Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Famine]

I think the norm would shift more to "self" than it is at present.

Okay. You'll need to explain why you think that more freedom leads to less generosity.

 

[Dotini]

There is a vigorous academic debate within the anarcho/libertarian/individualist community on the meaning and limits of self and community. Below is a blurb from Libertarianism.org that hints at it.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/myths-individualism

From the right, the late Russell Kirk, in a vitriolic article titled “Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries,” claimed that “the perennial libertarian, like Satan, can bear no authority, temporal or spiritual” and that “the libertarian does not venerate ancient beliefs and customs, or the natural world, or his country, or the immortal spark in his fellow men.”
More politely, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and David Brooks of the Weekly Standard have excoriated libertarians for allegedly ignoring the value of community. Defending his proposal for more federal programs to “rebuild” community, Coats wrote that his bill is “self-consciously conservative, not purely libertarian. It recognizes, not only individual rights, but the contribution of groups rebuilding the social and moral infrastructure of their neighborhoods.” The implication is that individual rights are somehow incompatible with participation in groups or neighborhoods.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But not in business or politics. Can those things really handle any big changes to their systems?

In my experience, no. Both conservatives and libertarians tend to become increasingly introspective, reaffirming their beliefs to the point where they become extreme versions of themselves and held together purely by the conviction that they are right.

Because they would have to be different from the norm. In such a society abortion would be on demand, public schools would recieve less funding, and there would be no universal healthcare. Terminally ill or elderly patients could start to be seen as a drain on funds and time, and a tiny minority could be pressured to end their lives via assisted suicide by caregivers or family. Gun control would be non-existent and everyone would be left to sink or swim with only the strongest surviving.

As someone who is somewhat libertarian, I completely disagree with this. It sounds like the kind of alarmist propaganda put out by conservatives. And I have no idea where you're coming up with the idea that libertarianism will spell and end to universal health care, since it's always been associated with liberals.

Libertarians - and really anyone who is left-leaning - simply argue for a greater degree of personal freedoms.

 

[KSaiyu]

Okay. You'll need to explain why you think that more freedom leads to less generosity.

By focussing so intently on your rights you risk losing perspective of those around you, perhaps culminating in a lack of empathy. There is no "cause greater than yourself" - that's just political rhetoric.

As someone who is somewhat libertarian, I completely disagree with this. It sounds like the kind of alarmist propaganda put out by conservatives. And I have no idea where you're coming up with the idea that libertarianism will spell and end to universal health care, since it's always been associated with liberals.

Libertarians - and really anyone who is left-leaning - simply argue for a greater degree of personal freedoms.

What would be the future of universal healthcare in a libertarian society?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A universal health care system.

You seem convinced that libertarianism is about selfishness. It's not. Like I said, it's about a greater degree of personal freedoms. There's a difference. To characterise it as being about selfishness would be the same as portraying conservatism as being naturally biased towards protecting the position of the rich and powerful.

 

[Exorcet]

By focussing so intently on your rights you risk losing perspective of those around you, perhaps culminating in a lack of empathy. There is no "cause greater than yourself" - that's just political rhetoric.

I don't see such a society consisting of people walking around flaunting their rights. They will act normally and just have less stupid laws to worry about. They may also possibly take greater responsibility for things as they won't expect someone else to take care of problems. Public school won't exist, that doesn't mean free education won't. Abortion is on demand, that doesn't sound bad. Government funded healthcare does not exist. That doesn't mean quality of care goes down.

 

[Famine]

By focussing so intently on your rights you risk losing perspective of those around you

Quite the opposite.

What fundamentally underpins rights is the ability to recognise them. Your right to your own property is reflected by your responsibility to recognise that others have the right to theirs - you may not take without permission and no-one may take from you without permission.

The individual's rights do not trump or take precedence over society's rights... they are society's rights.

 

[KSaiyu]

A universal health care system.

How would such a system survive unless you are saying healthcare is an individual right?

I don't see such a society consisting of people walking around flaunting their rights. They will act normally and just have less stupid laws to worry about. They may also possibly take greater responsibility for things as they won't expect someone else to take care of problems. Public school won't exist, that doesn't mean free education won't. Abortion is on demand, that doesn't sound bad. Government funded healthcare does not exist. That doesn't mean quality of care goes down.

Sounds like heaven for the "haves", but what about the "have-nots"

What fundamentally underpins rights is the ability to recognise them.

So an adult would have more rights than a newborn?

 

[Famine]

Sounds like heaven for the "haves", but what about the "have-nots"

Where they do not have family, they have friends. Where they do not have friends, they have communities. Where they do not have communities, they have charity.

Charity is much denigrated at present, but actually pretty good. A significant proportion of research into serious illness is funded by charitable contributions, along with charities that look after and advise sufferers of illness, the homeless, the suicidal - we've actually got sufficient money floating around right now even though it's being stolen for services beyond the state's remit that people give money to charities that scoop up mistreated animals and plant trees because Climate Change...

A million quid for some guys in a country we couldn't point to on a map yesterday because they had a flood is no problem...

So an adult would have more rights than a newborn?

Yes - though this has been discussed at length in the Abortion thread.

In case you think that's a bit weird, have a think about what rights a newborn, or a child, or even a 17 year old doesn't have that an 18 year old does even in the current society.

 

[Exorcet]

Sounds like heaven for the "haves", but what about the "have-nots"

They benefit. Those with the means and desire to assist them do so. They need to take responsibility for doing what they think is important. If there is no desire to assist them (extremely unlikely), then things aren't any different from the way they are now.

 

[Danoff]

By focussing so intently on your rights you risk losing perspective of those around you, perhaps culminating in a lack of empathy. There is no "cause greater than yourself" - that's just political rhetoric.

I think exactly the opposite is true. The more socialist a society is the more people refuse to participate in private charity since they already give the government a huge portion of their earnings. When people realize that it's up to them to participate in charity and, and choose which causes to fund, they get more involved, not less.

What would be the future of universal healthcare in a libertarian society?

Charity.

 

[KSaiyu]

Where they do not have family, they have friends. Where they do not have friends, they have communities. Where they do not have communities, they have charity.

So charities would have to take the slack. We are seeing the beginning of the problems with the breakdown of families in our care of our elderly, and I'm doubtful a libertarian society would culture the same attitude we have to charity at present.

Yes - though this has been discussed at length in the Abortion thread.

Does that mean it has less value in society. And with less value, less protection?

I think exactly the opposite is true. The more socialist a society is the more people refuse to participate in private charity since they already give the government a huge portion of their earnings. When people realize that it's up to them to participate in charity and, and choose which causes to fund, they get more involved, not less.

I'd love to see if this were true. Any countries that come close to libertarian principles?

Charity.

There's that word again. I'm not questioning the logic of expecting charities to continue to exist, but to effectively run health services? Not so convinced.

They benefit. Those with the means and desire to assist them do so. They need to take responsibility for doing what they think is important. If there is no desire to assist them (extremely unlikely), then things aren't any different from the way they are now.

Again we're relying on charities or groups so committed to a cause. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the burden would increase dramatically.

 

[Joel]

It's not all about charity.

Keep in mind that without public schools there would be higher demand for lower cost private schools. The reason private schools are almost exclusively religious, expensive, or both, is because there's no demand for a lower cost secular school when there's already a public school system that you've already paid for in your taxes. People will pay for expensive high class or religious private schools because they offer something different than what a public school offers. Nobody will pay even reasonably priced fees to send their kids to a private school that's similar to a public school.

 

[Exorcet]

Again we're relying on charities or groups so committed to a cause. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the burden would increase dramatically.

So would their ability to do more. Remember, ideally, you'd cut all the red tape. A free society is free. You'd be free to get with liked minded people, but a plot of land big enough to build a city on, ban guns on that land, build schools and hospitals, and make it so anyone you allowed to live there paid for the upkeep.

Charities could take whatever form they'd need to provide for others.

 

[Famine]

So charities would have to take the slack.

Nope.

Charities could choose to take any slack left by the choices of the community, friends and family not to take up the slack.

We are seeing the beginning of the problems with the breakdown of families in our care of our elderly, and I'm doubtful a libertarian society would culture the same attitude we have to charity at present.

No, it would foster a better one as it fosters better communities.

Does that mean it has less value in society. And with less value, less protection?

Value is not borne from rights. Newborns already have less protection in society than adults - for instance they cannot make decisions over their own healthcare nor sell their labour for a value they choose. These decisions are given to the adults responsible for them by proxy.

 

[Keef]

Now, 34 pages later, I finally read the thread title.

I don't subscribe to the Libertarian Party. I'm a libertarian, not a Libertarian. The idea of a Libertarian Party is somewhat of an oxymoron because libertarians are typically not fans of party lines. The Party is a hard thing to defend under one's own belief system. Because what if the two parties in charge of the US were the Libertarians and Republicans? Would we libertarians be fed up with the two-party system then? Or would we be perfectly happy because our party is one that is in charge.

I vote for whoever I think will do their best to protect life, liberty and property. Those are the core rules I've decided I want to live by and, as any good libertarian would, that means I willingly break laws on a regular basis. At the same time, there are certain aspects of society which I believe should be regimented like a Nazi marching band (passing lane campers, I'm looking at you.)

In summary, I don't subscribe to the Party but I do think it should be allowed to exist and I'd be likely to vote for it because they choose candidates which are more likely to uphold life, liberty and property.

 

[LeMansAid]

I vote for whoever I think will do their best to protect life, liberty and property. Those are the core rules I've decided I want to live by and, as any good libertarian would, that means I willingly break laws on a regular basis. At the same time, there are certain aspects of society which I believe should be regimented like a Nazi marching band (passing lane campers, I'm looking at you.)

In summary, I don't subscribe to the Party but I do think it should be allowed to exist and I'd be likely to vote for it because they choose candidates which are more likely to uphold life, liberty and property.

Driving is probably one good basic way to test what would be ok and not ok in a libertarian society. When you say regimented, what do you mean exactly? Shouldn't someone be free to drive however they feel most safe? I'm not sure if you're suggesting that it's just what you'd hope for, or that it should be enforced.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How would such a system survive unless you are saying healthcare is an individual right?

The way ours currently does - most of the money from the government coffers comes from taxation.

How much does it cost you to visit a GP in America? Earlier this year, I had 1) a consultation about a large mole on my side, 2) minor surgery to remove it, 3) a second visit to have the stitches removed, and 4) pathology done on it to make sure it was nit cancerous (it wasn't). Altogether, it cost me about $50. And even then, I didn't pay up-front. I didn't even have to go to my health insurer.

Universal health care can and does work.

 

[Keef]

Driving is probably one good basic way to test what would be ok and not ok in a libertarian society. When you say regimented, what do you mean exactly? Shouldn't someone be free to drive however they feel most safe? I'm not sure if you're suggesting that it's just what you'd hope for, or that it should be enforced.

I don't know. All I know is that when people in the same place with the same goal don't follow a standard set of guidelines what you end up with is a total cluster ****. I'm talking about the highway. Merger like you mean it, stay right except to pass, learn some spacial awareness for crying out loud, etc. Basically, don't be stupid. Most drivers are stupid and it results in nobody going anywhere quickly or efficiently.

 

[FoolKiller]

By focussing so intently on your rights you risk losing perspective of those around you, perhaps culminating in a lack of empathy.

This sounds like a Christian asking how an atheist can have morality if they have no fear of afterlife punishment.

You are suggestions that humans lack compassion or caring without government enforcement. You mentioned the elderly. Sure, we put some in homes, but I know far more people who take their parents in until their condition reaches a point that it requires full-time medical care, which they lack the training for. Even then they visit regularly and work to have them in a facility that allows them to live as normal as possible.

In the case of my grandmother, the only child who isn't helping as she dies of cancer is my die hard liberal, socialist aunt who believes the government should control everything because free people won't be charitable. Very ironic how the person who can't be charitable is the one who thinks humans in general can't.

Ultimately, humans are caring and charitable. I saw it when I joined a Heart Walk last year and raised the most money of all first-time teams. I received donations from people I haven't seen in 15 years and weren't even a Facebook friend. I have even received donations from members of this site whom I have never met. I have a million reasons to believe people are charitable without force, because one small city in one small state raised that much money in one day.

The day we can only show compassion and charity by force is the day the human race should become extinct.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When you think of libertarians, what image comes to mind? A room full of Lisa Simpsons?

We might be idealistic, but we are not naive. We're just not as cynical of the human condition as others are.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

When you think of libertarians, what image comes to mind? A room full of Lisa Simpsons?

We might be idealistic, but we are not naive. We're just not as cynical of the human condition as others are.

Some of us are...

Just to those things we expect to happen, so I guess in that sense we're realist and not as idealistic as Progressives and Neo-Classical Liberals.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't know. All I know is that when people in the same place with the same goal don't follow a standard set of guidelines what you end up with is a total cluster ****. I'm talking about the highway. Merger like you mean it, stay right except to pass, learn some spacial awareness for crying out loud, etc. Basically, don't be stupid. Most drivers are stupid and it results in nobody going anywhere quickly or efficiently.

And with the freedom to drive any which way one chooses, people might be all the more annoying, maybe even annoying for the sake of being annoying. Some people are more confident than they should be, others are less confident than they need to be. Those two groups would be more at odds than ever. The over-confident ones drive faster, and the under-confident ones drive slower because they're freaked out by the over-confident ones.

What's stopping two bus loads of teenagers taking up two lanes while drinking, snorting coke, drivers getting bjs, and travelling at 10mph, occasionally having one mile drag races along the way? In our brave new world there would nothing illegal going on there, right? And it really sounds like fun.

 

[niky]

We are seeing the beginning of the problems with the breakdown of families in our care of our elderly, and I'm doubtful a libertarian society would culture the same attitude we have to charity at present.

The breakdown in the care of the elderly, to note, could be because care of the elderly in the United States boils down to SEP. It's "Someone Else's Problem." There's welfare, and socialized healthcare and nursing homes for the elderly.

In a country without universal coverage for senior citizen homes, families take care of the elderly.

 

[Dotini]

The breakdown in the care of the elderly, to note, could be because care of the elderly in the United States boils down to SEP. It's "Someone Else's Problem." There's welfare, and socialized healthcare and nursing homes for the elderly.

In a country without universal coverage for senior citizen homes, families take care of the elderly.

Long ago began the break-up of the family in North America. It started with industrialization in the 19th century when the father left the family farm to work in the urban factory. It gathered pace in the 1960's and 70's when women left the home to work in large numbers. Today, most marriages end in divorce, with 2nd and 3rd marriages at even higher rates of break-up.

Marriage doesn't mean what it used to mean. Today it's a temporary means for couples to declare their juicy sexuality, and most definitely NOT an institution for the extended care of multiple generations. The family system as we knew it is moribund. Finished. So don't count on that to take care of you when you are weak and old. Similarly, the employers today are all in a rush to eliminate pensions and health care programs on the altar of cost and efficiency.

So no, you can count on neither the government, nor employers NOR the family to care for individuals who have run out of strength, health and time. You are well and truly on your own. Such is the price of placing individual freedoms and rights above the interests of the commons. We have made the choice, and are living with it. For better or worse.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Such is the price of placing individual freedoms and rights above the interests of the commons.

Why is it that "the interests of the commons" tends to only benefit a handful of people, rather than society as a whole?

This is my problem with conservatism - it blames every social issue on leftist politics, and assumes that everything would have been okay if we had only done things the way we always had.

 

[Dotini]

Why is it that "the interests of the commons" tends to only benefit a handful of people, rather than society as a whole?

This is my problem with conservatism - it blames every social issue on leftist politics, and assumes that everything would have been okay if we had only done things the way we always had.

I do not understand your question. Could you rephrase it, please?

I was trying to point out the irony that befalls the US individual at the end of his days - no extended family to help him.

 

[Danoff]

I'd love to see if this were true. Any countries that come close to libertarian principles?

It happens here, in this country. The more money that gets taken from me and given to the homeless, the less willing I am to contribute voluntarily. I used to contribute money to charities for the needy. Not anymore, now I figure it's more than taken care of by my tax dollars. Instead I contribute to charities that aren't receiving tax benefits, like specific kinds of education that aren't supported by public schools.

I didn't make up that example, it came from my own experiences.

There's that word again. I'm not questioning the logic of expecting charities to continue to exist, but to effectively run health services? Not so convinced.

Charities would not be "running" health services. They'd be providing the means to obtain health services for people who didn't have those means. These days US doctors tend to go to other places, like Africa, to offer charity services. They might not feel that way if the US system weren't the way it is now.

Also note that Lawyers - most despised people on the planet - often offer charity "pro bono" work to people who can't afford them.

Again we're relying on charities or groups so committed to a cause. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the burden would increase dramatically.

So would the opportunity for funding. Right now I get many tens of thousands of dollars taken from my finances for government - much of which is "government charity". How much more could I contribute if I had that money back?

Driving is probably one good basic way to test what would be ok and not ok in a libertarian society. When you say regimented, what do you mean exactly? Shouldn't someone be free to drive however they feel most safe?

On their own private property, yes. On property that they do not own (like public property for example, or private roads), they agree to a set of rules in order to gain access to use property that they do not own.

You are well and truly on your own. Such is the price of placing individual freedoms and rights above the interests of the commons.

None of what you said is a price of placing individual freedoms and rights above common interests. There is no reason that individual rights require people to refuse to take care of the elderly, or get divorced. This is exactly the point I made to @KSaiyu not long ago in this thread - there is nothing incompatible with charity (or marriage... that's a hell of a stretch) in a world where people are free. If anything, people become more aware of charity and more able to engage in it.

What country is the most charitable on Earth? The US (either by total dollars, or if you look up the World Giving Index 2013). Of sizable countries, which country's citizens are the most likely to identify with libertarian principles? I'd guess it's the US as well.

 

[LeMansAid]

On their own private property, yes. On property that they do not own (like public property for example, or private roads), they agree to a set of rules in order to gain access to use property that they do not own.

I'm just not seeing how this doesn't steer (no pun intended) us back to what we have now.

Do you think that there should be minimum driving speeds?

 

[sammy neuman]

On their own private property, yes. On property that they do not own (like public property for example, or private roads), they agree to a set of rules in order to gain access to use property that they do not own."

This illustrates the difference between a right and a privilege. On my own property it is my right to drive like an absolute madman if I so desire, but if my vehicle is too loud, I would be violating my neighbors right to not have their eardrums crushed without their permission. This principle has been expressed as "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". Driving on public highways is considered to be a privilege because the road is public property, and as such can be regulated as the governing authority sees fit.

Edited for punctuation.