Is This Fair Criticism Of Libertarianism?

[Jollybear]

I know full well tbat libertarians generally support criminal laws against things like murder, assault, theft, etc., and civil courts for things like breach of contract.

Good.

They generally don't favour laws that support beneficial programs like universal health care, or that protect worker's rights (e.g. minimum wage laws and employment standards), or that limit people's ability to infringe on the freedoms of others (e.g. gun control).

That seems to be common to all libertarians, but there are some who go much further... e.g. arguing that government building codes and food inspection should be eliminated and that the safety of buildings and food should be left to market forces.

Again, if it harms, dont do it.

A quick Googling tells me that Sacramento, CA allows front yard vegetable gardens.

Do you consider the laws in Sacramento (and therefore the state laws of California and US federal laws) to reflect libertarian ideals?

If they allow front yard gardens then that is a libertarian principle.

Yes, of course. If you don't, why not?


Every citizen and permanent resident.

Oh my gosh! Your gonna give me a heart attack. Eh, ah, oh, oh my, im in deep shock.

Ok....why should a able bodied, mentally capable person who is unwilling to work, be allowed on wellfar?

I'm not sure what else there is to say. I don't see how making someone homeless or starving them is a reasonable punishment for the "crime" of not working.

Im not talking about simply not working, but UNWILLING to work. That should be punished.

Edit: and pragmatically, the cost to society of having people fall through the cracks is far more than it is just to make sure they're supported.

What cost is it to society if someone falls through a crack?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, if it harms, dont do it.

This principle, applied consistently, ends up with something that nobody would consider libertarianism.

If they allow front yard gardens then that is a libertarian principle.

Sacramento is not operating under a libertarian system. We can have front yard vegetable gardens without a libertarian system.

Here's what I think you're not getting: if something - e.g. vegetable gardens - is compatible with a whole range of systems, then saying "vegetable gardens!" doesn't give us a reason to choose libertarianism over all of the other systems that would also allow vegetable gardens.

Oh my gosh! Your gonna give me a heart attack. Eh, ah, oh, oh my, im in deep shock.

Why? This is what you suggested. "If it harms, don't do it" - remember?

Homelessness harms people, so don't do it; make sure that people are able to pay rent.

Hunger harms people, so don't do it; make sure people are able to buy food.

Ok....why should a able bodied, mentally capable person who is unwilling to work, be allowed on wellfar?

- because every person deserves to be treated with dignity

- because the costs of not providing welfare far exceed the costs of providing it.

- because it's a way to save communities with high unemployment until they can be turned around

- because it forces employers to fight harder to attract low-level workers, thereby improving conditions for the workers who choose to work.

Im not talking about simply not working, but UNWILLING to work. That should be punished.

Why?

What cost is it to society if someone falls through a crack?

A lot:

It is important to note that the average cost of homelessness ranged from just over $29,000 in Moncton to a high of $59,000 in Toronto (Vancouver fell in the middle at $53,000, while Winnipeg and Montreal sat at $45,500 and $53,000 respectively).

The recent research also highlights a tremendous range when looking at the highest users of services, which varied from just over $15,000 to a staggering $340,000 per person per year for the highest consumers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-jino-distasio-homelessness-housing-first-1.4341552

 

[Milton Platt]

Its an interesting and an entertaining video. The presenter is instantly likeable and intelligent, but I have objections. I like his conclusions, but his arguments are terrible and seem slanderous, too. The opinions I put forward below do not make me an expert on Locke, rights to liberty or Locke; so you are encouraged to read about them. I'm also don't have a degree in philosophy. I

In the video he misunderstand's Locke and cheapens him. (7:20) At the time that Locke says right to property is God-given, he's arguing that it does not derive through nobility. In other words Locke argues against a 'Right' to property as understood in his time. That is part of the foundation of Utilitarianism rather than a score for Libertarianism. Those who claim Locke, claim Locke. It could be this confusion is due to claims that the vid maker has seen on Libertarian web sites rather than due to his own reading of Locke.

Some of Locke's arguments are valuable. Locke does not consider that people have any exclusive right to property in our natural state. He does argue for property ownership and seeks to uphold that labor bestowed upon something causes it to be owned. From this we get modern ideas like Squatter's Rights. The video makes the mistake of cheapening Locke and turning people away from his thoughtful statements, although I value its spirited introduction of Utilitarian theory. I think where Locke falls short is that he presupposes labor makes anything owned, but its a model. Its fine to ask what causes people to labor on things, and it would be easy as pie to say that Locke may not be a member of the Libertarian party. He exists before it does and has different political considerations. I could take what Locke has said and infer that he would take away 90% of ownership from all people who are not actively developing their resources with their own hands.

Copy of Locke's chapter titled *Of Property* from his 2nd treatise of civil government.

As for what he says about the right to liberty (8:21) again the video fails, because its argument is fallacious. His conclusion is that he is not a Libertarian and is Utilitarian, but freedom as an idea which exists before the Libertarian party. One can choose not to be a Libertarian and still believe freedom is a right. Through conscience and compassion born on experience I can insist there is a right to liberty. Its experience and horror that have driven most to accept this that people must be free, and the alternative is a horror.

Bad free will argument (9:01). Fallacious again. One does not have to be Libertarian to accept responsibility for their own lives and can recognize good and bad fortune. Free will might be a Libertarian principle, but its not owned by Libertarianism and doesn't have to be such a paper doll. It can mean (does mean I think) that a person is expected to look at their situation and do something about it and be responsible for what they are and have done. It also doesn't have to mean that the poor are guilty of being poor and deserve to be poor.

I agree with his conclusion that "Libertarianism simply doesn't work." I value his introduction of Utilitarian theory. I agree that we should share. His argument does not apply to his conclusion, even though his conclusion "I am not a Libertarian" might have a valid argument behind it. He should come up with better arguments. Instead he throws all kinds of good arguments under the bus, and his speech also confuses the Libertarian party and libertarianism.

Thanks for this well fleshed out response. I have no real concept of what Libertarianism actually is, aside from a few claims from others. I will do some more research. It's an interesting subject.

 

[Flame]

Ameristan could benefit from waging fewer wars

I think I'm pretty extreme with this idea. Pull all our troops from foreign land and shut down all bases outside of the US. No reason for us to police the world, let them deal with their own wars and only get involved if we're directly attacked.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I'm pretty extreme with this idea. Pull all our troops from foreign land and shut down all bases outside of the US. No reason for us to police the world, let them deal with their own wars and only get involved if we're directly attacked.

I don't think I'd go that far...all the way, but I like your thinking in the matter.
Some foreign bases could be useful for defense...the actual rather than the
imagined kind.

 

[Flame]

I don't think I'd go that far...all the way, but I like your thinking in the matter.
Some foreign bases could be useful for defense...the actual rather than the
imagined kind.

Like I said I kinda have an extreme view on it. I can see the use of having military bases in certain areas but I'd rather have US forces on US soil.

 

[metis]

There is "right-libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism", and Gandhi was of the latter. To me right-libertarianism tends to be self-centered whereas left-libertarianism tends to be more other-centered than the other.

 

[Enoch07]

Only for those who value civil liberties, free association, free thought,
tolerance, independence, lower taxes, less war, gun rights, & minding
their own business.

Preach it brother!