Well, I think that almost every Libertarian on this board is a Minarchist, though I could be wrong. Im not too big on the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint if I knew that at least 99% of the population would support the non-aggression axiom, then Id consider it, but I have a little less faith with the number of idiots in the world right now (I live in a town that has more prisoners than citizens can you imagine anarcho-capitalism surviving here? ).MrktMkr1986You've misinterpreted my question then. I know the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. The "no government" reference was not directed towards you or anyone who shares your beliefs... there are people who call themselves "libertarian" who espouse anarchist views... I didn't see fit to leave them out of the discussion (see: anarcho-capitalist).
They dont seem mutually exclusive to me though. Yes, Libertarians are typically associated with negative liberties, but negative liberties naturally lead to positive liberties (assuming my definition is correct).Speaking of "liking freedom", I prefer positive liberties over negative liberties -- this, I believe is where our fundamental differences lie.
DukeBrian had trouble getting his head around this, too: being Libertarian does not mean you have to accept the entire Party line. You have the liberty to choose the parts you like and disagree with the parts you don't like.
SwiftSo, what would be the constant in Libertarianism?
danoffFreedom, Personal Responsibility, Rights, Government only when necessary.
SwiftSorry to be a jerk, but some of those have incredibly gray areas. Infact, they all do. Can you get a little more detailed?
danoffThose are the "constants". The party themes. Those are the "universal fundamental principles" shared by the people in the party.
Yes I can get more detailed, but I'd like to see anyone come up with a list like that for the democrapublicans - I don't think it's possible.
SwiftI didn't say it was.
Let's talk about rights real quick. Let me know if this has been gone over before. But the libertarian stance is you have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others correct?
danoff...that's the basic idea. But you sound like you're luring me into some kind of trap.
SwiftOh, sorry. Honestly. Because I really do like some of what the libertarians say, I'm just trying to get a clearer understanding of party philosophy.
danoffWell that's the deal. You have the right to do things that don't interfere with the rights of others.
So how do we define the rights of others??? They have the right to do anything that doesn't interfere with your rights.
Sounds circular. So you have to iterate around until it's self-consistent.
Start out with everyone having the right to do everything. I have the right to kill you, you have the right to kill me. But I also have the right to own property (including my body) and so do you. So the right to kill and the right to own property are conflicting. That means we either get rid of the right to kill or the right to own property.
Etc. Etc.
Swiftyes that is circular. You know what scares me about that. It sounds like the 3 rules of robots from I, Robot. Let me know if you're not sure what I'm talking about.
danoffNo, it isn't circular. It SOUNDS circular. You have to iterate until it's consistent.
What are the rules from that movie again?
DukeYes, they are mutually exclusive. If you don't think so, then you don't understand the real concept of freedom. Real freedom is not the right to do anything you want and escape the consequences, nor is it the right to interfere with the freedom of others. So there is no way that freedom and oppression are not mutually exclusive.
What is a "positive" liberty? I expect I know what you're going to say, but I want to hear it in your words.
I like being a Libertarian because I value freedom more than anything else.
I was not born rich, nor was I born poor. I was born randomly into a given situation, and it's been my responsibility to make do with that beginning. That's fair, too. I can't ethically ask any more than that, nor would I want to. It's not a person's fault whether they were born rich or poor. On that score, it's not a matter of "deserving" or not. Nobody can choose the circumstances of their birth. It's what you do with your advantages and how you overcome your disadvantages that determine your value as a person.
I am comfortable with this resposibility - in fact, for my own philosophical, moral, and ethical happiness, I must take this responsibility for myself. The satisfactions I get are all mine; the flip side is that I bear my disappointments myself. Again, how much more fair can that be? I earn my own joy through mental and physical work and ability.
That's the appeal - and I can't understand how people could have any joy or satisfaction knowing that they had not earned what they have gotten (and remember, this does not refer to being born rich).
Note that there are outside burdens I willingly accept - that of family, friends, and even charities of which I approve, I choose, and I determine how much to give. That's very different from having arbitrary law determining what charities/people I must support and how much I must pay to support them.
I became an Objectivist when I read Atlas Shrugged. My oldest sister told me I should read The Fountainhead in around 9th grade, because I was interested in becoming an architect. I read it, found it very compelling (it parallelled many of my own thoughts), and went looking for more Ayn Rand to read. I found Atlas Shrugged, devoured it, and from there it was no looking back. The fundamental ideas of Objectivism just make so much rational, logical sense that I could not refuse them. I've been reevaluating those ideals continuously for more than 25 years and I've found nothing else that comes close to their logic.
I became Libertarian as I approached voting age, when I began looking for a political party that most closely matched those ideals.
I will point out that Ayn Rand highly disliked Libertarians, because she thought them undisciplined.
But it's perfectly possible to be a Libertarian and discipline yourself, so I've been able to overcome that dichotomy.
Dan...that's the basic idea. But you sound like you're luring me into some kind of trap.
Well that's the deal. You have the right to do things that don't interfere with the rights of others.
So how do we define the rights of others??? They have the right to do anything that doesn't interfere with your rights.
Sounds circular. So you have to iterate around until it's self-consistent.
Start out with everyone having the right to do everything. I have the right to kill you, you have the right to kill me. But I also have the right to own property (including my body) and so do you. So the right to kill and the right to own property are conflicting. That means we either get rid of the right to kill or the right to own property.
I1. Cannot harm any humans
2. Must do what a human says
3. Can defend self as long as it doesn't conflict with rules 1 or 2
BrianDoes one lose their property rights if they incur debts and are unable to pay? If so, since your body is considered property, then could a debt holder force you into slavery until all debts have been repaid? If not, then wouldn't the act of getting something for nothing be considered an initiation of force?
danoffYou can work out a deal with your debtors, or you can go to jail for theft.
If you chose to work out a deal with your debtors it could be in the form of manual labor of some sort - but you can't give up your rights.
You cannot sign a contract that waives your rights (this is consistent with current law). But you can freely offer services in return for waived debt. If your debtor agrees - it would keep you out of jail.
This is quite simple. I don't see why anyone would disagree. Do you?
The other option (to keep people out of jail) is to allow them to steal from their debtors and file bankruptcy. This is also ok because the debtors are aware of this risk prior to loaning you money. I don't like it because it allows you to screw someone else over - but it's not a big deal in my mind because it's voluntary on the part of the debtors who (presumably) know the law.
MrktMkr1986A privately-owned jail I would imagine.
Anyway, it's the whole "working out a deal with you debtors" part that scares me.
What do you mean I can't give up my rights? That's an arbitrary restriction!
And if the debtor and I agree that I will work 18 hour days without pay for 75 days, is this not an example of slavery (however, brief the time period may be)?
Simple, yes. Fair, no. That's a loophole that needs some serious adjustment.
Should this be applied to nations as well (i.e. should governments default as opposed to raising taxes)?
No, I wouldn't agree, and I'm confused as to why you think I would. It sounds like you're still using the incorrect definition of "freedom" as meaning "allowed to do whatever you want without regard for the rights of others".MrktMkr1986So would you agree the statement that some oppression is necessary, then? (I'll explain later why I believe the two are not mutually exclusive)
Then yes, we fundamentally disagree, and always will. I do not accept entitlements as "rights". They do not derive from each person's individual existence the same way that negative rights do.A positive liberty in my own words? Everyone has the right to a minimum standard of living (be it education, a place to live, food etc). No one should be discriminated against (privately or publicly).
If you're selling yourself, then it's not slavery, is it? It may be a poor deal, but if you are exchanging ownership rights (of yourself) for a value (money), then you are not becoming a slave. Slavery is when a person's right of ownership to themselves is taken from them by force.Then should one be "free" to sell themselves into slavery? That's my main concern.
It's not. Social Darwinism states that the people who are richest are better than other people, more or less by definition. That's not at all what I'm saying.That sounds like social darwinism to me.
They need to do the best they can. Private charities can help them depending upon the criteria set by those charities. I'm not even averse to a small public insurance fund for the absolutely permanently helpless people... but it would have to be very carefully watched and the definition of eligibility would have to be very carefully controlled.And for the people who don't have the mental and/or physical abilities that you have...?
I'm referring to people who receive money given to them via welfare, or who take money themselves via theft. A person who is born rich did not ask to be born rich any more than a poor person asked to be born poor. Therefore no guilt or non-satisfaction attaches to the circumstances of birth. It is a simple random occurrance. Someone who is born rich may choose to share that good fortune of their own free will - but they are not obliged to do so under any circumstances. Someone who is born poor may be grateful to recieve some charity assistance, but they should under no circumstances feel entitled to assistance.I can't understand how people could have any joy or satisfaction knowing that they had not earned what they have gotten (and remember, this does not refer to being born rich).
If you're not referring to people being born rich then who are you referring to?
Yet you've consistently shown your willingness to impose arbitrary law in order to force me to support charities that you choose.Note that there are outside burdens I willingly accept - that of family, friends, and even charities of which I approve, I choose, and I determine how much to give. That's very different from having arbitrary law determining what charities/people I must support and how much I must pay to support them.
Absolutely.
I'm a David Kelley/IOS Objectivist. In my opinion, Leonard Peikoff holds to a far more dogmatic version of Objectivism. This probably arises from his association with Ayn Rand herself in his younger days; he seems to have a feeling of being 'blessed' by her as the standard-bearer for Objectivism. David Kelley, on the other hand, I feel has a much more realistic and fundamental grasp of what Objectivism truly means. He's also somewhat more Libertarian in his leanings.From what I've read there are two different schools of thought when talking about Objectivism. There's the Peikoff (from the Ayn Rand Institute) version, and the Kelley (from the Institute For Objectivist Studies) version. Which of the two most closely represents your position on the subject?
I was happy to be able to register as a Libertarian in Maryland. Unfortunately the rolls aren't large enough in Delaware, so when I moved I had to register as Independent.That's interesting -- because thanks to this thread, I too have found a political party that most closely matches my ideals. Unfortunately for me, this means re-registering...
I mean that she thought the Libertarian philosophy left too much undefined or open to interpretation on the subject of what constitutes acceptable behaviour.That's odd because Objectivism and Libertarianism seem so similar on the surface. What exactly do you mean by undisciplined?
Of course. See my point immediately above. But as long as they are not depriving others of their (negative) rights, that's their right.Wait-a-minute... are you implying that some Libertarians are undisciplined?
Dan has addressed this well above.Does one lose their property rights if they incur debts and are unable to pay? If so, since your body is considered property, then could a debt holder force you into slavery until all debts have been repaid? If not, then wouldn't the act of getting something for nothing be considered an initiation of force?
DukeNo, I wouldn't agree, and I'm confused as to why you think I would. It sounds like you're still using the incorrect definition of "freedom" as meaning "allowed to do whatever you want without regard for the rights of others".
Freedom does not include the right to deprive others of their rights. Since depriving others of their rights is not itself a right, then preventing that from occurring cannot be defined as "oppression".
This is why I say freedom and oppression are mutually exclusive.
Then yes, we fundamentally disagree, and always will. I do not accept entitlements as "rights". They do not derive from each person's individual existence the same way that negative rights do.
How can it possibly be slavery if you agree to it?MrktMkr1986And if the debtor and I agree that I will work 18 hour days without pay for 75 days, is this not an example of slavery (however, brief the time period may be)?
Click here.SwiftMan, I'd really like to just get to the heart of the matter, but we seem to be dancing around the same issues all the time.
Duke
DukeSure. What do you want to know?
DukeWhy would you need any more extreme punishments than we already have?
If you violate someone's rights - hurt them, or steal something from them - you go to jail and/or make restitution.
SwiftRight, but jail hasn't been too big of a ditorrent from crimes. Even non drug related crimes.