Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[///M-Spec]

I'd like to focus on a couple of topics.

The billions are redistributed in a regressive manor (meaning the less you make, the less you get). See Chile circa 1973-1990.

How are you so sure that Chile's experience is representative of the US?

In effect, young adults like myself would be forced to save for our own retirement

No one is forcing you to either retire or save for your own retirement. I'm not trying sound a like jerk here, but these are all voluntary actions. I need a car to get to work every morning, but no one is forcing me to buy one.


M

 

[Danoff]

In my opinion, freedom should be measured by how restricted your choice of actions are and how much power others have over you; whether it's the government, a business, or an individual.

That's a fine criteria, but you don't stick to it strictly. You think that a homeless person's choice of actions is restricted greatly - but because of the following statement.

...and since private property = power, I am for the redistribution of wealth (to a point).

Private property does not equal power. It can't be put more plainly. In a free society you'll never have control of anyone else's life. That's what I want, for nobody to have control over anyone else. What you advocate is the opposite - for the government to have control.

I refuse to gamble my future on policies that base so much of its hope on wishful thinking... especially when the prevailing belief is that if the policy changes fail, it means the failure is the right outcome because it is the only "moral" outcome.

You refuted your own argument. You say that my line of reasoning is "wishful thinking" but then you acknowledge that it comes from a sense of morality. So which is it? Wishful thinking or morality?

Your use of the word "government" in such a way that it does not distinguish the difference between a real democracy and totalitarianism is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Then you're STILL not following me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

How are you so sure that Chile's experience is representative of the US?

Chile is not the only example of drastic government reductions leading to futher inequities. What makes some people think that if we do it things will be completely different (as if there's nothing to learn from when looking at examples like Chile... among other countries)?

No one is forcing you to either retire or save for your own retirement. I'm not trying sound a like jerk here, but these are all voluntary actions. I need a car to get to work every morning, but no one is forcing me to buy one.


M

A valid point, but I would have to disagree. If I retire without any savings that would make me less free than someone who has retired with a substantial amount of savings. Again, if Social Security is dismantled (something Conservatives have been trying to for 70+ years) not only would I have to pay for current recipients, I would also have to save MORE for my own retirement (i.e. less expendable income) as well because my benefits would be cut. If S.S. is privatized, everyone loses (except for those who don't/won't need it).

 

[Danoff]

Chile is not the only example of drastic government reductions leading to futher inequities.

Inequities as you see it - but you differ from the market in what is inequitable. Who is right? You? Or thousands of people all making independant decisions about what is valuable?

A valid point, but I would have to disagree. If I retire without any savings that would make me less free than someone who has retired with a substantial amount of savings.

No it doesn't. Having more money doesn't make you more free. You have the same rights regardless of your possessions.

BTW: I really hate how you see people differently depending on their belongings.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

How are you so sure that Chile's experience is representative of the US?

Chile is not the only example of drastic government reductions leading to futher inequities. What makes some people think that if we do it things will be completely different (as if there's nothing to learn from when looking at examples like Chile... among other countries)?

Hell even the US is showing that productivity gains go towards the rich rather than everyone.

No one is forcing you to either retire or save for your own retirement. I'm not trying sound a like jerk here, but these are all voluntary actions. I need a car to get to work every morning, but no one is forcing me to buy one.


M

A valid point, but I would have to disagree. If I retire without any savings that would make me less free than someone who has retired with a substantial amount of savings. Again, if Social Security is dismantled (something Conservatives have been trying to for 70+ years) not only would I have to pay for current recipients, I would also have to save MORE for my own retirement (i.e. less expendable income) as well because my benefits would be cut.

That's a fine criteria, but you don't stick to it strictly. You think that a homeless person's choice of actions is restricted greatly - but because of the following statement.

Private property does not equal power. It can't be put more plainly. In a free society you'll never have control of anyone else's life. That's what I want, for nobody to have control over anyone else. What you advocate is the opposite - for the government to have control.

Just because I'm not a Libertarian (or libertarian) does not mean that I'm a statist or a fascist; it means that I accept the complexity of the real world. The real world, Dan, is an extremely complicated place; there's not just one thing wrong with it, nor can one thing changed (or in your case ELIMINATED) to fix it. Freedom is not the be all and end all; it's a balancing act. There is no magical class of people (e.g. "government") who can be removed or reduced to produce utopia (and yes, I enlarged the word "reduced" for a reason -- I don't want to hear any complaints about me calling Libertarians anarchists anymore; that argument is unfounded and just a ploy to change the subject). Any institution is liable to make mistakes, or engage in criminal behavior. Put anyone in power-- whether it's communists, socialists, or businessmen and guess what? They will abuse it.

We have to let all institutions balance each other out. Government, political parties, big businesses, the media, unions, churches, universities, non-government institutions... they all watch over each other. Power must be distributed as widely as possible to prevent any one institution from monopolizing and abusing it. It may be inefficient, but at least it works.

Also, there are plenty of examples of private entities abusing their power. Reducing the size of government will only make things worse.

You refuted your own argument. You say that my line of reasoning is "wishful thinking" but then you acknowledge that it comes from a sense of morality. So which is it? Wishful thinking or morality?

Both... wishful thinking based on a sense of morality that you derive from Objectivism.

Inequities as you see it - but you differ from the market in what is inequitable. Who is right? You? Or thousands of people all making independant decisions about what is valuable?

Not inequities as I see it, Dan. You are the minority here, remember?

No it doesn't. Having more money doesn't make you more free.

Pure fiction.

BTW: I really hate how you see people differently depending on their belongings.

That's fine.

The belief that a person with more money is just as free as someone with little or no money is pure fiction. Many opportunities are limited by finances. Sure everyone has the same basic freedoms, but that's where it ends. What good is the right to bear arms if you can't even afford to buy the gun in the first place? Now do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Danoff]

Just because I'm not a Libertarian (or libertarian) does not mean that I'm a statist or a fascist;

I didn't say you were. I just said you were arguing for some people to have control.

it means that I accept the complexity of the real world. The real world, Dan, is an extremely complicated place; there's not just one thing wrong with it, nor can one thing changed (or in your case ELIMINATED) to fix it. Freedom is not the be all and end all; it's a balancing act. There is no magical class of people (e.g. "government") who can be removed or reduced to produce utopia (and yes, I enlarged the word "reduced" for a reason -- I don't want to hear any complaints about me calling Libertarians anarchists anymore; that argument is unfounded and just a ploy to change the subject). Any institution is liable to make mistakes, or engage in criminal behavior. Put anyone in power-- whether it's communists, socialists, or businessmen and guess what? They will abuse it.

We have to let all institutions balance each other out. Government, political parties, big businesses, the media, unions, churches, universities, non-government institutions... they all watch over each other. Power must be distributed as widely as possible to prevent any one institution from monopolizing and abusing it. It may be inefficient, but at least it works.

Also, there are plenty of examples of private entities abusing their power. Reducing the size of government will only make things worse.

Corporations cannot abuse their power if human beings have rights.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I didn't say you were. I just said you were arguing for some people to have control.

I'm not arguing for some people to have complete control. That's what you're arguing... as in plutocracy (at best) or aristocracy (at worst). I'm arguing for everyone to have some control... as in Democracy.

Corporations cannot abuse their power if you human beings have rights.

We've had rights for 200+ years and corporations still abuse their power. Would you mind elaborating on that one?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not arguing for some people to have complete control. That's what you're arguing... as in plutocracy (at best) or aristocracy (at worst). I'm arguing for everyone to have some control... as in Democracy.

Everyone should have control only over themselves. In a libertarian society, the rich do not control the poor any more than the poor control the rich.

We've had rights for 200+ years and corporations still abuse their power. Would you mind elaborating on that one?

I guess if you define "abuse" as paying someone what they earn, then you're right, they still abuse it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Everyone should have control only over themselves. In a libertarian society, the rich do not control the poor any more than the poor control the rich.

That's not a democracy.

I guess if you define "abuse" as paying someone what they earn, then you're right, they still abuse it.

That's not the definition of abuse... and certainly not how I would define it.

 

[Danoff]

That's not a democracy.

Sure it is.

That's not the definition of abuse... and certainly not how I would define it.

Good.

What I'm describing is the way our government was designed to work in the first place. What I'm advocating is that we actually pay attention to the way the founding fathers of the US designed our government and try to understand why that vision took America from a few towns in a mudhole and made it the sole surviving world superpower.

 

[Duke]

Brian, I would love to have the mental energy to go back in with this. However, your continued insistence on fundamentally defining inequality as unfairness is going to make that impossible. It's perfectly possible for things to be fair AND unequal.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian, I would love to have the mental energy to go back in with this. However, your continued insistence on fundamentally defining inequality as unfairness is going to make that impossible. It's perfectly possible for things to be fair AND unequal.

That's not true. I'm fully aware of the fact that it's possible for things to be fair and unequal at the same time. That's the way things are right now. Some of what your advocating will only make things worse is all I'm saying. So whenever you have the time (or inclination) I'd love to hear your response to at least a few of my more recent posts.

What I'm describing is the way our government was designed to work in the first place. What I'm advocating is that we actually pay attention to the way the founding fathers of the US designed our government and try to understand why that vision took America from a few towns in a mudhole and made it the sole surviving world superpower.

More on the founding fathers, later...

 

[ledhed]

The United States got to where we are by both protecting and encouraging property rights and initiative. And after making the mistakes of unfettered capitalism and small government , recognising that a compromise had to be made to regulate capitalist and protect the weakest members of society so that theoreticaly no low would be too low to recover from , but the sky could still be the limit reguarding growth .

 

[///M-Spec]

Chile is not the only example of drastic government reductions leading to futher inequities. What makes some people think that if we do it things will be completely different (as if there's nothing to learn from when looking at examples like Chile... among other countries)?

No offense, but I'm not simply going to take your word on this You said yourself in another post that the real world is incredibly complex, filled with a massive number of variables. I agree with that and apply it to your Chilean example.

Not being an economist, I don't know the details about what actually went on there. This interests me a bit though, and when I get some free time today, I'll read up on it ---provided I can find some articles that aren't obviously biased one way or another.

Hell even the US is showing that productivity gains go towards the rich rather than everyone.

And most (if not all) libertarians will tell you that libertarian principles aren't drawn up to equalize the amount of income its citizens amass. That is simply not something we're interested in doing. Critisizing libertarian ideals because it has no built in method for equalizing wealth is like critisizing an apple because it's not an orange.

Some people will always be smarter, luckier, better looking or whatever. For whatever reason, some people end up ahead in life. That's just life.

For example, studies have shown that I get signifigantly more booty than your average GTP member. My pimpness is undenyable. *

* It's a joke people. Don't take it too seriously.

A valid point, but I would have to disagree. If I retire without any savings that would make me less free than someone who has retired with a substantial amount of savings.

And therein lies the heart of this debate.

In my view, and I believe most people who consider themselves libertarians would agree with me, freedom is not scalable. It is a baseline.

What does that mean?

Let's say we have a simple society. Two hunters from the same village go off to find game. Each hunter is "free". He can walk, run, throw a spear or lay down and take a nap. In other words, he has the capacity to use the facalties nature gives him to do whatever he needs in order to further that chances of his own survival and if possible --enhance his own life however he sees fit. This is what I consider baseline.

Now if one hunter decides to kill the other one the minute they leave the village, then he is infringing on the freedom of the other. You can't use the facalties nature gives you when you're dead. So they both agree they won't do that. In fact, they agree to leave each other be and not do anything that may hurt the other's chances of catching something. Thus begins the most simple form of social contract. Pretty simple so far, right?

One hunter (let's call him Earl) finds an animal and kills it. Maybe he is stronger. Or smarter. Or maybe he is neither and is just plain lucky. The other hunter (let's call him Bud) ends the day empty handed and hungry.

In our example, is Bud less "free" than Earl? He lacks the option to eat that night. But he was and is JUST as free as Earl was to try his skill and luck that day. Earl got lucky and Bud didn't.

If Bud wants to go home (and retire) that night because he's tired does he have the right to walk up to Earl's fire and say "gimme some juicy badger Earl, I'm less free than you to eat"?

What if Earl refuses? Does Bud have the right to try to take the badger because he sees Earl's possesion of it as an violation of his freedom?

I reject that notion. Earl's kill doesn't make Bud anyless "free". Bud's state of freedom isn't something that changes depending on how lucky or not Earl is that day. Somewhere out there in another village may be a very able or very lucky guy that killed himself a wooly mammoth. Would that give Bud the right to demand some mammoth? I say it doesn't.


M

 

[Danoff]

The United States got to where we are by both protecting and encouraging property rights and initiative. And after making the mistakes of unfettered capitalism and small government , recognising that a compromise had to be made to regulate capitalist and protect the weakest members of society so that theoreticaly no low would be too low to recover from , but the sky could still be the limit reguarding growth .

Noble intentions do not justify theft (see ///M's post).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No offense, but I'm not simply going to take your word on this

That's a good thing. Livens up the debate.

You said yourself in another post that the real world is incredibly complex, filled with a massive number of variables. I agree with that and apply it to your Chilean example.

That's entirely fair. It is of my opinion, though, that if after experiment after experiment is done with (predictably) similar results, expecting the outcome to be entirely different is nothing more than a gamble. Personally, I'm not willing to gamble my life away (except for the stock market of course ) on a few policies designed to promote increased negative freedoms in the marketplace.

Not being an economist, I don't know the details about what actually went on there. This interests me a bit though, and when I get some free time today, I'll read up on it ---provided I can find some articles that aren't obviously biased one way or another.

I strongly recommend you read about Chile's economic history. Most importantly the years before Pinochet came to power (late 60s to 1973) and when Pinochet was in power (1973-1990). It is agreed that Chile offers the "best" example of what Libertarian economics have on an economy.

And most (if not all) libertarians will tell you that libertarian principles aren't drawn up to equalize the amount of income its citizens amass. That is simply not something we're interested in doing.

I'm not after equalization. That would be communistic. I simply want some degree of fairness in the market -- as well as some safeguards against market failures.

Some people will always be smarter, luckier, better looking or whatever. For whatever reason, some people end up ahead in life. That's just life.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with having millionaires, billionaires, and hopefully one day TRILLIONAIRES! I have NO problems with that whatsoever. What I do have a problem with is the existance of millionaires and billionaires and the existance of abject poverty. It doesn't have to be that way.

For example, studies have shown that I get signifigantly more booty than your average GTP member. My pimpness is undenyable. *

* It's a joke people. Don't take it too seriously.

Pimpness should be fairly distributed throughout the country as well. That's it! A pimp tax! <<< this too was suppose to be a joke

And therein lies the heart of this debate.

In my view, and I believe most people who consider themselves libertarians would agree with me, freedom is not scalable. It is a baseline.

That's freedom in the negative sense. Freedom in the positive sense is both (it has a baseline and is scalable).

What does that mean?

Let's say we have a simple society. Two hunters from the same village go off to find game. Each hunter is "free". He can walk, run, throw a spear or lay down and take a nap. In other words, he has the capacity to use the facalties nature gives him to do whatever he needs in order to further that chances of his own survival and if possible --enhance his own life however he sees fit. This is what I consider baseline.

This is correct. I agree with the statement that each hunter is free. However, this is an example of a negative freedom.

Now if one hunter decides to kill the other one the minute they leave the village, then he is infringing on the freedom of the other. You can't use the facalties nature gives you when you're dead. So they both agree they won't do that. In fact, they agree to leave each other be and not do anything that may hurt the other's chances of catching something. Thus begins the most simple form of social contract. Pretty simple so far, right?

Right, I agree.

One hunter (let's call him Earl) finds an animal and kills it. Maybe he is stronger. Or smarter. Or maybe he is neither and is just plain lucky. The other hunter (let's call him Bud) ends the day empty handed and hungry.

In our example, is Bud less "free" than Earl?

Yes! Bud's chances of survival are greatly diminshed. If he continually ends the days, weeks or months empty handed and hungry, he will eventually die.

He lacks the option to eat that night. But he was and is JUST as free as Earl was to try his skill and luck that day. Earl got lucky and Bud didn't.

Again, free in the negative sense... not the positive.

If Bud wants to go home (and retire) that night because he's tired does he have the right to walk up to Earl's fire and say "gimme some juicy badger Earl, I'm less free than you to eat"?

No. He has no right to do that.

What if Earl refuses? Does Bud have the right to try to take the badger because he sees Earl's possesion of it as an violation of his freedom?

Absolutely not.

Earl's kill doesn't make Bud anyless "free".

If we were talking about freedom in the negative sense, I would agree with you and end the conversation right here. However, I refuse to ignore positive freedoms.

Bud's state of freedom isn't something that changes depending on how lucky or not Earl is that day.

Negative? No. Positive? Yes.

Noble intentions do not justify theft (see ///M's post).

Free rider!

 

[///M-Spec]

If we were talking about freedom in the negative sense, I would agree with you and end the conversation right here. However, I refuse to ignore positive freedoms.

Well, then there's the rub.

I consider what you call positive freedoms, entitlements. And I believe entitlements are ..um. Bad. Because someone has to pay for them.

Now if you and I agree that Bud has no right to demand some juicy tasty badger from Earl, then why would you think that something like Social Security is a good idea? That's all SS is... smoked badger for the long winter.

Bud: Gimme some badger for the winter, Earl. I ain't got much and I'm tired and wanna go home.

Earl: No offense Bud, but I think you're a smacktard. I saw you peeing in the well last night and last week I caught you humpin' my bison. Go find yourself a coon or somethin'. You ain't gettin zilch from me til you straighten up and fly right.

Bud: I hate coon. You're infringing on my positive freedoms with all that badger, Earl. Now give it up.

Earl: From my cold, dead hands, son.

Bud: If that's what it takes....

BTW, I don't know if I'm going to get around to the Chile thing. I'm semi-busy today.


M

 

[Duke]

Bud: Gimme some badger for the winter, Earl. I ain't got much and I'm tired and wanna go home.

Earl: No offense Bud, but I think you're a smacktard. I saw you peeing in the well last night and last week I caught you humpin' my bison. Go find yourself a coon or somethin'. You ain't gettin zilch from me til you straighten up and fly right.

Bud: I hate coon. You're infringing on my positive freedoms with all that badger, Earl. Now give it up.

Earl: From my cold, dead hands, son.

Bud: If that's what it takes...

Pure, 24-karat gold, right there. Shiny like Krugerrands.

Brian, you're simply never going to convince us that positive "rights" exist. I'm sorry. For a capital-L Libertarian, that's just never going to happen.

We were just talking about David Kelley. Go buy and read David Kelley's A Life Of One's Own. It's got a great explanation of why positive rights do not exist.

 

[Danoff]

I strongly recommend you read about Chile's economic history. Most importantly the years before Pinochet came to power (late 60s to 1973) and when Pinochet was in power (1973-1990). It is agreed that Chile offers the "best" example of what Libertarian economics have on an economy.

What about my early America example? You didn't like that one?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Pure, 24-karat gold, right there. Shiny like Krugerrands.

Brian, you're simply never going to convince us that positive "rights" exist. I'm sorry. For a capital-L Libertarian, that's just never going to happen.

That's not my intention... I'm only here to share ( ) my views and to read what other's have to say in reponse to them.

We were just talking about David Kelley. Go buy and read David Kelley's A Life Of One's Own. It's got a great explanation of why positive rights do not exist.

I'd be glad to buy the book. I'd try to find a cheaper alternative first, but I would definitely like to read what he has to say.

By the way... if you already own a copy, a private donation would be most appreciated.

What about my early America example? You didn't like that one?

Not that I didn't like it. I don't even remember reading it? I'll have to look back.

What I'm describing is the way our government was designed to work in the first place. What I'm advocating is that we actually pay attention to the way the founding fathers of the US designed our government and try to understand why that vision took America from a few towns in a mudhole and made it the sole surviving world superpower.

^^^^^^ Is this what you were referring to?

 

[Danoff]

^^^^^^ Is this what you were referring to?

Yup. Not that it's bullet proof certainly, but that's the idea.

 

[Duke]

There is a paperback version out of A Life Of One's Own out, but it's probably only a few bucks cheaper.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yup. Not that it's bullet proof certainly, but that's the idea.

I'll be back later to respond to that AND the founding father's take on liberty.

There is a paperback version out of A Life Of One's Own out, but it's probably only a few bucks cheaper.

Cool... that's what I'll do then. Thank you!

Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure. She was buried in Kenisco Cemetery in Valhalla, N.Y.

I pass by that cemetary everyday to go to my school!

Looks like I'm closer to her than you are.

 

[Duke]

My sister actually interviewed with her to be her assistant not long before she died.

 

[Zrow]

Brian, you're simply never going to convince us that positive "rights" exist. I'm sorry. For a capital-L Libertarian, that's just never going to happen.

I don't even understand the term "positive liberty". How is it liberty at all?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't even understand the term "positive liberty". How is it liberty at all?

Positive liberty is the ability to act to fulfill one's own potential. Yes, it is a form of freedom. Negative liberty is the absence of cocercion.

 

[Duke]

But what you are talking about is the ability to make someone else help you fulfill your potential. That's quite a different thing.

Everyone has the right to fulfill their potential - but that does not translate to mean that everyone has the right to the power and ability to fulfill their potential.

This is why entitlements/positive rights arguments always fall on their faces.

 

[ledhed]

But what you are talking about is the ability to make someone else help you fulfill your potential. That's quite a different thing.

Everyone has the right to fulfill their potential - but that does not translate to mean that everyone has the right to the power and ability to fulfill their potential.

This is why entitlements/positive rights arguements always fall on their faces.

Exactly . A person needs to feel a sense of accomplishment . You cant give someone accomplishment . Nor self worth or pride . You can only take it away with entitlement programs . You must instill a work ethic . Its the work ethic that has made America a great country . That and the sense that an individual could accomplish anything if he could just work hard enough. Teach someone how to learn and how to work . They will feed and clothe themselves and become as successfull as their talent and effort can make them . Teach them how to stand in line and collect a check and they will do that for the rest of their life and teach their children . Of course there will be exceptions and the occasional one or two that want more ..but turn it around and the exception becomes the rule .

 

[Zrow]

Positive liberty is the ability to act to fulfill one's own potential. Yes, it is a form of freedom. Negative liberty is the absence of cocercion.

But it's not! It would require others to give up their freedom! You have the full freedom to fulfill your potential, but you can't expect any entitlements or help to do it. This whole "positive freedom" thing just astounds me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But it's not! It would require others to give up their freedom! You have the full freedom to fulfill your potential, but you can't expect any entitlements or help to do it. This whole "positive freedom" thing just astounds me.

Am I correct in assuming that acts such as nepotism should be OK (whether they are private or public organizations)?