Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 1,829 comments
  • 79,033 views
Brian 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.
 
MrktMkr1986
You'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).
Well, I think that almost every Libertarian on this board is a Minarchist, though I could be wrong. I’m 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 I’d 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? :scared:).

Speaking of "liking freedom", I prefer positive liberties over negative liberties -- this, I believe is where our fundamental differences lie.
They don’t 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).
 
I can be a libertarian if I want or a republican or a deomocrat . I do not feel you have to adhere to a particular philosophy. I like what works . Do what it takes to fix the problem . But personaly I believe in the power of the individual and that the individual will act in his best interest and whats in his best interest is good for society as a whole . I will not force my morals on anyone I feel morals are a personal decision . Thats my base .
 
Duke
Brian 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.

Just as with any organization. But at the same time, there are usually universal fundamental principles that are shared among all the different "members". As in Christianity. There are some pretty major differences across the board, but one thing is always constant, Jesus died for our sins.

So, what would be the constant in Libertarianism?
 
danoff
Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Rights, Government only when necessary.

Sorry to be a jerk, but some of those have incredibly gray areas. Infact, they all do. Can you get a little more detailed?
 
Swift
Sorry to be a jerk, but some of those have incredibly gray areas. Infact, they all do. Can you get a little more detailed?

Those 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.
 
danoff
Those 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.

I 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?
 
Swift
I 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?

...that's the basic idea. But you sound like you're luring me into some kind of trap.
 
danoff
...that's the basic idea. But you sound like you're luring me into some kind of trap.

Oh, 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.
 
Swift
Oh, 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.

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.

Etc. Etc.
 
danoff
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.

Etc. Etc.

yes 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.
 
Swift
yes 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.

No, it isn't circular. It SOUNDS circular. You have to iterate until it's consistent.

What are the rules from that movie again?
 
danoff
No, it isn't circular. It SOUNDS circular. You have to iterate until it's consistent.

What are the rules from that movie again?

1. 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
 
Duke
Yes, 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.

So would you agree the statement that some oppression is necessary, then? (I'll explain later why I believe the two 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.

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).

I like being a Libertarian because I value freedom more than anything else.

Then should one be "free" to sell themselves into slavery? That's my main concern.

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.

That sounds like social darwinism to me.

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.

And for the people who don't have the mental and/or physical abilities that you have...?

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).

If you're not referring to people being born rich then who are you referring to?

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 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.

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 became Libertarian as I approached voting age, when I began looking for a political party that most closely matched those ideals.

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 will point out that Ayn Rand highly disliked Libertarians, because she thought them undisciplined.

That's odd because Objectivism and Libertarianism seem so similar on the surface. What exactly do you mean by undisciplined?

But it's perfectly possible to be a Libertarian and discipline yourself, so I've been able to overcome that dichotomy.

Wait-a-minute... are you implying that some Libertarians are undisciplined?

Dan
...that's the basic idea. But you sound like you're luring me into some kind of trap.

:sly:

Well that's the deal. You have the right to do things that don't interfere with the rights of others.

Otherwise known as negative rights.

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.

:scared:

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.

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? :confused:

I
1. 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


1. Cannot harm corporations
2. Must do what debt holders say
3. Can defend self as long as it doesn't conflict with rules 1 or 2

:dopey:
 
Brian
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? :confused:


You can't really lose rights until you commit a crime. If you incur debt, you voluntarily have given up property to receive some goods or services - even if it's just on paper. So if you incur more debt that you can pay (or make payments on according to the contract) you have committed a crime. You have two choices. You 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 hand over your rights to another human being because you are entitled to your rights regardless of your (non-criminal) actions. You cannot sign a contract that waves your rights (this is consistent with current law). But you can freely offer services in return for waved 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.
 
danoff
You can work out a deal with your debtors, or you can go to jail for theft.

A privately-owned jail I would imagine. :sly:

Anyway, it's the whole "working out a deal with you debtors" part that scares me.

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.

What do you mean I can't give up my rights? That's an arbitrary restriction! :crazy:

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.

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)?

This is quite simple. I don't see why anyone would disagree. Do you?

Simple, yes. Fair, no. That's a loophole that needs some serious adjustment.

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.

Should this be applied to nations as well (i.e. should governments default as opposed to raising taxes)?
 
MrktMkr1986
A privately-owned jail I would imagine. :sly:

Anyway, it's the whole "working out a deal with you debtors" part that scares me.

It happens all the time. That's what bankruptcy law is all about. Corporations go out of business on a daily basis and they work out all kinds of agreements with their debtors so that they don't have to go to court or file bankruptcy.

What do you mean I can't give up my rights? That's an arbitrary restriction! :crazy:

I'm not seeing it as arbitrary. However, I don't think we're seeing things on the same page here. I think that people should be able to enter into a contract for all kinds of things. It's just that you can't waive your rights in the process. You can't waive the right to sue someone for example. But you should be able to enter into a contract that says "I acknowledge that this procedure may kill me." By doing that, you (or your family) will lose the lawsuit that you may try to bring.

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)?

Here's where we really get into things. This is not an example of slavery because you're not working without pay. You're working off your debt. The payment is simply in a reduction of what you owe. But I don't see why you couldn't enter into a contract where you work without pay if you wanted to. You could, for example, enter into a contract with the Salvation army that said you would work for 20hrs a week for 6 months without pay - simply because you felt like it. I don't see why that would require a contract but you certainly could.

That's not slavery, that's simply personal choice. You can chose to work for whatever reward you want - whether its personal satisfaction, reduction of debt, or income.

Simple, yes. Fair, no. That's a loophole that needs some serious adjustment.

At what point is it unfair? What I outlined treats everyone the same.


Should this be applied to nations as well (i.e. should governments default as opposed to raising taxes)?

Governments don't have to declare bankruptcy. They can simply refuse to pay each other. This is because there is no ruling body above national governments to hear the case. If we loan money to France, for example, and they decide to say "you know what, we're not paying." They can do that (it means they're bad people but they can do that). Of course, we'd be justified in going to war over that.
 
MrktMkr1986
So would you agree the statement that some oppression is necessary, then? (I'll explain later why I believe the two are not mutually exclusive)
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".

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.
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).
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.
Then should one be "free" to sell themselves into slavery? That's my main concern.
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.
That sounds like social darwinism to me.
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.
And for the people who don't have the mental and/or physical abilities that you have...?
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.

There is always somebody more able, and somebody less able. I am less able than people smarter and more skilled than I. Should I be entitled to some kind of public assistance because of that? Who sets the threshold, and where?
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?
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.
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.
Yet you've consistently shown your willingness to impose arbitrary law in order to force me to support charities that you choose.
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'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.
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 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 odd because Objectivism and Libertarianism seem so similar on the surface. What exactly do you mean by undisciplined?
I mean that she thought the Libertarian philosophy left too much undefined or open to interpretation on the subject of what constitutes acceptable behaviour.

Libertarians are happy to let people waste their lives if they choose to do so... Ayn Rand would not approve. Libertarians believe that what I may call "wasting" may well be considered "productive and satisfying" to the person doing it. So it's not my place to approve or disapprove of it.
Wait-a-minute... are you implying that some Libertarians are 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.
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? :confused:
Dan has addressed this well above.
 
Duke
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".

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.


This thread is 22 pages long. If people would simply understand these four simple paragraphs, it would be about 2 or 3 tops.

Core problem: people confuse rights with entitlements. They have this fantasy that an entitlement can exist without depriving the rights of at least one person.


M
 
MrktMkr1986
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)?
How can it possibly be slavery if you agree to it?
 
After further reflection, I think what I described above is pretty much the ability to waive your rights under contract. So perhaps I was wrong on that one. I'll have to think about this for while, but what I was describe isn't EXACTLY the ability to waive rights - it's the ability to enter into a contract saying that you perform or submit to certain things of your own free will, and so no civil or criminal reprocussions come of it.

For example, you agree ahead of time that you are taking the risk that a medical procedure may kill you. That doesn't mean that you can't argue that the likelihood wasn't explained or that the isn't some other issue that wasn't mentioned in the contract that you need to account for. But it's all about the contract. Your rights exist outside of that.

Still that is essentially the ability to sign away your rights.
 
Man, 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. :indiff:
 
Why 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.
 
Duke
Why 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.

Right, but jail hasn't been too big of a ditorrent from crimes. Even non drug related crimes.
 
Back