Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

You can disagree all you would like, the fact is most of them were christians and their faith DID influence the creation of the constitution. How could it not?

Lots of people have lots of influences. But the constitution and bill of rights is derived from logic - even if some of that logic was around when the bible was written (or before).

 

[Swift]

Fantastic! So, what was the point again? That there is not mention of God or a higher power in that. Hmm, well of course they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves. Who else could they possibly secure it for? I still see it as being an extremely Godly way to govern the people.

You can disagree all you would like, the fact is most of them were christians and their faith DID influence the creation of the constitution. How could it not?

Same place I get my morals, logic.

Lots of people have lots of influences. But the constitution and bill of rights is derived from logic - even if some of that logic was around when the bible was written (or before).

Logic?

Then I would like you to logically brake down how we get the "Life liberty and pursuit of happiness" from.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Same place I get my morals, logic.

Logic and morals are separate. Though logic can dictate one thing, a person can still act immorally -- and before you jump all over that last word, I am not talking about any one specific moral judgement.

Be back later.

 

[VT]

I'm not trying to draw myself into this debate, but the Founding Fathers were NOT Christian.

http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/christian-founding-fathers3.htm
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/christian_founding_fathers.htm

 

[Danoff]

Logic and morals are separate. Though logic can dictate one thing, a person can still act immorally

Yes. Abosultely. Thank you for seeing that. Thank you for noticing my choice of words, because it was crucial.

You see, morality should not be legislated.


Edit: Be caeful how you use what I said right there. There are lots of different ways logic can be applied.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yes. Abosultely. Thank you for seeing that. Thank you for noticing my choice of words, because it was crucial.

There's no way I'm going to allow you to use that against me.

You see, morality should not be legislated.

I still disagree.

Edit: Be caeful how you use what I said right there. There are lots of different ways logic can be applied.

...as there are a lot of different ways morality can be applied as well...

 

[Duke]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are derived from the very fact of our existence. We are human beings, each in posession of our own life, each an end unto ourselves. Being born a human being endows you with the rights to your own existence.

All our Constitutional rights are derived from that simple point.

Why is anything mystic necessary? I'm confused. And lets not drift off to the Creation vs. Evolution thing with this if it's avoidable.

 

[Danoff]

You see, morality should not be legislated.

I still disagree.

Because morality is subjective. Logic is much more objective.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because morality is subjective. Logic is much more objective.

Depends on who you ask.

Morality can be both subjective (i.e. personal, different for everyone) AND objective (i.e. universal, everyone recognizes similar rules).

Subjective: Morals can be personal because theists have a choice as to which religious system to follow.

Objective: Morals can be universal because if you look at various cultures you will notice that some rules/laws that are common to all cultures. These rules include universal morals.

 

[Danoff]

Objective: Morals can be universal because if you look at various cultures you will notice that some rules/laws that are common to all cultures. These rules include universal morals.

I don't think that counts as objective. I think that counts as - what has been done before. That could be very subjective.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, 'common' does not qualify as 'universal' and certainly not as 'objective'.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Quick question to ALL Libertarians before I go into my rant:

Am I right in saying that most Libertarians (including the Libertarian Party of the US) consider the Statue of Liberty in New York to be an important symbol of their ideology? Just curious... Do YOU personally see the Statue of Liberty as symbolic of your political ideologies?

 

[Swift]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are derived from the very fact of our existence. We are human beings, each in posession of our own life, each an end unto ourselves. Being born a human being endows you with the rights to your own existence.

All our Constitutional rights are derived from that simple point.

Why is anything mystic necessary? I'm confused. And lets not drift off to the Creation vs. Evolution thing with this if it's avoidable.

That first statement when you say that we are an end to ourselves. I refuse to believe that. Even before I was a christian I didn't believe that. There IS something mystical about life. If there wasn't, we could just bring people back from the dead. But there IS an intangible part of all of us that cannot be explained by logic or science.

I'm not trying to draw myself into this debate, but the Founding Fathers were NOT Christian.

http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/christian-founding-fathers3.htm
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/christian_founding_fathers.htm

LOL, and I posted a site saying almost exaclty the opposite. So which one is right? Who knows, but since we both were able to produce proof...guess you can't use yours and I can't use mine. So now what?

 

[Danoff]

Am I right in saying that most Libertarians (including the Libertarian Party of the US) consider the Statue of Liberty in New York to be an important symbol of their ideology?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I don't know. I guess. I prefer Ayn Rand's idea of using the dollar sign as a symbol.


Edit: The trade center may have been a better symbol that the statue, but they're all nice symbols.

 

[Duke]

Wups! I meant to answer this as part of the discussion last night.

The LP uses the Statue because it's convenient. Although I agree with danoff to some extent, frankly I don't think the symbology is all that important.

 

[Swift]

Shucks, Duke, I thought you were going to respond to my mystical comment.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Rather than getting into a quote war, I thought it would best to throw all of my thoughts about the Libertarian party into one large post. In case you don’t already know, I consider myself a Conservative. My objective is not to “bash” Libertarianism (or glorify Conservatism for that matter), but to expose some its shortcomings and contradictions both as an ideology and as a political philosophy. To be fair, I have decided to devote the first part of the essay to explaining what Libertarianism is.

A lot of what is contained in the essay will be in response to some of the previous posts, though, without the actual quotes.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. This is usually taken by libertarians to mean that no one may initiate coercion against the person or external property of another. "Coercion," to Libertarians, refers to physical force, the threat of force and the use of fraud; any action that is not affected by the influence of these mechanisms is considered to be "voluntary." Libertarians also believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as the individuals of which they are composed. As a result, they oppose governments imposing norms (aside from forbidding coercion) through force, even if acting based on a majority vote. Thus, they oppose all restrictions and penalties for what they consider to be victimless crimes.

As far as economics are concerned, Libertarians believe in the free market system. They believe that everything should be privately or corporately owned -- and that financial and economic decisions should not be made by a centralized governmental organization. Speaking of centralized government, Libertarians are vehemently opposed to any form of government; that is to say with the exception of police, which they believe will protect citizens from force by one another by way of enforcing property rights; the military, which protects citizens from perceived initiations of force originating from outside their society; and lastly the courts, which check law enforcement and mediate civil disputes.

It is important to note that not all Libertarians are one in the same. There is no consensus among Libertarians about how much government is necessary and whether there is a right to be defended by others. Hence, Libertarians are divided between the “minarchists”, who believe the existence of a state to be moral or necessary and the anarcho-capitalists, who do not. The minarchists believe that a minimum amount of government is necessary to guarantee property rights, economic and civil liberties, and that the proper function of government is limited to that purpose. For them, the legitimate functions of government might include the maintenance of the judicial system, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions (like public roads for example). The anarcho-capitalists, believe that even in matters of justice and protection, action by competing privately-responsible individuals (freely organized in businesses, cooperatives, or organizations of their choice) is preferable to government serving in these functions.

If you want to know more about the Libertarianism go to http://www.lp.org and look up their political party platform. Now, to start the essay:


By now, I think that is has been established that Libertarians concede that one’s freedom should be curtailed if someone violates the rights of another. From what I’ve seen, however, they radically underestimate how easily this can happen. Consider this example: Libertarians contend that violence in the media should be allowed (as people have a right to view what they want) because if someone doesn’t like it, they can choose not to view it. However, what they cannot do is choose whether or not to live in a society that has been corrupted by it. To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing.

Some Libertarians also have a hard time living up to their own ideals -- they choose to take all the benefits while at the same time ignoring the more difficult parts. For example, before I graduated high school a discussion about political parties came up. When asked, a classmate of mine said he considered himself a Libertarian. In retrospect (because at the time it had little to no meaning to me) I find this to be ironic considering the fact that this person was going to a PUBLIC school -- a government benefit. This classmate is not the only example, though. There are many so-called Libertarians out there who flout existing drug laws, yet at the same time continue to use government services.

My question is this: Is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of absolute freedom? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the fruits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their foolish ones, decent societies set limits on BOTH of these outcomes. People are allowed to become billionaires, but at the same time they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but are not forced to starve to death. It is my belief that we must be deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs of freedom. The Libertarian way would make for a magnificent society, but also a ruthless, callous, malevolent one as well.

As it stands, the majority of people do not want absolute freedom -- which explains why democracies do not elect Libertarian governments (and never will). If Libertarians ever gain even a modicum of power, expect to see many weird policies. Many Libertarians support the elimination of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. This has been tried before (even in the United States for some time) and does not exactly lead to anything good. There was an explosion of fraud and currency degradation followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that did survive (read: monopolies -- more on this later). Is it any surprise, though that the top 3 richest nations in the world (excluding the EU because it is a confederation of nation-states) are the United States (mixed-capitalist), China (socialist moving towards mixed-capitalism), and Japan (mixed-capitalist)?

One of the many problems with Libertarianism can be traced back to their political party platform found here: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html They seem to want to time travel back to a time when discrimination was popular:

The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever. The right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.

That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Blacks need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All of this is a "right of association" in the Libertarian ideology. That’s not to say that Libertarians are racists or sexists, but the attitude is as clear. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing for retaliation of force to throw out the rebel.

Another problem with Libertarianism is their philosophy concerning children:

Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings.
We recognize that children who have not reached maturity need guardians to secure their rights and to aid in the exercise of those rights. We hold that guardianship belongs to those who most love and value the child and his or her development, normally the parents and never the state.
We oppose all laws that empower government officials to seize children and make them "wards of the state" or, by means of child labor laws and compulsory education, to infringe on their freedom to work or learn as they choose. We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined sub-category of human beings. Specifically we oppose ordinances that outlaw adults-only apartment housing.
We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any category of crimes applicable to children for which adults would not be similarly vulnerable, such as curfew, smoking, and alcoholic beverage laws, and other status offenses. Similarly, we favor the repeal of "stubborn child" laws and laws establishing the category of "persons in need of supervision." We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We seek the repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people. We further favor the abolition of the juvenile court system, so that juveniles will be held fully responsible for their crimes.
Whenever parents or other guardians are unable or unwilling to care for their children, those guardians have the right to seek other persons who are willing to assume guardianship, and children have the right to seek other guardians who place a higher value on their lives. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services or those forcing children to remain in the custody of their parents against their will.
Children should always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood.

Apparently “childhood” does not exist. So now we will take a tour of a “child's” world in a Libertarian society. First, kids go to school. Paragraphs one and three of the quoted Libertarian Party platform on education are vital to schooling. Paragraphs two and four deal with their "temporary" measures to be enacted until the entire platform can be put into effect.

EDUCATION
We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions.
We condemn compulsory education laws, which spawn prison-like schools with many of the problems associated with prisons, and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws.

The immediate outcome is that all kids whose parents could not afford private schools would immediately be without an education. The Libertarians try to counter this by saying charity "could" (but there are no guarantees) provide education for these children. Another effect is that children of parents that could afford private schooling would still not be guaranteed an education -- thanks to the party’s repeal of all mandatory education laws. Parents who “choose” (because remember, it‘s their right to) not educate their child would be under no obligation to do so. It is my belief that a good education is the base of any advanced civilization. Destroying the modern education system is part of reverting back to a more primitive state more conducive to anarchy.

So now the children are out of school, how will they spend their days? Working of course! Below is quote dealing with Poverty and Unemployment. This is the paragraph that I think most affects children.

POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act. We deplore government-fostered forced retirement, which robs the elderly of the right to work.

If you have no government regulation at all (look at England's labor laws circa 1800) corporations will hire kids/workers for pennies a day just because they'll work for it. Removing all of the "protective labor legislation for women and children" is detrimental to children. Libertarians also insist that children should be free to work wherever they wish -- almost as if they’re pushing children to work in mines, factories etc. Like the past, the Libertarian future society will have no workplace safety laws, a 60 or 70 hour work week instead of a 40 hour week and ZERO minimum wage. Assuming a child does not want to work in factories or mines there is always the lucrative and rewarding life of prostitution waiting for them. Below is their political platform of Victimless Crimes:

VICTIMLESS CRIMES
Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state, and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular, we advocate:
* the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
* the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"
We demand the use of executive pardon to free and exonerate all those presently incarcerated or ever convicted solely for the commission of these "crimes." We condemn the wholesale confiscation of property prior to conviction by the state that all too often accompanies police raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes.

Their all-inclusive demand for "the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations" by default includes the age of consent. Child prostitution and pornography are just part of the everyday life of a child's future, at least if these people get their way. Incidentally child molestation would disappear because Libertarians consider it molestation ONLY if it is forced upon a child. They believe in this so much that convicted child molesters would be released from prison. Currently they believe that any child that is seduced is not being “molested” but is exercising their "freedom".

Speaking of freedom, I would like to reiterate the fact that people (in general) are willing to accept limitations on our freedom for many reason. Take for example this extreme hypothetical case (since some members like to talk about extremes -- you know who you are): public exhibitions of necrophilia. In our current society this is OBVIOUSLY not permitted, but according to Libertarian principle they should be. The Libertarian argument: A corpse has no interests and cannot be harmed, because it is no longer a person; no member of the public is harmed if one has agreed to attend such an exhibition; and those who are opposed to it should simply avoid these types of exhibitions. Our current determination to prohibit such exhibitions would not change even if we discovered that millions of people wished to attend them or even if we discovered that people were already were attending them illegally. The fact that the prohibition represents a restriction of our freedom is of no consequence in a situation such as this. The fact of the matter is, it is just plain sick.

The same, however, can be said about drugs -- which Libertarians strongly advocate the legalization of. It might be argued that the freedom to choose among a variety of intoxicating substances is a much more important freedom than necrophilia and that millions of people just have innocent fun from taking stimulants, depressants, and narcotics. Drug addiction has the effect of reducing a person’s freedom by limiting the range of their interests. It limits their ability to pursue much more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling community obligations. It often limits their ability to pursue jobs as well. One of the most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption. Drug taking is really a lazy man’s way of pursuing happiness and this “shortcut” really turns out to be a dead end. As a society, I think we would lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs. The idea that freedom is the ability to act upon one’s every whim is narrow and doesn’t even begin to capture the complexities of human existence; a person whose insatiable appetite is his/her “law” does not make you liberated but enslaved. And when such a narrow freedom is made the benchmark of public policy, it will mark the beginning of the end for our society. I apologize if that sounds alarmist, but that is my belief. No culture that makes publicly-sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can survive: a radical egotism is bound to ensue, in which ANY limitations upon personal behavior are experienced as infringements of basic rights -- it WILL be anarchy -- plain and simple.

While I’m on the topic of rights and force, a question has been bothering me for some time now when faced with the issue of force. In order to help you understand where I’m going with this I want to revert back to quote from the beginning of the essay:

no one may initiate coercion against the person or external property of another. "Coercion," to libertarians, refers to physical force, the threat of force and the use of fraud

Libertarians, from what I’ve read/seen/heard practically demonize the concept of force. It is my belief, however, that force in and of itself is NOT at all evil. Parents ultimately must use force on the people whom they love most -- their children. They may start with a little persuasion or reprimand, but no parent [especially my parents] would hesitate to yank his/her young child from an open window if it were necessary. It is my belief that anyone who thinks force (even government force) is always wrong, does not or cannot believe in doing right. The view that the government represents a serious threat to freedom seems to me to represent a shallow and unilateral view of politics. A strong government IS necessary to preserve individual liberty and as such, the two are not mutually exclusive -- despite what Libertarians try to espouse.

I urge all who read this to SERIOUSLY consider [and answer] this question:

“Imagine if a very close friend of yours is suicidal. They just broke up with their boyfriend/girlfriend, lost her job, had been drinking heavily, and is severely depressed. If you knew they would feel better in the morning, would you physically restrain them from killing them self?”

Now that I have exhausted the philosophical and sociological arguments concerning Libertarianism, it is time now to move on to economics:

The Libertarians present themselves as the “liberators” of our economic system. The business community recognizes that the implementation of the economic demands of the Libertarian Party would destroy any modern industry base and economy. It is for this major reason that the Libertarians have been rejected by business. The answer to why our business leaders have rejected the Libertarian Party is found within their party platform. First let‘s take a look at one portion of their platform, Inflation and Depression. These two paragraphs are the major parts of their demand to end the current orderly banking system.

We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit. Our opposition encompasses all controls on the rate of interest. We also call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar national and state interventions affecting savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. There should be unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.

…and…

Pending its abolition, the Federal Reserve System, in order to halt inflation, must immediately cease its expansion of the quantity of money. As interim measures, we further support:
a. the lifting of all restrictions on branch banking;
b. the repeal of all state usury laws;
c. the removal of all remaining restrictions on the interest paid for deposits;
d. the elimination of laws setting margin requirements on purchases and sales of securities;
e. the revocation of all other selective credit controls;
f. the abolition of Federal Reserve control over the reserves of non-member banks and other depository institutions; and
g. the lifting of the prohibition of domestic deposits denominated in foreign currencies.

The implementation of the above quotes would be disruptive to the current banking system. The very things the Libertarians object to in our current system are the things that keeps the banking system working in an orderly and reasonably secure manner. Being anarchists, of course, the Libertarians feel compelled to insist on a system that has its own self destruction built in rather than safeguards against any foreseeable failures. For example: The function of the Federal Reserve is to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The FDIC protects YOUR savings account up to $100,000. Let’s say the Libertarians do get there way here, now that the they have systematically destroyed banking, one would be inclined to think people would still manage to make transactions with money -- WRONG. Despite the feeble attempt Libertarians make portraying themselves as ultra-Capitalists their anarchist hearts demand that money also be outlawed as money is a device that is used in an orderly society and by their nature anarchists hate money.

We recognize that government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item, such as gold coins denominated by units of weight. We therefore call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account. We support the Right to private ownership of and contracts for gold. We favor the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins should be abolished so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

…and…

To complete the separation of bank and State, we favor the Jacksonian independent treasury system, in which all government funds are held by the government itself and not deposited in any private banks. The only further necessary check upon monetary inflation is the consistent application of the general protection against fraud to the minting and banking industries.

I was a bit puzzled when I saw the phrase “fiat money” so I had to look it up. Fiat money is legal tender (paper currency, in this case) authorized by a government but not based on or convertible into gold or silver.

The outlawing of money would leave only a system of barter. People trading goods and services for bits of metal, being copper, gold, sliver, platinum or scrap iron. The many different coins would, of course, create a field day for counterfeiters! Nobody would be able to know that if the coin they received had the pure metal content it claimed or was an alloy of other metals. Nothing would be priced in dollars and cents anymore, but as so many ounces, or fractions of ounces, of some metal. When you get an US minted coin you know what you are getting. However, in the Libertarian model the lumps of metal could be minted by any number of millions of corporations, businesses, organizations or individuals. Conducting business on a large scale would face similar problems. In fact, rather than limiting inflation, if someone decided to create mass quantities of “coins” inflation would rage out of control -- at least for that particular coin.

Without government-issued money modern business could not operate, which is one more reason the business community has rejected the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian’s view of monopolies is equally destructive.

MONOPOLIES
We condemn all coercive monopolies. We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. In order to abolish monopolies, we advocate a strict separation of business and State.

Now the rational reader can see "that government is the source of monopoly" is nonsense. Sure there are businesses where government has given an exclusive franchise to conduct certain businesses such as electricity, gas service, etc. have worked well with this type of arrangement which is one of the things the Libertarians object to. The rational reader also knows that it is the nature of businesses to attempt to monopolize the market and that the "strict separation of business and State" will not abolish monopolies. In a pure market economy firms will compete, collude, spend monopoly rents, etc. to try and maximize profits as much as possible. Certainly there are a few industries that are dominated by large players who, in the absence of regulation (antitrust, pollution control, etc.) will collude, merge, set predatory pricing, act as discriminating monopolists/monopsonists, will pollute more and dump waste wherever. I will point out that firms rarely take any action where costs outweigh benefits in the long run, even if that's true in the short-run; And since officers of the corporation are trying to maximize share value and profits, any action that diminishes those values is either short-sighted or illogical. Basically, though the number of monopolies are likely to increase, it may or may not come to a point where a single company produces everything.

In other parts of this platform the Libertarians make reference to accepting such business monopolies by saying things like:

We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

However, there are other types of business monopolies granted by government legal privilege that would be abolished resulting in the final Libertarian blow to modern economics. There are two forms of government granted monopolies the Libertarians intend to outlaw. This section is the part the Libertarians get their claim that "government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy".

Copyrights are one form of government grants of legal privilege covered by the blanket demand of the Libertarians. The attitude expressed by Libertarians is that words cannot be owned. In addition to ending copyrighted reading material it would also end copyright protection for computer software. Another modern industry that would no longer be able to function. The reason is because anyone can copy software, disassemble, alter the code, then resell it for a profit. This would undermine the big business that Libertarians claim to be in favor of. Patents are the other less obvious form of government grants of legal privilege that the Libertarian Party would bring an end to. Companies would be able to manufacture and sell their products but be unable to stop others from copying the product and selling it under their own label. The attitude expressed by the Libertarians is that products (property) produced by a company would be protected by the law (property laws). A design, they contend, is an idea and that it is impossible to own an idea as an idea is not “property”.

I would like to end the economic discussion with this final platform flaw. As a stock trader I find this law particularly insidious.

Finance and Capital Investment
The Issue: Government regulation of capital markets inhibits investment, and creates marketplace advantage for those with political access, through exemptions to laws against fraud and breach of contract.

The Principle: Free markets should operate unhindered by government regulation, while government should punish fraud, theft and contractual breach without exception.

Solutions: We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets. What should be punished is the theft of information or breach of contract to hold information in confidence, not trading on the basis of valuable knowledge.

Transitional Action: We call for the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission, of state "Blue Sky" laws which repress small and risky capital ventures, and of all federal regulation of commodity markets. We oppose any attempts to ban or regulate investing in stock-market index futures or new financial instruments which may emerge in the future. We call for repeal of all laws based on the muddled concept of insider trading. We support the right of third parties to make stock purchase tender offers to stockholders over the opposition of entrenched management, and oppose all laws restricting such offers.

They make it quite clear that insider trading is OK.

I would to conclude this with a comparison between Conservatism and Libertarianism. The Conservative believes that order is the first priority of society, for it is only within the framework of an enduring social order that a true and lasting liberty may be attained. Libertarians possess an ideology of extreme individualism which repudiates that life has any meaning other than the gratification of the ego. They envision a utopia of individualism where people only exist for themselves -- selfishness is a virtue, says the Libertarian. Conservatives recognize the fact that the social unit is not the “individual” but the group -- autonomous groups such as family, church, local community, neighborhood, college, the union, etc. These groups intermediate between the individual and the government and THAT is what helps to preserve social order. Both Conservatives and Libertarians support the free market economy, but they differ in the degree of their devotion. Many Libertarians worship capitalism as if it were some kind of religion (ironic isn‘t it as most Libertarians are atheists) -- in fact, many have no trouble replacing the cross with a dollar sign. Libertarians do not limit their fanaticism for the market to the economic arena. They believe the market is a principle to be applied to all facets of life and social problems. It is clear that Libertarians see freedom as the most important value. Conservatives on the other hand see freedom as one of the most important values, but they recognize that NOTHING should get in the way of doing the right thing. Finally, Libertarianism seems to have a lot to say about liberty and freedom but little about learning how to handle it. What good is freedom without judgment, though? It is my belief that Libertarianism can’t answer this question because at its core is the belief that all free choices are equal (for example the choice between driving drunk, or going to church). It cannot throw away this belief without first acknowledging the fact that there is more to life than just freedom -- like family, society, security, and prosperity.

 

[dbartucci]

I think it's painfully obvious the the LP is out of touch with the realities of the world, perhaps a history lesson in why things are would be beneficial, rather than their supposition, seemingly, that things like money are just there to restrict freedoms. As John Stossel might say "Give me a break"

Nice paper Brian, I agree with much of what you say.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think it's painfully obvious the the LP is out of touch with the realities of the world, perhaps a history lesson in why things are would be beneficial, rather than their supposition, seemingly, that things like money are just there to restrict freedoms. As John Stossel might say "Give me a break"

I tried to address these issues before, but rather than being able to resolve our differences, it turned into an argument over "who is right and who is wrong". I wrote the essay in an attempt to address issues, that I feel were not addressed before -- simply because of the constant quoting.

Nice paper Brian, I agree with much of what you say.

Thank you.

 

[a6m5]

Excellent take, MrktMkr. 👍

I haven't kept up with this thread, but telling by your post, sounds like some people actually prefers Libertarianism over our current system. Personally, I find that very hard to believe. Like dbartucci mentioned right after your post, it's totally unrealistic, IMO.

Maybe I will go back and read this thread from the beginning.

 

[Danoff]

There is so much to respond to that I think I can’t get to all of it. I will try. I’d like to preface this post with the statement that I consider myself a libertarian and, while I do not necessarily agree with the entire part platform, I hold with its ideals.

I’ll start here, with your definition of libertarian.

They believe that everything should be privately or corporately owned -- and that financial and economic decisions should not be made by a centralized governmental organization. Speaking of centralized government, Libertarians are vehemently opposed to any form of government; that is to say with the exception of police, which they believe will protect citizens from force by one another by way of enforcing property rights; the military, which protects citizens from perceived initiations of force originating from outside their society; and lastly the courts, which check law enforcement and mediate civil disputes.

This is not correct. I think most libertarians would not agree with this, while we do advocate limiting government, it isn’t nearly as anarchist as you describe here – especially considering the proper role of government to maintain the money supply.

By now, I think that is has been established that Libertarians concede that one’s freedom should be curtailed if someone violates the rights of another. From what I’ve seen, however, they radically underestimate how easily this can happen. Consider this example: Libertarians contend that violence in the media should be allowed (as people have a right to view what they want) because if someone doesn’t like it, they can choose not to view it. However, what they cannot do is choose whether or not to live in a society that has been corrupted by it. To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing.

Nice analogy. Turning off your television set is not the same thing as stopping breathing. Violence in the media is already permitted today – ever watch a boxing match? Ultimate Fighting Champion (or whatever the hell it’s called)? I don't agree with your take on this, violence in the media should be (and is) allowed. It is not your right to infring on other people's rights.

Some Libertarians also have a hard time living up to their own ideals -- they choose to take all the benefits while at the same time ignoring the more difficult parts. For example, before I graduated high school a discussion about political parties came up. When asked, a classmate of mine said he considered himself a Libertarian. In retrospect (because at the time it had little to no meaning to me) I find this to be ironic considering the fact that this person was going to a PUBLIC school -- a government benefit. This classmate is not the only example, though. There are many so-called Libertarians out there who flout existing drug laws, yet at the same time continue to use government services

I went to public schools and I use public roads. My wife attends public school now. Why am I ok with this? Because our public school system destroys any chance at a low cost private school solution. Before you’d see low cost private schools come up, you’d have to start phasing out public schools. Here’s why, there is no supply where there is no demand.

As it stands, the majority of people do not want absolute freedom -- which explains why democracies do not elect Libertarian governments (and never will). If Libertarians ever gain even a modicum of power, expect to see many weird policies. Many Libertarians support the elimination of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. This has been tried before (even in the United States for some time) and does not exactly lead to anything good. There was an explosion of fraud and currency degradation followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that did survive (read: monopolies -- more on this later). Is it any surprise, though that the top 3 richest nations in the world (excluding the EU because it is a confederation of nation-states) are the United States (mixed-capitalist), China (socialist moving towards mixed-capitalism), and Japan (mixed-capitalist)?

You’re wrong, most people do want absolute freedom – for themselves (though some of their freedoms they won’t care much about). They also want to restrict the freedom of others so that they can have even more power over society, that is why nations do not elect libertarian governments – because everybody wants to control everybody else.
Government issued money is a requirement – it is a proper function of government. Without government issued money you’d have a very very messy economy – it’s a role that cannot be played well by the free market. Anytime free market forces don’t provide for an essential service, you end up turning to the government. Regulation of the money supply is one such example, pollution is another.

That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Blacks need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All of this is a "right of association" in the Libertarian ideology. That’s not to say that Libertarians are racists or sexists, but the attitude is as clear. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing for retaliation of force to throw out the rebel.

You’re mixing public racism with private. I think private racism is something that should be allowed. Publicly sponsored racism on the otherhand is a very evil thing. A public water fountain should not have a “white’s only” sign on it. A private water fountain, on the otherhand, should be used only by the people that the owner has permitted – it is his property afterall.

Another problem with Libertarianism is their philosophy concerning children:
Quote:

The quote that you found regarding laws about children is disturbing. I certainly hope you didn’t find that on the libertarian party website as part of their platform because it is disastrous. Children need education like they need food. Parent’s are committing a crime against a child if they do not provide food or education. There are laws requiring parents to educate and feed their children and they are right. However, state sponsored education and food is not necessary or good. Regarding child labor laws, children do not have the ability to engage in consensually in contracts for employment. Anyone who is forced to work is essentially enslaved – parents should not be allowed to force their children to work.

Like the past, the Libertarian future society will have no workplace safety laws, a 60 or 70 hour work week instead of a 40 hour week and ZERO minimum wage.

A regulated 40 hr work week and minimum wage are both bad things. I think we should take those arguments (at least the minimum wage argument) to the minimum wage thread.

Their all-inclusive demand for "the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations" by default includes the age of consent. Child prostitution and pornography are just part of the everyday life of a child's future, at least if these people get their way. Incidentally child molestation would disappear because Libertarians consider it molestation ONLY if it is forced upon a child. They believe in this so much that convicted child molesters would be released from prison. Currently they believe that any child that is seduced is not being “molested” but is exercising their "freedom".

What is forced? Children cannot be expected to make appropriate decisions for themselves and can easily be coerced. Look, children are not adults, they deserve extra protections under law. Don’t make libertarians out to be pedophiles ok? Protecting children more than adults is not at odds with the philosophy of freedom. Preventing adults from engaging in consensual sex (even if for money) is at odds with the philosophy.

Speaking of freedom, I would like to reiterate the fact that people (in general) are willing to accept limitations on our freedom for many reason. Take for example this extreme hypothetical case (since some members like to talk about extremes -- you know who you are): public exhibitions of necrophilia. In our current society this is OBVIOUSLY not permitted, but according to Libertarian principle they should be. The Libertarian argument: A corpse has no interests and cannot be harmed, because it is no longer a person; no member of the public is harmed if one has agreed to attend such an exhibition; and those who are opposed to it should simply avoid these types of exhibitions. Our current determination to prohibit such exhibitions would not change even if we discovered that millions of people wished to attend them or even if we discovered that people were already were attending them illegally. The fact that the prohibition represents a restriction of our freedom is of no consequence in a situation such as this. The fact of the matter is, it is just plain sick.

Well the fact of the matter is that you think it’s just plain sick, but for others – it’s freakin hot. Not me though I think it’s sick. Dead people are not public property or private property, people have rights even after they are dead since they had rights in life regarding what happens to their property (and body) after they are dead. Now let us suppose that someone put in their will that they wanted their corpse to be used for necrophilia demonstrations on a PRIVATE television show. That’s fine with me. Why should it not be fine with you? No people were harmed, no rights were violated and you don’t have to subscribe to the NBC (the necrophilia broadcasting channel).

The same, however, can be said about drugs -- which Libertarians strongly advocate the legalization of. It might be argued that the freedom to choose among a variety of intoxicating substances is a much more important freedom than necrophilia and that millions of people just have innocent fun from taking stimulants, depressants, and narcotics. Drug addiction has the effect of reducing a person’s freedom by limiting the range of their interests. It limits their ability to pursue much more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling community obligations. It often limits their ability to pursue jobs as well. One of the most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption. Drug taking is really a lazy man’s way of pursuing happiness and this “shortcut” really turns out to be a dead end. As a society, I think we would lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs. The idea that freedom is the ability to act upon one’s every whim is narrow and doesn’t even begin to capture the complexities of human existence; a person whose insatiable appetite is his/her “law” does not make you liberated but enslaved. And when such a narrow freedom is made the benchmark of public policy, it will mark the beginning of the end for our society. I apologize if that sounds alarmist, but that is my belief. No culture that makes publicly-sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can survive: a radical egotism is bound to ensue, in which ANY limitations upon personal behavior are experienced as infringements of basic rights -- it WILL be anarchy -- plain and simple.

Here you’ve walked a slippery slope. Yes, drugs limit your ability to make choices. But your ability to make choices was not inhibited before you took the drugs – when you chose to engage in drugs. You feel free to limit your own choice making abilities all you want. That’s not really any of my business. If you want to enslave yourself to drugs go right ahead, I don’t see why I should tell you to do otherwise – it’s your life. Claiming that this will lead to anarchy is preposterous.

It is my belief that anyone who thinks force (even government force) is always wrong, does not or cannot believe in doing right.

Who are these people? If government force were always wrong, then we would have no laws, no rights, and no country. I don’t know who you’re talking to here but I’m not sure they exist.

“Imagine if a very close friend of yours is suicidal. They just broke up with their boyfriend/girlfriend, lost her job, had been drinking heavily, and is severely depressed. If you knew they would feel better in the morning, would you physically restrain them from killing them self?”

Possibly. I’m ok with checking people who can’t control themselves into a clinic. Especially for the mentally retarded or insane. But in this case it was his choice to alter his decision making abilities. If I were good friends with the person I may restrain him and risk legal action on his part in the morning. I would certainly recognize that I was infringing his rights by restraining him and would not advocate that the government play any sort of role such as that. But I may choose to commit a crime against him for his own good and see if he chooses to retaliate legally. If I were not close friends with him I would not be so arrogant as to presume that I knew what was best for him.

The answer to why our business leaders have rejected the Libertarian Party is found within their party platform.

Yea, that it doesn’t provide businesses with the ability to restrict other people’s rights. Businesses are just like everyone else, they want freedom for themselves and to restrict the rights of other businesses to give them a leg up. That our current political system provides them with a means to do this is a major problem.

First let‘s take a look at one portion of their platform, Inflation and Depression. These two paragraphs are the major parts of their demand to end the current orderly banking system.

One of the proper functions of government is to regulate the money supply. Nobel prize winning economist and prominent libertarian Milton Friedman explains in his books why this is the case. He also explains how it was the improper handling of the money supply (or, in some cases lack of handling of the money supply) by the government that caused the great depression – and caused many problems prior to the great depression.

The outlawing of money would leave only a system of barter.

At best, and at worst would lead to rampant destitution. As noted above, some of the more prominent voices in the libertarian party have spoke about how important money is and how it is a proper function government to regulate money.

The Libertarian’s view of monopolies is equally destructive. Now the rational reader can see "that government is the source of monopoly" is nonsense.

I guess I’m irrational.

Sure there are businesses where government has given an exclusive franchise to conduct certain businesses such as electricity, gas service, etc. have worked well with this type of arrangement which is one of the things the Libertarians object to.

How do you know it has worked well? Compared to what? What can you compare this to? Do you pay to much for electricity? You don’t know because you don’t know what it would be like in a system that is more free.

The rational reader also knows that it is the nature of businesses to attempt to monopolize the market and that the "strict separation of business and State" will not abolish monopolies. In a pure market economy firms will compete, collude, spend monopoly rents, etc. to try and maximize profits as much as possible. Certainly there are a few industries that are dominated by large players who, in the absence of regulation (antitrust, pollution control, etc.) will collude, merge, set predatory pricing, act as discriminating monopolists/monopsonists, will pollute more and dump waste wherever. I will point out that firms rarely take any action where costs outweigh benefits in the long run, even if that's true in the short-run; And since officers of the corporation are trying to maximize share value and profits, any action that diminishes those values is either short-sighted or illogical. Basically, though the number of monopolies are likely to increase, it may or may not come to a point where a single company produces everything.

The rational reader does not necessarily agree with you here. Monopolies are very well protected against by free market forces. Competition brings large companies to their knees time and again.

Copyrights are one form of government grants of legal privilege covered by the blanket demand of the Libertarians. The attitude expressed by Libertarians is that words cannot be owned.

This is preposterous. Libertarians are all about ownership, that includes intellectual property as well as physical. Of course copyrights are good as well as patents. Without them our economy would suffer greatly.

A design, they contend, is an idea and that it is impossible to own an idea as an idea is not “property”.

Ideas are not property. But that concept is not at odds with current copyright or patent laws. I suggest we take this discussion to another thread as it is a very subtle area. Suffice it to say that our government does not currently treat ideas as property - not should they - Products are property, and ideas are not necessarily products.

They make it quite clear that insider trading is OK.

I don’t know much about stocks or trading. The stock market is a sort of system with its own rules owned by… I don’t know who owns it. It makes sense to me that no one would play the game if insider trading were acceptable, but I don’t understand the game, why it is critical or even what the rules are. I’ll have to defer to someone else on this.

They believe the market is a principle to be applied to all facets of life and social problems.

I don’t agree with this and I think I have shown why.

It is clear that Libertarians see freedom as the most important value. Conservatives on the other hand see freedom as one of the most important values, but they recognize that NOTHING should get in the way of doing the right thing.

Who decides what is right? You’re advocating doing some wrong to do some right – that the ends justify the means. How can you decide what ends justify what means when you’re not the only person affected?

What good is freedom without judgment, though?

I can’t answer this because I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you referring to legal judgment, or individual judgment? If it’s individual, then you have no right to say how I should judge a situation.

It cannot throw away this belief without first acknowledging the fact that there is more to life than just freedom -- like family, society, security, and prosperity.

Of course there is more to life than freedom – but freedom is the beginning of that life.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I’ll start here, with your definition of libertarian.

This is not correct. I think most libertarians would not agree with this, while we do advocate limiting government, it isn’t nearly as anarchist as you describe here – especially considering the proper role of government to maintain the money supply.

Actually, I made a point to address this. I specifically mentioned the difference between a "minarchist" which is what you (and probably the majority of Libertarians) are, and then there are "anarcho-capitalists".

It is important to note that not all Libertarians are one in the same. There is no consensus among Libertarians about how much government is necessary and whether there is a right to be defended by others. Hence, Libertarians are divided between the “minarchists”, who believe the existence of a state to be moral or necessary and the anarcho-capitalists, who do not. The minarchists believe that a minimum amount of government is necessary to guarantee property rights, economic and civil liberties, and that the proper function of government is limited to that purpose. For them, the legitimate functions of government might include the maintenance of the judicial system, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions (like public roads for example). The anarcho-capitalists, believe that even in matters of justice and protection, action by competing privately-responsible individuals (freely organized in businesses, cooperatives, or organizations of their choice) is preferable to government serving in these functions.

I anticipated that kind of response, and THAT is why I inserted that paragraph when I wrote the essay.

Nice analogy.

I knew you'd like it.

Turning off your television set is not the same thing as stopping breathing. Violence in the media is already permitted today – ever watch a boxing match? Ultimate Fighting Champion (or whatever the hell it’s called)?

Maybe I should been more specific. I wasn't talking about boxing and wrestling -- rather I was talking about gratuitous and graphic violence.

I don't agree with your take on this, violence in the media should be (and is) allowed. It is not your right to infring on other people's rights.

Read the article I provided in the link above. It may not be my right to infringe on other people's rights, but the point is, glorifying violence will only serve to destroy the fabric of our society. It is inevitable that someone's rights will be infringed upon -- and then what? You take away their "freedom" anyway?! How can people be free if they're all in jail?! Like ALL Libertarians, you're only looking at the individual, NOT society as a whole. This is where we differ.

I went to public schools and I use public roads.

That is SO ironic, it is almost amusing.

My wife attends public school now.

Same as above.

Why am I ok with this? Because our public school system destroys any chance at a low cost private school solution. Before you’d see low cost private schools come up, you’d have to start phasing out public schools.

Low cost?! That's not how a market works...

Here’s why, there is no supply where there is no demand.

That's true.

You’re wrong, most people do want absolute freedom – for themselves (though some of their freedoms they won’t care much about).

Only in the eyes of a Libertarian -- because Libertarians are all about "self", "me", "I". Conservatives and Liberals, however, are about the community and society as a whole -- one socially, the other economically.

They also want to restrict the freedom of others so that they can have even more power over society,

I repudiate, reject, renouce, ANY implication that "they" (majority) want to restrict freedom so that "they" can have more power over society. If people have certain limited freedoms, they can never ATTAIN ultimate power over society! However, if you give a person total freedom, there is NOTHING to stop them from gathering all of the power over society.

that is why nations do not elect libertarian governments – because everybody wants to control everybody else.

For the better... not so that any ONE person can gain.

Government issued money is a requirement – it is a proper function of government.

Not according to the Libertarian party platform... which I actually took the time to read.

Without government issued money you’d have a very very messy economy – it’s a role that cannot be played well by the free market.

OK, so you're a "minarchist". Fine, we've already established that. Read, or re-read the Libertarian party platform. They WANT free-market control over money. I addressed this in a later part of the essay.

Anytime free market forces don’t provide for an essential service, you end up turning to the government. Regulation of the money supply is one such example, pollution is another.

Still showing that you're a minarchist... nothing wrong with that -- just an observation.

You’re mixing public racism with private. I think private racism is something that should be allowed. Publicly sponsored racism on the otherhand is a very evil thing.

Again, I anticipated what your response. Why did this have to turn into Affirmative Action (public racism)? Why not address the issue of anti-discrimination?

A public water fountain should not have a “white’s only” sign on it.

Says who? If it's not right for the "government" why is not right for the individual?

A private water fountain, on the otherhand, should be used only by the people that the owner has permitted – it is his property afterall.

Yes. Let's all go back to the 1950's while we're at it. Telling me that I can't use a private water fountain (assuming there are no others within a 20 mile radius) and my car just broke down is an infringement on MY civil rights. That is what we fought for in the 50s and 60s -- and now you want to take all of that away?! ANARCHY!!!

The quote that you found regarding laws about children is disturbing. I certainly hope you didn’t find that on the libertarian party website as part of their platform because it is disastrous.

As I said before, ALL of the quotes were sourced WORD FOR WORD from the Libertarian party's political platform. I strongly suggest you either read or re-read their platform -- I took the time to do it, you should too.

Children need education like they need food.

Not according to the party. It's their CHOICE! It's their "right" NOT to have an education...

Parent’s are committing a crime against a child if they do not provide food or education.

Tell me about it...

There are laws requiring parents to educate and feed their children and they are right.

Which would disappear if the Libertarian party had their way.

However, state sponsored education and food is not necessary or good.

HOW?! It's subsidized and as result, it relieves the financial burdens from off the parents who can't afford to send their kids to school! If there was no state-sponsored education, there are millions of children that would not have an education -- you can't rely on "charity" alone. Marxists tried that, and look what happened.

Regarding child labor laws, children do not have the ability to engage in consensually in contracts for employment.

According to the party, if it is their choice to do so, there is NOTHING to stop them.

Anyone who is forced to work is essentially enslaved – parents should not be allowed to force their children to work.

Who said anything about force? It's all about CHOICES remember? Here's a scenario:

The boss of the company can always threaten to fire the parents if their children don't work for the company. Why? There are no government restrictions on firing employees without just cause -- or whatever the law is against firing people (I have to look that one up).

A regulated 40 hr work week and minimum wage are both bad things.

WHAT?! That's madness!!! If corporations can get away with paying a person $0.50 a day, they will! They could increase their margins and provide more to their shareholders... capitalism at its finest.

I think we should take those arguments (at least the minimum wage argument) to the minimum wage thread.

N. These arguments have a place HERE.

What is forced?

Do you really want me to use that word here? I was trying to phrase that paragraph so that I wouldn't have to say -- that word.

Children cannot be expected to make appropriate decisions for themselves and can easily be coerced.

Which is why we need laws to protect them. Laws which wouldn't exist if it were up to Libertarians.

Look, children are not adults, they deserve extra protections under law. Don’t make libertarians out to be pedophiles ok?

That was not my intent, and you know it. I'm only pointing out what COULD happen if Libertarians were the majority and why they SHOULD stay a minority.

Protecting children more than adults is not at odds with the philosophy of freedom.

Yes hell it is! The party platform made it clear that children and adults are one and the same. "They are both human beings" they contend, and that there should be no child-specific laws. What then?

Preventing adults from engaging in consensual sex (even if for money) is at odds with the philosophy.

Even if were talking about CHILDREN?!

Well the fact of the matter is that you think it’s just plain sick, but for others – it’s freakin hot.

Oh, lovely. Now we're ENDORSING PARAPHILIC BEHAVIOR?! I hope you know you have succeded in scaring the hell out of me...

Not me though I think it’s sick.

Good. The way it should be.

Dead people are not public property or private property, people have rights even after they are dead since they had rights in life regarding what happens to their property (and body) after they are dead. Now let us suppose that someone put in their will that they wanted their corpse to be used for necrophilia demonstrations on a PRIVATE television show. That’s fine with me.

You're too accepting -- especially given that that behavior is inextricably linked to other social and psychological disorders.

Why should it not be fine with you?

Society. You are STILL selfishly looking at the individual and NOT society as a whole.

No people were harmed,

Really?! Then when people start killing other people so that they can revel in their paraphilic behavior -- then what?! You throw them in jail, and restrict more freedom?! Why does it have to be that way?!

no rights were violated and you don’t have to subscribe to the NBC (the necrophilia broadcasting channel).

You think its that simple? Society is too complex say something as simple as "don't subscribe to the channel".

Yes, drugs limit your ability to make choices. But your ability to make choices was not inhibited before you took the drugs – when you chose to engage in drugs. You feel free to limit your own choice making abilities all you want. That’s not really any of my business. If you want to enslave yourself to drugs go right ahead, I don’t see why I should tell you to do otherwise – it’s your life. Claiming that this will lead to anarchy is preposterous.

It will lead to anarchy. If people run around indulging in their own self-destructive behavior rather than concentrating on the more IMPORTANT aspects of life, it WILL BE ANARCHY. It sounds alarmist, but it's the truth.

Who are these people?

People who believe in absolute personal freedom and responsibility -- and people who believe that the government has no right to tell a person what to do and what NOT to do.

If government force were always wrong, then we would have no laws, no rights, and no country.

Now you're agreeing with me?!

I don’t know who you’re talking to here but I’m not sure they exist.

Yes, they do. Of course they do!

Possibly.

POSSIBLY?! POSSIBLY!!!

I’m ok with checking people who can’t control themselves into a clinic.

That's not what I asked. I asked "would you physicallly restrain them from killing themselves". No clinics, no therapists, none of that.

If I were good friends with the person I may restrain him and risk legal action on his part in the morning.

You "may" restrain him. That's not what I asked... this is a YES I WOULD or NO I WOULD NOT question.

I would certainly recognize that I was infringing his rights by restraining him and would not advocate that the government play any sort of role such as that.

Again, I'm not talking about government. Two people in a room, long time friends, one trying to kill them self, what do YOU do. That is the question.

But I may choose to commit a crime against him for his own good and see if he chooses to retaliate legally.

Again, you're still not being clear. You keep saying you "may". I want a definite answer.

If I were not close friends with him I would not be so arrogant as to presume that I knew what was best for him.

So you would let arrogance get in the way of saving a life just because you don't know the person?

How about this:

Someone crashes their car. You don't know why they crashed their car. Do you stop to try to save them from the mangled wreck? Or do you just assume that it would be ARROGANT to presume that you knew what was best for the person?

Yea, that it doesn’t provide businesses with the ability to restrict other people’s rights.

*point flys by at 150mph*

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Your showing your anarchist heart again. Anything "organized" and you automatically assume it's trying to "restrict" people. UNBELIEVEABLE!!!

Businesses are just like everyone else, they want freedom for themselves and to restrict the rights of other businesses to give them a leg up.

READ: MONOPOLY

So by giving them more freedom, you're only going to make "restriction of the rights of other businesses" WORSE.

That our current political system provides them with a means to do this is a major problem.

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM DOES NO SUCH THING.

One of the proper functions of government is to regulate the money supply. Nobel prize winning economist and prominent libertarian Milton Friedman explains in his books why this is the case.

OK.

He also explains how it was the improper handling of the money supply (or, in some cases lack of handling of the money supply) by the government that caused the great depression – and caused many problems prior to the great depression.

I bet he didn't mention the fact that there was less government intervention as well. I bet he didn't mention anything about OVERPRODUCTION, and MARGIN REQUIREMENTS either...

At best, and at worst would lead to rampant destitution. As noted above, some of the more prominent voices in the libertarian party have spoke about how important money is and how it is a proper function government to regulate money.

Yet the party platform advocates the PRIVITIZATION of money...

I guess I’m irrational.

What is the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust Act?

How do you know it has worked well? Compared to what? What can you compare this to? Do you pay to much for electricity? You don’t know because you don’t know what it would be like in a system that is more free.

I'm not going to argue that.

The rational reader does not necessarily agree with you here. Monopolies are very well protected against by free market forces. Competition brings large companies to their knees time and again.

What?! That's nonsense. Ever hear of the saying "if you can't be 'em, join 'em"? If the competition can't comepete, they will merge! It's as simple as that. Take Nextel and Sprint for example. Sears and KMart. AOL and TimeWarner. The list goes on... companies merge almost everyday! I watch these things. You eliminate anti-trust laws and there WILL BE NOTHING TO STOP M&As.

This is preposterous. Libertarians are all about ownership, that includes intellectual property as well as physical.

Wrong! Read the platform. YOU many think we should have intellectual property, but you're party does not agree with that.

Of course copyrights are good as well as patents. Without them our economy would suffer greatly.

Again, your party does not agree.

Ideas are not property. But that concept is not at odds with current copyright or patent laws. I suggest we take this discussion to another thread as it is a very subtle area. Suffice it to say that our government does not currently treat ideas as property - not should they - Products are property, and ideas are not necessarily products.

There are plenty of patented ideas. Not all patents are products because not all products are make it to market -- and if something hasn't made it to market yet, how can it be considered a product?

I don’t know much about stocks or trading. The stock market is a sort of system with its own rules owned by… I don’t know who owns it.

It's not owned by any one person. It is regulated by the government to prevent stock prices from experiencing dramatic drops -- to prevent another Oct. 1987. I know all about the failsafes.

It makes sense to me that no one would play the game if insider trading were acceptable, but I don’t understand the game, why it is critical or even what the rules are. I’ll have to defer to someone else on this.

Insider trading is BAD because it gives the person with the information a competitive advantage over other investors. This is frowned upon which is why Martha Stewart was thrown in jail.

I don’t agree with this and I think I have shown why.

You haven't shown why. You're all for the privitization of schools etc. You think everyone should have freedom -- and this all goes back to money, finance, and market. As long as there is a market for it, it should be legal attitude. That's what I meant.

Who decides what is right?

Who says the decision has to rest with a single person?

You’re advocating doing some wrong to do some right – that the ends justify the means.

You're advocating doing NOTHING because you think it's right?

How can you decide what ends justify what means when you’re not the only person affected?

Who says the decision has to rest with a single person?

Of course there is more to life than freedom – but freedom is the beginning of that life.

Freedom with certain limitations is the beginning of that life.

 

[Danoff]

At some point, one wonders how much time they’re willing to put into an internet argument. I guess I haven’t reached that point yet.

Actually, I made a point to address this. I specifically mentioned the difference between a "minarchist" which is what you (and probably the majority of Libertarians) are, and then there are "anarcho-capitalists".

Ok, so nobody here is arguing the anarcho-capitalist view. So why bring it up? Because you want to smear the term libertarian.

Maybe I should been more specific. I wasn't talking about boxing and wrestling -- rather I was talking about gratuitous and graphic violence.

Boxing and some kinds of wrestling are gratuitous and graphic violence, they fit right in with the article you posted.

Read the article I provided in the link above. It may not be my right to infringe on other people's rights, but the point is, glorifying violence will only serve to destroy the fabric of our society. It is inevitable that someone's rights will be infringed upon – and then what? You take away their "freedom" anyway?! How can people be free if they're all in jail?! Like ALL Libertarians, you're only looking at the individual, NOT society as a whole. This is where we differ.

I’ll have to disagree with you here too. I am looking at society as a whole. I’m looking at how one person justifies wronging another person in the name of society as a whole – and how that affects society as a whole. To claim that violence like boxing should not be allowed to be seen by consenting adults, or that you know better how to raise other people’s children then they do it arrogant and frankly, dangerous (to society as a whole).

That is SO ironic, it is almost amusing.

Why is it ironic? I can’t find a low priced private school because they can’t compete with the so-called free public schools the government provides. Here’s how it works. The government takes some of everyone’s money, then they give people “free” bananas that they pay for with everyone’s money. Nobody is going to buy a cheap banana because they can get one for “free” from the government. On the other hand, the government bananas aren’t that wonderful so some people are willing to pay high prices for more expensive bananas. In otherwords, low cost schools can’t compete with no cost schools, but expensive schools can.
If we did away with public schools, there would be many many low cost schools that I could choose from. That’s how the free market works. Public schools remove the market demand for low priced schools. If public schools were removed, the demand would be back and supply would follow.

I repudiate, reject, renouce, ANY implication that "they" (majority) want to restrict freedom so that "they" can have more power over society.

No? You want to limit people’s freedom more than necessary so that what? So that you can prevent society from acting the way you don’t want it to – that’s power.

However, if you give a person total freedom, there is NOTHING to stop them from gathering all of the power over society.

Rights are protected by law – so nobody can gather all of the power over society.

For the better... not so that any ONE person can gain.

Oh yes, that’s what they claim – for the better. Perhaps some of them even believe that, but the result is the same – government is bad at doing things that the free market can handle.

Not according to the Libertarian party platform... which I actually took the time to read.

This is why I prefaced my original statement by saying that I consider myself a libertarian. I don’t agree with the whole party platform, but I agree with the general philosophy and more of their platform than any other party. I’m not going to pretend that their platform is perfect, but (as I said earlier) many prominent libertarians don’t agree that money should not be regulated.

Again, I anticipated what your response. Why did this have to turn into Affirmative Action (public racism)? Why not address the issue of anti-discrimination?

I wasn’t talking about affirmative action (though that is a subset of what I was talking about).

Says who? If it's not right for the "government" why is not right for the individual?

Because the government is by and for the people. An individual can be by and for himself if he chooses. That is why there are different restrictions and freedoms on what government can do with its property.

Yes. Let's all go back to the 1950's while we're at it. Telling me that I can't use a private water fountain (assuming there are no others within a 20 mile radius) and my car just broke down is an infringement on MY civil rights. That is what we fought for in the 50s and 60s -- and now you want to take all of that away?! ANARCHY!!!

It’s not anarchy and I’m not an anarchist. If I own a waterfountain and your car broke down I am under no obligation to provide you with water regardless of the reason. That’s AMERICA, and if you don’t like it, go live somewhere where people are forced to do whatever you want (like give you their water).

As I said before, ALL of the quotes were sourced WORD FOR WORD from the Libertarian party's political platform. I strongly suggest you either read or re-read their platform -- I took the time to do it, you should too.

Well that’s disturbing. I still consider myself a libertarian, but I disagree with that aspect of the party platform and I think they should rethink their position regarding children.

HOW?! It's subsidized and as result, it relieves the financial burdens from off the parents who can't afford to send their kids to school! If there was no state-sponsored education, there are millions of children that would not have an education -- you can't rely on "charity" alone. Marxists tried that, and look what happened.

When did I say anything about charity? If the poorly run, tax dollar soaking, public daycares we call schools were suddenly stopped, not only would those folks have more money to spend, their would be lots of cheaper, better run, private schools ready to offer their services. Why would they be better? Government doesn’t do well at the things free markets handle – take Amtrak for example. Ever been to the DMV? That’s government efficiency.
Supposing you can’t afford to send your child to school? You don’t get to keep your child. That's the way it is with food now and I see no reason it should be different with education.

The boss of the company can always threaten to fire the parents if their children don't work for the company. Why? There are no government restrictions on firing employees without just cause -- or whatever the law is against firing people (I have to look that one up).

Uh huh, and in a free market that company would go out of business.

WHAT?! That's madness!!! If corporations can get away with paying a person $0.50 a day, they will! They could increase their margins and provide more to their shareholders... capitalism at its finest.

HA!!! Yes, that’s what minimum wage does, it forces companies to actually pay their employees. Do you make minimum wage? I don’t. Most Americans don’t. Do you know why? Because of the free market – companies voluntarily pay us more because they want to remain competitive.

Which is why we need laws to protect them. Laws which wouldn't exist if it were up to Libertarians.

I am a libertarian and I would not remove most laws protecting children.

You're too accepting -- especially given that that behavior is inextricably linked to other social and psychological disorders.

Perhaps being white is linked with social or psychological disorders…. Perhaps eating pizza could be… should it be illegal? Punish the harm, not things linked with the harm.

Society. You are STILL selfishly looking at the individual and NOT society as a whole.

Ironic that you call it selfish for me to look out for other people’s rights while you argue for restricting them.

Really?! Then when people start killing other people so that they can revel in their paraphilic behavior -- then what?! You throw them in jail, and restrict more freedom?! Why does it have to be that way?!

Yes you throw them in jail because that’s where they belong, people’s rights must be protected. Anyone who infringes on other people’s rights deserves to have their freedom taken away – at least for a while.

You think its that simple? Society is too complex say something as simple as "don't subscribe to the channel".

Isn’t it? I don’t watch boxing because I don’t like it, how do I do that? I choose not to.

It will lead to anarchy. If people run around indulging in their own self-destructive behavior rather than concentrating on the more IMPORTANT aspects of life, it WILL BE ANARCHY. It sounds alarmist, but it's the truth.

…on aspects of life YOU deem IMPORTANT. If drugs were legalized I think drug use would actually decrease.

People who believe in absolute personal freedom and responsibility -- and people who believe that the government has no right to tell a person what to do and what NOT to do.

You have a right to tell other people what not to do regarding your own freedoms, but they have a right to tell you the same regarding theirs.

Now you're agreeing with me?!

Yup, I agreed with you on that aspect of the issue. It shows that you don’t understand my position.

You "may" restrain him. That's not what I asked... this is a YES I WOULD or NO I WOULD NOT question.

My answer is it depends. You didn’t give me enough information.

How about this:

Someone crashes their car. You don't know why they crashed their car. Do you stop to try to save them from the mangled wreck? Or do you just assume that it would be ARROGANT to presume that you knew what was best for the person?

I would help. I would assume that they were not attempting to commit suicide and would want help.

So by giving them more freedom, you're only going to make "restriction of the rights of other businesses" WORSE.

No, that can only be accomplished with the help of the government.

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM DOES NO SUCH THING.

No? Take power companies as an example.

I bet he didn't mention the fact that there was less government intervention as well. I bet he didn't mention anything about OVERPRODUCTION, and MARGIN REQUIREMENTS either...

Read his books. Start with “Free to Choose”.

Yet the party platform advocates the PRIVITIZATION of money...

Do I care? I think they’re wrong, many people within the party think they’re wrong.

What?! That's nonsense. Ever hear of the saying "if you can't be 'em, join 'em"? If the competition can't comepete, they will merge! It's as simple as that. Take Nextel and Sprint for example. Sears and KMart. AOL and TimeWarner. The list goes on... companies merge almost everyday! I watch these things. You eliminate anti-trust laws and there WILL BE NOTHING TO STOP M&As.

Oh yes, that’s why we have so much competition in America. That’s why when you go to the grocery store there are 60 different kinds of mustard.

Wrong! Read the platform. YOU many think we should have intellectual property, but you're party does not agree with that.

Actually you didn’t post anything that convinced me of that.

Again, your party does not agree.

See above.

There are plenty of patented ideas. Not all patents are products because not all products are make it to market -- and if something hasn't made it to market yet, how can it be considered a product?

Ideas are not copyrightable or patentable. There must be something more physical – a product – to obtain a patent or copyright.

Insider trading is BAD because it gives the person with the information a competitive advantage over other investors. This is frowned upon which is why Martha Stewart was thrown in jail.

I understand what insider trading is, what I don’t understand is the stock market in general, how it came to be, what it does, why it does it, etc..

You haven't shown why. You're all for the privitization of schools etc. You think everyone should have freedom -- and this all goes back to money, finance, and market. As long as there is a market for it, it should be legal attitude. That's what I meant.

Again you mischaracterize my attitude. I do not that that the demand for something justifies its legality. I don’t understand how you can claim that I think that.

Who says the decision has to rest with a single person?

We’re back to majority rule again? I’ve already shown you that the majority cannot weigh in or rights.

You're advocating doing NOTHING because you think it's right?

That’s not a denial first of all, so I was correct in my assessment of your position. Secondly I’m advocating doing plenty, just not violating other people’s rights.

How can you decide what ends justify what means when you’re not the only person affected?

Who says the decision has to rest with a single person?

The tyranny of the majority is just as unacceptable as the tyranny of a single person. The majority cannot objectively decide who gets screwed – because they will always vote for the minority to get screwed. As a member of a minority I would have thought you’d have figured that out.

Edit: We've discussed a lot of this in detail in other threads. I've bumped a few so that we can help narrow this discussion... these posts are almost unreadable they're so long.

 

[dbartucci]

I think you're incorrect in your assertion that supply and demand factors will allow for the creation of private schools at low cost. Educating children is a social good, as they will be more productive members of society. As such, government provides access to all children, and requires them to attend school until some given age, in Ontarion it's 16. If you trust the market to provide goods like this you run the high risk of many people being unable to afford it, which places a further future burden on a population. Government necessarily provides many goods to people that the market is unable to provide equitably. Also don't confuse the monetary authority with government, in many states they operate independently, but at arms length of each other

 

[Sage]

If public school were taken away, there would be so much demand for low-cost, private schools that that wouldn't be a problem (because Americans in general realize the importance of education). Think about how overcrowded our public schools are now, and now imagine all of those parents needing to send their children to private schools – the demand would be so ginormous that prices would plummet. If only a small portion of American valued education, I could see your point, but it's just too highly regarded here for there not to be enough demand.

 

[dbartucci]

You could run into the same overcrowding issues, consider also the supply of teachers, in this country (Canada, we have too many, not too few).

We can continue in the education thread Danoff bumped...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think you're incorrect in your assertion that supply and demand factors will allow for the creation of private schools at low cost. Educating children is a social good, as they will be more productive members of society. As such, government provides access to all children, and requires them to attend school until some given age, in Ontarion it's 16.

Exactly.

If you trust the market to provide goods like this you run the high risk of many people being unable to afford it, which places a further future burden on a population.

Exactly. You also cannot rely on charity to pay for those who are less fortunate.

Government necessarily provides many goods to people that the market is unable to provide equitably.

Exactly -- and I mentioned this earlier.

Also don't confuse the monetary authority with government, in many states they operate independently, but at arms length of each other

For instance, the Federal Reserve in the United States.

 

[Danoff]

Public schools argument moved to public schools thead.

 

[Danoff]

Brian,

I wanted to discuss the quotes you found regarding child labor and decentralization of currency with some libertarian friends of mine, but I can't find those quotes on the links you posted. Can you direct me to them?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian,

I wanted to discuss the quotes you found regarding child labor and decentralization of currency with some libertarian friends of mine, but I can't find those quotes on the links you posted. Can you direct me to them?

Sure... I'll edit this post with the link as soon as I find it.

Here they call for an end to monetary policy and interest rate controls.

Here they call for the elimination of "fiat money", and they call for the privitization of coins. They call for a complete separation of state and bank as well.

It says, and I quote: We call for the immediate cessation of such fiscal and monetary policies, as well as any governmental attempts to affect employment levels. We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children, governmental restrictions on the establishment of private day-care centers, and the National Labor Relations Act.