s hard-earned pence for crack whores ticket” candidates then none of your hard-earned pence will go to crack whores.
Incidentally, it can work the other way as well. If a majority of MPs pass the “Let’s Make Walton Donate A Kidney To A Crack Whore Act,” then you can expect to be in surgery shortly thereafter. It’s all part of the fun of living in a representative democracy.
The “social contract” is nonsense. I did not choose which country to be born in; and due to immigration restrictions, I cannot change my national allegiance at will. (Indeed, if there were universal open borders, the world would be a lot more libertarian; countries would have to compete for productive citizens by offering lower taxes and more competitive business regimes.) So I have not entered into any “social contract”; rather, I am coerced into accepting the monopolistic jurisdiction of the British state. If citizens were not so coerced, do you really think anyone would choose to live in the many countries ruled by violent, repressive and corrupt governments? The fact is that, even if a citizen is allowed to leave his country of birth freely (by no means a given in the world’s many dictatorships), he is unlikely to be allowed to enter the country in which he wishes to live.
If taxes are payment in exchange for government services, then why can I not choose to stop paying for government services and, instead, to buy the same services from a private provider, which may be able to provide them to me more cheaply and efficiently?
The “majority of citizens” does not have any legitimate claim on my body or on the fruits of my labour. I am not “property of the community”, I am a free human being.
Unfortunately, in the UK, this is true. The UK has no written constitution, and its government is traditionally defined by the absolute sovereignty of “the Crown in Parliament” to do whatever it wishes.
However, I don’t think you really want to argue that this is a good thing. Just look at laws against abortion, homosexuality, etc., where your “majority of citizens”, through your “representative democracy” has decided to dictate to individuals what they can do with their own bodies. Are you arguing that Roe v Wade was wrong? Or Griswold v Connecticut? Or Lawrence v Texas? All decisions of which left-wingers, as well as libertarians, tend to approve. Because representative democracy is not good enough; the citizen also has certain basic rights which should never be taken from him without his individual, personal consent, regardless of what the majority of “the community” thinks about it. I would argue merely that these rights should be extended beyond control of one’s own body, to control of one’s own property and earned income.
The constitution (if applicable) and the laws are our written contracts with the government.
There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.
Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.
Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn’t sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven’t ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?
One commonly cited argument is that the social contract is like no other, and thus not a contract. That’s a non sequitur. A unique feature or combination of features doesn’t disqualify something from being a contract.
Some complain that the social contract is fundamentally unjust because it doesn’t treat people equally, that people are taxed unequally or receive services unequally. So? Like insurance, rates can vary from individual to individual, and services received may be more or less than premiums paid.
Despite your whining and wishful thinking, the social contract is real and you are held to comply with it.
Walton, if I remember correctly you said that you might join the military after you get your degree. You do realize that your liberties and freedoms will be even more constrained in the military. If you don’t like a civilian job you can quit and go elsewhere. Quitting the military before your contract expires is considered doubleplus ungood and may get you a period of substandard housing with some very unpleasant neighbors.
“Despite your whining and wishful thinking, the social contract is real and you are held to comply with it.”
Your entire post at #580 was exquisite, but I have to say, “HELL YA” to this line!
“I would argue merely that these rights should be extended beyond control of one’s own body, to control of one’s own property and earned income.”
Too bad it’s not. Run for office Walton! Change those crappy laws!
/sarcasm
You do realize that your liberties and freedoms will be even more constrained in the military.
Or as the drill sergeant told us on the first day of basic training: “You have one freedom! The freedom to shut the hell up and do what I tell you!” It probably wasn’t the wisest move in the world to tell him that was actually two freedoms.
I considered it, but I don’t intend to do so. And in any case, joining the military, in a country without a draft, is a voluntary act.
The gist of that post (#580) seems to be a paraphrase of this page:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#contract
to which ‘Tis Himself linked earlier, at #572. I didn’t address it in detail then, but I will do so tomorrow (I don’t have time now).
“Freedom” does not mean that society owes you a living, or that, being hungry and homeless, you have a right to feed and clothe yourself at your neighbour’s expense.
No, moral decency does, sicko.
Here’s a thorough refutation of libertarianism:
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
nothing’s sacred @586:
Your “thorough refutation of libertarianism” is, in fact, a lengthy rant which simply concludes with, in essence, “libertarians are nasty and evil and want to throw the poor out on the street”. Let’s look at some of the nonsense on that page.
Yes, it was such a great idea to make loans to people with low incomes in order to foster home ownership. Those subprime mortgages were so fantastic for the economy.
Complete misunderstanding. Libertarians believe in laws, and in enforcing those laws: provided that said laws are just and necessary. A just and necessary law is one that prevents a person from interfering with another’s body, property or autonomy, or one which protects communal resources and infrastructure from abuse.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not advocate giving corporations a free hand to do as they wish. If a corporation violates the bodily autonomy or property rights of an individual – in which I include, for instance, destroying people’s health and property by dumping toxic waste – then it should be fixed with appropriate criminal and civil liability.
Rather, what I advocate is reducing the restrictions on contracts between free individuals. If, for example, I am willing to work for a rate below the minimum wage, and an employer is willing to hire me for that rate, there is no reason why we should not be able to enter into a contract of employment to that effect. The alternative, very often, is unemployment; if employers are forced to pay their workers more, they’ll simply hire fewer workers, or move their operations to a jurisdiction where they can pay lower wages. If you stop them from doing these things, they’ll go out of business, making even more people unemployed. I oppose minimum wage laws not out of callousness, but because they hurt the very people they’re intended to help.
Creating jobs in China, India and other countries – which, while incredibly poorly paid by Western standards, are better than the job opportunities previously available to the poor of those countries (which generally consisted of subsistence farming, prostitution or begging). But, of course, Western leftists and their union backers don’t care about that; they just want to preserve jobs for union workers, since it’s the unions that provide their base of popular support.
I completely agree. Which is why we should never give one group of people – the central government – enough power to mess things up. Government should exercise as little power as possible, and that which it does exercise should be exercised mainly by local governments, not the central government. Yes, corporations can amass a great deal of power; but in a country governed by the rule of law, they cannot use coercive force to impose their will on citizens. Governments can.
True. But that wealth and prosperity wasn’t created out of nowhere by federal government programmes. The wealth was generated by a century of consumer capitalism, entrepreneurship and innovation. The bureaucratic capitalism and high levels of government interference instituted in most countries after WWII stifled this entrepreneurship and innovation; meaning that, by the 1980s, the world was ready for a change. And that change was delivered by Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney and others.
Excellent bit of statistical cherry-picking. The author conveniently forgets to mention that, today, Chile is one of the most stable and prosperous countries in Latin America. Contrast this with the socialist policies being pursued today in Venezuela and Bolivia; are those people better off than the Chileans?
Last time I checked, libertarians support effective law enforcement and anti-monopoly regulation. A state without these things is not libertarian. It’s anarchic. There is a crucial difference, but the author of this article keeps (either stupidly or dishonestly) conflating the two.
A crisis created by the policies of government. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and promptly screwed everything up.
Because the economic dimension is significantly more important to the average citizen’s life. If I were gay, for example, I’d be far more concerned about whether I had the right to keep and spend my own money than about whether I had the right to get married. This isn’t to say that marriage equality isn’t important, or isn’t worth fighting for; it absolutely is, and I was as opposed to Prop 8 as any liberal. But when it comes down to a simple, stark choice, I’m going to go with economic freedom over social freedom.
Walton:
Really? Weird.
I’d certainly rather be a socially free economic slave than a financially free social slave, and I bet most normal humans would. We are members of a social species, after all.
PS – I don’t particularly want to weigh in on economic or political matters, but I think that portion about the poor and loans was more general than you imply; i.e. more about microfinance than about subprime mortgages.
Walton, who is paying for your university degree? Are you paying for every single bit of it? Out of your own pocket? Or are you benefitting from other people’s contributions?
Nice bit of quotemining there, Walton. You left off the last sentence of the paragraph: “Institutions like the Grameen Bank have found that micro-loans work very well, and are profitable, in the poorest countries on Earth, such as Bangladesh.” Your object was answered in the essay, but you pretended it wasn’t. Shabby, Walton, very shabby.
Subprime mortgages were a bad idea. That’s why they were unknown in the US until the 1980s. It was the libertarian-inspired Reagan administration and the Republican controlled Congress that lifted the legal restrictions on subprimes which made them both possible and legal.
Nobody disagrees that laws should protect peoples’ bodies, property or autonomy and protect communal resources and infrastructure. The question is to what extend should that protection be given.
Many libertarians* claim that The Free Market should be completely unregulated (they make noises about protection from fraud but they don’t really mean it, unless they’re a victim of the fraud). Normal people think that regulated markets are a good idea, especially after seeing Enron, the subprime meltdown, and what’s happening to their retirement accounts.
The anarcho-capitalist libertarians have no problem with monopolies**. An unregulated market, which these folks are in favor of, means unregulated. Anti-monopoly laws are market regulations. What part of “laissez faire” don’t you understand, Walton?
This is a great myth favored by conservatives and libertarians, usually coupled with “and the New Deal just made the Depression worse.” And it’s so much bullshit! As H.L. Mencken put it: “Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.”
First off, Friedman and Schwartz did not claim the Fed caused the Great Depression, only that it failed to use policies that might have stopped a recession from turning into a depression.
Secondly, the US was on a gold standard until 1933. So the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by laws which required gold backing of that credit. By the late 1920s the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes. Since a “promise of gold” is not as good as “gold in the hand”, during the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. So legally the Fed could not increase the money supply. This was the main reason why the US (and other Western countries facing similar problems) abandoned the gold standard.***
*One problem with discussing things with libertarians is there are so many different types of libertarianism. So a critic may refute a commonly held libertarian idea and some particular libertarian claims that his brand, the only pure and righteous libertarianism, doesn’t suffer from the specific defect that’s been refuted.
**Which is one of the reasons I say that libertarians tend to be economic illiterates.
***For some reason I’ve been discussing the gold standard a lot recently. I don’t know why.
I don’t see this as a problem. Politics is not religion; claiming to subscribe to a political ideology does not mean you have to accept, as a package deal, all the ideas of a given thinker or group. Just as not all of those who label themselves “socialist” share the same set of ideas, neither do self-identified “libertarians”. “Libertarian” does not mean “member of the One Holy Apostolic Church of Ayn Rand”; it’s a blanket term for a disparate group of people who share (for various different reasons) a desire to reduce the size and intrusiveness of government in both the social and economic spheres. I call myself a “libertarian” (or a “classical liberal”) because, on balance, it’s the word that fits best; but this doesn’t mean I’m responsible for defending the views of everyone else in the world who calls themselves a libertarian.
If, every time someone identified themselves as a socialist, I were to start ranting about the evils of Marxism-Leninism, rather than addressing the ideas actually held by the person to whom I’m speaking, they would be justifiably annoyed. Not all self-described socialists believe the same things, and so, too, not all self-described libertarians believe the same things. I don’t know where you get this idea that ideological heterogeneity within a political movement is a Bad Thing, or why you accuse me of claiming that my views constitute the only “pure and righteous” libertarianism. Naturally, I think my views are more practical in the real world than those of anarchocapitalists – just as I’m sure you believe(rightly) that your views are more practical than those of revolutionary neo-Marxists.
If you disagree with my actual beliefs, then say so; but don’t start asking me to defend the ideas of Rand or Rothbard, because those are not ideas to which I personally subscribe. To put it beyond any shadow of a doubt, here is what I do believe:
Things the State should do
(in no particular order, and this is not an exhaustive list)
1. Defend the nation
2. Maintain courts, defend and delineate property rights, arbitrate contracts
3. Enforce criminal laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
4. Provide basic emergency services (fire, police, ambulance etc.)
5. Enforce competition and anti-monopoly laws
6. Control pollution and preserve natural resources
7. Fund education (ideally through a universal school voucher system)
8. Maintain basic infrastructure (roads, bridges etc.)
9. Protect children from abuse
10. Impose the following taxes to pay for the above:
(a) Land value tax
(b) Inheritance tax
(c) A flat rate of income tax, if absolutely necessary
Things the State should not do
(Again, not an exhaustive list)
1. Bail out failing industries
2. Subsidise industries
3. Nationalise industries
4. Impose protectionist tariffs and price controls
5. Force everyone to contribute to
(a) a state social security or pension plan
(b) a state health system
6. Criminalise private activities between consenting adults
7. Enforce minimum wages, maximum working hours, statutory maternity leave, etc.
8. Subsidise religious activities
9. Conscript people into the armed forces
10. Maintain national parks, national monuments or historic sites
11. Subsidise artistic or cultural activities
12. Subsidise broadcasting
That “whoosh” sound was the point flying over your head.
You claimed that:
I said that one particular sect of libertarians, the anarcho-capitalist faction, are against anti-monopoly regulation. Your particular clique are in favor of such laws. You and I both admit that certain libertarians disagree with some other libertarians. I fail to see what you’re complaining about.
I won’t bother to give a point by point refutation of those things governments do that you’re for or against. I will note that you obviously don’t have a clue as to what the real world is like and your dislike of the poor and working people is quite evident.
Not so. I judge people on their individual personalities and conduct, not on their socio-economic class. Hence, as I don’t personally know very many people who could be described as “poor” (though it is, of course, a relative term), on what basis could I harbour any personal dislike towards the “poor” in general?
And what do you mean by “working people”? If you mean “people who are employed by another for an agreed salary”, then you refer to a large majority of the adult population, including many of my friends and family. So your statement makes absolutely no sense, and is just more class-warrior invective.
First, let’s settle the minor point. In the US the “working people” are what would be considered middle and lower class in England. Essentially these the people who live paycheck to paycheck, have little or no savings, and would need some kind of aid if they lost their jobs or had a major financial catastrophe.
You show disdain for Social Security (or whatever you want to call government provided old age and disability pensions), a national health program (single payer insurance, NHS, etc.), minimum wage, and such government mandated or provided support for working people (for definition, see above). Since the beneficiaries of these schemes are working people, and you don’t want this schemes to even exist, then you are saying: “I want schemes that benefit working people to be abolished. I don’t care that some people need these schemes to survive, they’re against my ideology. Let people starve. MY ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY ÜBER ALLES!” In other words, your disdain for working people shines through.
I really, truly hope that you undergo a period of poverty. It might show you that your dislike for government assistance is misplaced.
I see that in my post #594 I dropped a couple of words, used a wrong tense or two, and was somewhat ungrammatical. That’s because I wrote the post in a rage. I dislike people who hate other people. That’s the root cause of my dislike of libertarians. Their selfish, “I got mine, fuck you” attitude is more than annoying.
You’re a blatant liar.
Your “thorough refutation of libertarianism” is, in fact, a lengthy rant which simply concludes with, in essence, “libertarians are nasty and evil and want to throw the poor out on the street”.
You’re a blatant liar. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of your intellectual dishonesty.
“5. Enforce competition and anti-monopoly laws
6. Control pollution and preserve natural resources”
These, and this:
“10. Maintain national parks, national monuments or historic sites”
Are contradictory. Pray tell, how is the state supposed to “preserve natural resources” without parks and other historic sites? A ban on logging etc in certain areas? Wouldn’t the FREE MARKET not like that?
Also, I find that it’s hard to learn when I’m sick. Why should the government fund my education, but not my healthcare?
On second thought, number 5 has nothing to do with my argument. Discard it.
Justin, it’s just a list of desires of one intellectually dishonest, morally depraved, and not particularly bright person. There’s no reason to pay any attention to it, including pointing out inconsistencies in it.
Apologies for the late reply, I’ve been away for a week.
As I made clear, I oppose the minimum wage (to take one example) because it hurts, not helps, poorer people, for the reasons which I very clearly outlined above. Likewise, I oppose a national health programme because it results either in bad healthcare or unsustainably high expenses, or sometimes both. (NHS hospitals here in the UK are notorious for massive financial problems, management clusterfucks, poor hygiene and general incompetence.)
Any radical change will cause some people to suffer; but I am confident that my suggested change will, in the long run, help more people than it hurts. But, to clarify, I wouldn’t instantly scrap all welfare payments with no recompense; that would be grossly unfair to those who’ve spent their whole lives paying taxes to support various benefit schemes in the expectation of receiving the relevant benefits. Rather, we could perhaps convert some welfare schemes into individual private savings accounts; perhaps, for instance, we could scrap National Insurance here in the UK, along with the social benefit schemes which it funds, and give everyone a tax-free cash payout commensurate with the number of years they’ve been paying National Insurance. (This is just an off-the-cuff suggestion, I haven’t researched its feasibility.)
There have to be some government-mandated restrictions on the exploitation of certain resources, since, otherwise, the “tragedy of the commons” will cause those resources to be depleted. Fish stocks are a good example (the transferable quota system used in Iceland, where one can essentially purchase a proprietary right to fish, seems to be a good way of dealing with this type of problem).
But there’s a world of difference between that and protecting an “area of natural beauty” or “wilderness area” at the taxpayer’s expense, not because it provides any useful resource but merely because it’s considered scenic. “Natural beauty” is not an objective attribute; it has significance only in the minds of human beings. Thus, if enough people consider a given wilderness area beautiful enough that they want to go and see it, it should be possible to preserve it commercially at a profit; if they don’t, then there’s no reason why it should be preserved at all.
Because state funding of education is essential to social mobility. It’s not fair to deny an able child opportunity because of his or her parents’ failings. For the same reason, I support social services for children.
By contrast, if a competent adult chooses of his or her own volition not to obtain private medical insurance, despite having enough income to afford to do so, s/he should not receive healthcare at the taxpayer’s expense.
This is what is known in the rhetorics business as “wishful thinking.”
One of my biggest complaints about economic looneytarianism is how it ignores history. Laissez faire capitalism was tried in the 19th Century and was rejected for sound reasons. Private charities could not take care of the destitute. As we’re discovering once again, financial markets need to be regulated. My 401K (private investment pension plan) has lost over 20% of its value in the past year and the reason it’s lost so little compared to other peoples’ 401Ks is that my investments are very conservative.
Do you have a clue about what private health insurance costs? Of course you don’t, you haven’t researched it. When my 30 year old daughter got laid off from her job, she was given the option of staying in the company health insurance plan but paying for it herself. The cost was $1200 (about £815) per month. A stripped down, catastrophic care, $5000 deductible plan was $600 per month. Please explain to me how an unemployed person (or even one bringing home $300 or $400 per week) is supposed to afford health insurance? I make considerably more than that and I’d be hard put to come up with $1200 per month.
If you looneytarians spent any time in the real world, you’d know things like this. Instead, you ignore reality, pretend that all will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds, and indulge in wishful thinking.
Diamat has the answers!