Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 61 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Nobody Is 100% Libertarian (Read 11731 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36138
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #280 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:46am
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 7:12pm:
Sunday, 18/03/11 19:12 EDT
[url=http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1512929132/261#261]


My premise was this:
which (I think) is rather different than "fantasizing that everyone on earth is a libertarian citizen of earth and no welfare or police states exist anywhere."

"Envision a future in which the libertarian idea has become so widespread that legal aggression (i.e. government as we know it) is no longer permitted."

You start with the premise that government "won't be permitted" to exist, that everyone on earth will control themselves and follow the NAP.

In a world of perfect people, no government will be needed so people won't create or sustain governments.

Fantasies are fun, but why expect anything that you theorize/fantasize about a world full of libertarians will apply to the real world? On small scales, groups of people often get along fine without government, but they also often rob and beat and kill each other. How does it help to imagine the thieves and murderers have disappeared?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2555
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #281 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:16am
Print Post  
The CDC and FBI do a lot of good.  I've watched Investigation Discovery enough to know that the FBI is involved in solving a lot of crime.  And I like that the CDC monitors diseases, it benefits all of us.  I still think the government could and should be greatly reduced.  The Drug Enforcement Agency can be the first to go.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #282 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:06am
Print Post  
Mon. 18/03/12 11:06 EDT
.post #6

RubyHypatia wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 5:49pm:
What about government organizations like the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Bureau of Investigation?  Anyone against them?

RubyHypatia wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:16am:
The CDC and FBI do a lot of good.  I've watched Investigation Discovery enough to know that the FBI is involved in solving a lot of crime.  And I like that the CDC monitors diseases, it benefits all of us.  I still think the government could and should be greatly reduced.  The Drug Enforcement Agency can be the first to go.


I'm not "against them" or against any government agency, really (nor am I necessarily "for" any one of them).  What is important (to me) is not that I, or someone else, gets to decide which agencies go and which ones stay; this attitude strikes me as just another variation of the "central planner mentality" - the belief that one person, or an elite group, is smart enough to decide what is good for an enormous number of people...and further, that "one size fits all."

Rather, what is important (to me) is that every government agency be subject to the same law everyone else is subject to: you don't get to legally point a gun at people and take their money to subsidize your existence.  Also, you don't have any special permission to regulate or control other people or other businesses.  Rather, you must offer something that others value and will voluntarily exchange money for.  If you can do that and maintain your existence, then you are justified and legitimate.

As far the FBI and the CDC (and all other government bureaucracies, centers, agencies, etc.) my preference would be to see (something like) the following implemented:

1. All government Agencies, Bureaucracies, Centers, etc. (we could refer to them generically as "ABCs" as a tip of the hat to the government's penchant for three-letter names) will henceforth be removed from the tax-funded life support system and will sink or swim according to how well they can sell their services or solicit voluntary donations.

2. All government ABCs will henceforth abide by all the same laws every other person and business are subject to: No theft, no fraud, no aggression.

3. All government ABCs will henceforth cease to enjoy government monopoly status and must now compete in a free market for their customers.  Again, they will sink or swim according to their ability to do what every other business must do:  satisfy its customers.

So now, if I didn't think much of the CDC (for example), I wouldn't be forced to pay for it...but you could still send in your voluntary donation and annual Christmas greeting.  What's more, I'd be free to establish some organization that would compete with the CDC...and then try to get your business....or you'd be free to continue to patronize the CDC and support my service as well.

Hard-core conservatives who support the "war on drugs" would be free to voluntarily support the DEA which would probably do things like pump out anti-drug propaganda - they could even have their own "Drug Discovery" TV series to promote their service and augment their income - but "no-knock" raids and all the other aggression would be forbidden.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2136
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #283 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:31am
Print Post  
Its interesting to hear from someone that appears to actually be the strawman that progressives like to fight against.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8078
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #284 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:56am
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:06am:
...what is important (to me) is that every government agency be subject to the same law everyone else is subject to: you don't get to legally point a gun at people and take their money to subsidize your existence.

Amen, brother Mark.   Smiley


MMMark wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:06am:
3. All government ABCs will henceforth cease to enjoy government monopoly status and must now compete in a free market for their customers.  Again, they will sink or swim according to their ability to do what every other business must do:  satisfy its customers.

Let's admit it - there are some gov't ABCs that cannot be handled by the private sector.  The FCC, the FAA come to mind. These agencies are vital to the day-to-day operation of our country.  Imagine if these were to shut down for a day....    just. for. ONE. day.  Shocked

There would be mayhem.  Private sector won't want to compete in these functions because there's simply no profit in it. IOW, there are some essential agencies that need to be publicly funded - it's just a fact we need to accept. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #285 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:10pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 11:06am:
Mon. 18/03/12 11:06 EDT
.post #6



I'm not "against them" or against any government agency, really (nor am I necessarily "for" any one of them).  What is important (to me) is not that I, or someone else, gets to decide which agencies go and which ones stay; this attitude strikes me as just another variation of the "central planner mentality" - the belief that one person, or an elite group, is smart enough to decide what is good for an enormous number of people...and further, that "one size fits all."

Rather, what is important (to me) is that every government agency be subject to the same law everyone else is subject to: you don't get to legally point a gun at people and take their money to subsidize your existence.  Also, you don't have any special permission to regulate or control other people or other businesses.  Rather, you must offer something that others value and will voluntarily exchange money for.  If you can do that and maintain your existence, then you are justified and legitimate.

As far the FBI and the CDC (and all other government bureaucracies, centers, agencies, etc.) my preference would be to see (something like) the following implemented:

1. All government Agencies, Bureaucracies, Centers, etc. (we could refer to them generically as "ABCs" as a tip of the hat to the government's penchant for three-letter names) will henceforth be removed from the tax-funded life support system and will sink or swim according to how well they can sell their services or solicit voluntary donations.

2. All government ABCs will henceforth abide by all the same laws every other person and business are subject to: No theft, no fraud, no aggression.

3. All government ABCs will henceforth cease to enjoy government monopoly status and must now compete in a free market for their customers.  Again, they will sink or swim according to their ability to do what every other business must do:  satisfy its customers.

So now, if I didn't think much of the CDC (for example), I wouldn't be forced to pay for it...but you could still send in your voluntary donation and annual Christmas greeting.  What's more, I'd be free to establish some organization that would compete with the CDC...and then try to get your business....or you'd be free to continue to patronize the CDC and support my service as well.

Hard-core conservatives who support the "war on drugs" would be free to voluntarily support the DEA which would probably do things like pump out anti-drug propaganda - they could even have their own "Drug Discovery" TV series to promote their service and augment their income - but "no-knock" raids and all the other aggression would be forbidden.


Why not just refer to my list of 50 reasons? You've slowly getting around to stating them anyway, but in a more complimentary way than the list does. The list is much more honest and direct. For example, you babble on about:

Quote:
3. All government ABCs will henceforth cease to enjoy government monopoly status and must now compete in a free market for their customers.  Again, they will sink or swim according to their ability to do what every other business must do:  satisfy its customers.


Generalities aren't specifics and failing to get specific is a common trick being used by libertarians. The fact is, any job being done by government now, can't be done as well by private. And a rational person would probably add a few others that should be done by government but aren't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8085
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #286 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 3:20pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 7:12pm:
I named three people, persons "A", "B" and "C" and then tacked on "and so on" to suggest the entire voting population.  Multiple Mephistopheles (aka politicians) tempt every voter with the promise to commit one or another legal aggression tailored to benefit the voter being tempted, but the real cost of keeping each promise is the total cost of keeping all the promises...which turns out to be enormous.

The Opposition then (astutely, I thought) distilled this to just two persons ("you" and "he") by asking rhetorically: "If you don't have a principle without exceptions, what's to say you should get your exception and he shouldn't get his?"


Thank you. I have trouble being understood on this board and usually I just end up getting flamed over something like that (the number of people) so it means a lot to me that you got exactly what I was saying.

Can't say it enough. Thank you.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #287 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 4:30pm
Print Post  
Mon. 18/03/12 16:30 EDT
.post #7

Quote:
Why not just refer to my list of 50 reasons? You've slowly getting around to stating them anyway, but in a more complimentary way than the list does. The list is much more honest and direct.

It seems to me that the two following groups comprise non-libertarians:
1. Those who genuinely don't understand, or misunderstand, libertarianism;
2. Those who understand, but intentionally misrepresent, libertarianism.

You ask: "Why not just refer to (your) list of 50 reasons?" (when responding, I assume, to RubyHypatia's two questions).  I guess I could have done that, had I found something in the list that was better than what I composed and tailored specifically to what was asked.*

This "list of 50 reasons" assembles fifty-seven "... positions of some prominent and not so prominent libertarians going back to the 1970's and before" and augments these (alleged but un-referenced) positions with snarky (mis)interpretations so as to suggest that libertarians are at best "batshit crazy" and at worst malevolent.

In other words, this list is a wonderful misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of what libertarianism is.  Anyone who is serious about understanding libertarianism doesn't consult such a list but rather first learns the principles of libertarianism (notably absent from this list and others of its ilk): The Non-Aggression Principle, property, responsibility, self-ownership, voluntary exchange.

Bruce Evoy and Vince Miller, when forming a libertarian political party in the Canadian province of Ontario, composed the following, which I think is quite good:

A. Libertarian Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Ontario Libertarian Party, support the following principles:

1.    Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.
2.    Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.
3.    In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.
4.    In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.
5.    The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are:
a.       settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed;
b.        providing protection from criminals;
c.        providing protection from foreign invaders.
6.    As a consequence of all the above, every individual -- as long as he or she respects the rights of others -- has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader on a free market.

source: http://www.libertarian.on.ca/content/statement-ultimate-goals-and-principles


Some of the positions that result from the rigorous and consistent application of libertarian principles can be (at first, anyway) shocking to some people, but when one understands the rightness of the principles (which is easy), one gradually learns to at least tolerate the resulting positions, which is part of the process of embracing liberty and all it entails.

What can also be shocking and difficult (at first) to acknowledge is the extent to which government violates libertarian principles.

Still others simply don't like the Non-Aggression Principle; these people approve of a democratically-sanctioned elite group which will (they hope) fulfill their desire for aggression-by-proxy.




*I actually did "refer to (your) list of 50 reasons", but I did so satirically, in my 50 reasons (some) non-libertarians are super-smart.

Let me "get specific":
MMMark wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:09am:
50. Ridicule of Libertarians ... What's with that "non-aggression" thing, anyway?  That's just batshit crazy.

The point here is that ridiculing the results of the Non-Aggression Principle is tantamount to ridiculing the principle itself.

What an embarrassing "badge of honor" to wear, doubly so when the author doesn't even realize he's wearing it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #288 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 4:38pm
Print Post  
Mon. 18/03/12 16:34 EDT
.post #8

Quote:
For example, you babble on about:

3. All government ABCs will henceforth cease to enjoy government monopoly status and must now compete in a free market for their customers.  Again, they will sink or swim according to their ability to do what every other business must do:  satisfy its customers.

Generalities aren't specifics and failing to get specific is a common trick being used by libertarians.

I think the failure here is on the part of those who subscribe to "central planning mentality" - Thomas Sowell called them "the anointed;" in Sowell's words:

"They are people who seriously believe that they are wiser and nobler than others and the way to improve society is to have the government force people to follow what the anointed want rather than let people do what they themselves want to do."

Friedrich Hayek also made reference to this mentality when he coined the phrase The Fatal Conceit.

What you see as a "failure to get specific" is just the admirable quality of humility and also the acknowledgement that central planning and micro-managing the economy is antithetical to what the market is all about.

Your further characterization of this humility as "a trick" slanderously and unjustifiably impugns the intentions of those who are answering the question honestly.

I gave my best response to RubyHypatia who, if unsatisfied, is free to ask further questions.
If you are unsatisfied with what I said, I suggest you heed your own admonition:  "Get specific."



Quote:
The fact is, any job being done by government now, can't be done as well by private.

You've not only understated the situation but, in my opinion, you've incorrectly stated it.  Let me reword what you wrote, as follows:

"The fact is, any job being done by government now, can't be done at all by private."

Now the statement acknowledges the plain truth, which is:

The only thing government can do, and the one thing the private sector cannot do, is commit legal aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #289 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 4:45pm
Print Post  
[Mon. 18/03/12 16:44 EDT
.post #9

The Opposition wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 3:20pm:
Thank you.

Keep up the good work.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 61
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy