Why Aren't you a Libertarian?

[Stevicus]

You're confusing 3 things....
- Anarchism
- Small "l" libertarianism
- Capital "L" as used in the Libertarian Party <--- The subject of the OP
The above descend in decreasing extremism.
The Party has antipathy towards & distrust of government, which I like.
But it also is all about having a government, with police powers, courts,
military, & social services. The difference with us is how those are used.

Well, there's no way to know how they would be used until they get the opportunity (and political power) to actually use them. I think "distrust of government" is somewhat of a misnomer. What it actually entails is distrust of people. Our Founders didn't want any one individual or faction to have too much power, since there was a natural human propensity towards abusing power. ("Power corrupts.")

What you should be objecting to isn't our forgetting of something we've not forgotten.
Instead you should be against our ending foreign aggression, reducing taxes, reducing
the size of government, curbing the nanny state, boosting civil liberties, & boosting
economic liberty. Those are all things involve minarchy, & are worthy of opposition if
one is a Dem or a Pub.

The only trouble is that people are still people, and if government is minimized, there's nothing to check the enormous power of the private sector, who have been known to become abusive tyrants in their own private kingdoms.

At least government, on paper, has a duty and responsibility to serve the interests of the people, while private sector entities have no such responsibility or duty. (Nationalism can be a balancing force in that respect, since it carries the assumption that people of the same ethnicity, culture, and blood ties will have a natural propensity to care and look after their own people, but that's not really possible in America today, nor can it be implemented on a global scale. There would be too much fighting and dissension - which is what we've seen over the past century or so.)

 

[Jollybear]

What kind of libertarian are you?

One that believes in laws that are set up to protect others from harm. Not laws to arbitrarily control others in order to amas power and money.

Government serves ONLY to protect liberty, NOT to take liberty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like a lot of their platform, but I've never understood what the Libertarian stance is on engineering standards, building codes, safety standards, standardized weights and measures and such... ?

E.g., it doesn't seem like a good idea to let the market decide which contractors to use based on whether their bridges fall down or not.

That used to be how things were. The first building and fire codes were instituted by insurance companies as criteria that a building had to meet to be insured. If you were okay with not being insured (or if you had enough money to self-insure), you were fairly free to do what you wanted; the only real limitation was tort liability (which wasn't much of a limitation if the people who were at risk in your building didn't have enough money to successfully sue) and criminal law (which took a lot to actually violate).

Edit: it changed because it wasn't enough. Many, many people died, so governments took action.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One that believes in laws that are set up to protect others from harm. Not laws to arbitrarily control others in order to amas power and money.

Government serves ONLY to protect liberty, NOT to take liberty.

That seems a bit conflicted, since often protecting liberty involves minor restrictions on liberty: preventing people from restricting the liberty of others.

How does this translate into a position on, say, government-funded universal health care? To me, this is a pretty straightforward matter protection from harm. It's also something that most libertarians I hear from oppose... though I know you say you aren't necessarily like other libertarians.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, there's no way to know how they would be used until they get the opportunity (and political power) to actually use them. I think "distrust of government" is somewhat of a misnomer. What it actually entails is distrust of people. Our Founders didn't want any one individual or faction to have too much power, since there was a natural human propensity towards abusing power. ("Power corrupts.")

Of course I distrust people. This is a premise for wanting a governmental
system wherein people are less prone to abuse, oppress, & surveil us.

The only trouble is that people are still people, and if government is minimized, there's nothing to check the enormous power of the private sector, who have been known to become abusive tyrants in their own private kingdoms.

This depends upon which facets of government are minimized.
But regarding abusive power, the private sector is a minor player compared to government.
What company can....
- Show up at your door with with automatic weapons, kick it in, shoot your dog, & arrest you? -- Draft you to fight in a war on the other side of the world?
- Put you in prison if you don't give them a third of your income?
- Overthrow foreign governments.
- Give WMDs to foreign countries to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
This is just our country. Russia, China & others have done worse.

At least government, on paper, has a duty and responsibility to serve the interests of the people, while private sector entities have no such responsibility or duty. (Nationalism can be a balancing force in that respect, since it carries the assumption that people of the same ethnicity, culture, and blood ties will have a natural propensity to care and look after their own people, but that's not really possible in America today, nor can it be implemented on a global scale. There would be too much fighting and dissension - which is what we've seen over the past century or so.)

Government has its uses.
But we'd rather see it being less oppressive.
Democrats & Republicans have a record of wanting ever more control over us.
We need a party to counter that.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course I distrust people. This is a premise for wanting a governmental
system wherein people are less prone to abuse, oppress, & surveil us.

That's why there are provisions in the Constitution to prevent these things. The government may not necessarily follow their own rules, but that's due to internal weaknesses within the government itself. Too much power is granted to the unelected bureaucracy and the deep state, while the elected officials themselves are at a disadvantage in dealing with it.

This depends upon which facets of government are minimized.
But regarding abusive power, the private sector is a minor player compared to government.
What company can....
- Show up at your door with with automatic weapons, kick it in, shoot your dog, & arrest you?

The Mob has been able to do such things with impunity. The owners of company towns, a point raised earlier in this thread. Feudal landlords whose "property rights" were considered sacrosanct by royal governments had this kind of power without anyone to check them.

-- Draft you to fight in a war on the other side of the world?

Not sure about this one, although even our own government hasn't drafted anyone in decades.

- Put you in prison if you don't give them a third of your income?

Again, organized crime had the power to demand tribute. There used to be debtor's prisons, although I don't think those are used anymore.

- Overthrow foreign governments.

Organized crime, which has the economic means to bribe any government or military official. Money talks. United Fruit is one such organization, although they're all part of the same international business community.

- Give WMDs to foreign countries to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
This is just our country. Russia, China & others have done worse.

I think those WMDs were made by private sector companies, although I could be mistaken on that.

Government has its uses.
But we'd rather see it being less oppressive.
Democrats & Republicans have a record of wanting ever more control over us.
We need a party to counter that.

We need a party that works for the people's interests. The little guy in society doesn't need to be controlled, so governmental authority/control need not impact them very much. The little people can be mostly left alone, since they're hardly a threat or any sort of real problem. The only ones who represent a threat are those who are monied interests or people at a comparable aristocratic level. They're the ones who need to be controlled by a strong party and a powerful leader dedicated to the public interest. A strong centralized authority to keep the aristocrats and other monied interests under control is all it takes, and everything else will fall into place.

It's the aristocrats, the billionaires, the slavers, the owners of company towns, organized crime - they're the ones who feel the most threatened by "big gov," since they're the only ones who have the power to protect the people's interests. We need a party which stands up for the little guy, the downtrodden masses, which requires coming down on the aristocratic bourgeois types with an iron fist. It's the only way to ensure justice.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what such a hybrid would look like.
Perhaps something private but funded & monitored by gov?
I'm not wedded to any particular approach.
I just want the best for each application.

Funded and monitored by the government? That's not libertarianism, it's more akin to socialism.

Single payer healthcare is private but funded and monitored by the government -- ie: the public. I was under the impression that libertarians opposed single payer health care as "big government," if not outright socialist.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Mob has been able to do such things with impunity. The owners of company towns, a point raised earlier in this thread. Feudal landlords whose "property rights" were considered sacrosanct by royal governments had this kind of power without anyone to check them.

We don't have a royal government here.
(Although Bush & Clinton dynasties flirted with that.)
Your modern domestic examples pale in comparison with what government can do to us.
I've never had a company point guns at me, try to draft me, or tax me.

Not sure about this one, although even our own government hasn't drafted anyone in decades.

But it retains that power.
And every non-trans male must register, or risk prosecution, & be denied services like student loans.

Again, organized crime had the power to demand tribute. There used to be debtor's prisons, although I don't think those are used anymore.

We can agree that a useful function of government is fighting organized crime.
This isn't a Libertarian v Democrat v Republican issue.

Organized crime, which has the economic means to bribe any government or military official. Money talks. United Fruit is one such organization, although they're all part of the same international business community.

Again, this is not a Lib v Dem v Pub issue.
But the more power government has, the more susceptible to bribery it is.
Consider how local governments trade tax breaks to companies for locating there.
This is ripe for corruption. I'd ban such deals.

I think those WMDs were made by private sector companies, although I could be mistaken on that.

Whoever manufactured them did so at government's behest.
There is no reasonable evidence that the private sector drives our leaders' war lust.
Voters re-elect presidents who wage useless deadly costly wars.

We need a party that works for the people's interests. The little guy in society doesn't need to be controlled, so governmental authority/control need not impact them very much. The little people can be mostly left alone, since they're hardly a threat or any sort of real problem. The only ones who represent a threat are those who are monied interests or people at a comparable aristocratic level. They're the ones who need to be controlled by a strong party and a powerful leader dedicated to the public interest. A strong centralized authority to keep the aristocrats and other monied interests under control is all it takes, and everything else will fall into place.

It's the aristocrats, the billionaires, the slavers, the owners of company towns, organized crime - they're the ones who feel the most threatened by "big gov," since they're the only ones who have the power to protect the people's interests. We need a party which stands up for the little guy, the downtrodden masses, which requires coming down on the aristocratic bourgeois types with an iron fist. It's the only way to ensure justice.

The interests of the little guy.....that's why I'm a Libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funded and monitored by the government? That's not libertarianism, it's more akin to socialism.

Social services are not "the means of production".

Single payer healthcare is private but funded and monitored by the government -- ie: the public. I was under the impression that libertarians opposed single payer health care as "big government," if not outright socialist.

I'm sure many Libertarians oppose single payer.
But looking at things pragmatically, I see government provided health care as
inevitable in our society with our government run by the Big Two in perpetuity.
So the question becomes....
What kind of single payer should we have?
Under the system proposed by Hillary (for the Democrat Party) back in the day,
it made illegal any private services. We had no Plan B if government failed us.
So I advocate for single payer, but with legal alternatives in the private sector.
It's not libertarian. It's just more libertarian than the possible alternatives.

Note....
I speculate that had Bill Clinton not been distracted by the legal flap over his
"presidue" on the blue dress, we'd have had Hillarycare. Dodged a bullet, eh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What company can....
- Show up at your door with with automatic weapons, kick it in, shoot your dog, & arrest you?

Pinkerton is probably the most famous example... they did this frequently until the "nanny state" stepped in and "limited their freedom."

Pinkerton (detective agency) - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Pinkerton is probably the most famous example... they did this frequently until the "nanny state" stepped in and "limited their freedom."

Pinkerton (detective agency) - Wikipedia

You've been watching too much Deadwood.
They can no longer do this...not in our millenium.
No relevant modern examples?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Feudal landlords whose "property rights" were considered sacrosanct by royal governments had this kind of power without anyone to check them.

That's the biggest glaring problem with libertarianism that I've seen: they claim to support freedom, but they also support policies that would allow for a sort of neo-feudalism as long as the entity oppressing people isn't called a government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You've been watching too much Deadwood.
They can no longer do this...not in our millenium.

That's right: they aren't allowed to do this because of regulations that libertarians often oppose.

No relevant modern examples?

Here's one of many:
Security agency says guard was '100 percent justified' in NCCU student's shooting death

 

[Revoltingest]

That's right: they aren't allowed to do this because of regulations that libertarians often oppose.

Source?

Here's one of many:
Security agency says guard was '100 percent justified' in NCCU student's shooting death

So you found one bad shooting by a private party.
My government killed a million Iranians in an unjust proxy war.
And quite a few draftees were killed or maimed by my government in the VN war.
Pinkerton is a teensie bunch of namby pamby peaceniks in comparison.

 

[Nakosis]

”Do you believe in individual rights and personal freedom? Then join our group and strictly adhere to our specific rules, principles and platform!”

I largely agree with the general ideas but not all of the conclusions and details based upon it. I find anything like this can tend to take valid principles too extremes, without accepting practical balance or compromise.

Ala Chile? Where the government took lefties on helicopter rides they didn't come back from. I don't think most people are extremists but there are a few in every ideology. Any ideology can be taken to a extreme, I don't see libertarianism being any more prone or immune from this.

That is a very different question. I’m in the UK so it’s not specifically relevant anyway but as a general concept I’d never vote for or against a candidate just because of a political label attributed to them (by themselves or others). I vote for candidates based on what they personally do and say, with being too closely bound to any political party or philosophy being something candidates do that turns me off them.

Currently in the US the political parties seem to rally for the party. One rarely finds bipartisanship any more. Democrats vote one way, Republican the other. Kind of why I wish we have a few more parties involved. Then the various parties would have to work together to get something done. Now they don't if they can gain control of all three branches of the government.

 

[Nakosis]

The whole thrust of this political idea is to give primacy to the individual and to destroy social solidarity. The sort of selfish, Ayn Rand-ish crap beloved by people who think they are doing OK and to hell with everyone else. Total failure to acknowledge that a lot of people are dealt a poor hand in life and that both social cohesion and Christian charity demand that the rest of us, through government, take a hand in helping. This is the thinking that leads to people living in fortresses with guns, Omega Man style, to keep the unwashed rabble at bay.

I think it is an appalling idea - and a quintessentially American one.

As I see it there is a natural need for each other. We need each other to succeed for our own success. We have succeeded, not perfectly but for the most part we have order and justice. Libertarian see this as the natural order of things. It arose naturally and here we are. Libertarian see government as an impediment to this natural order. We have had the Democrats and Republicans both in charge. The poor still are getting poorer and the rich richer. It is beneficial for both Democrats and Republicans to keep the poor poor. Political support for the Democrats and cheap labor for the Republicans. Equal opportunity for every individual is a main principle of the libertarian party. There is no unwashed rabble only individuals each deserving the right to pursue their dreams and economic goals.

You think the current government is not keeping the unwashed rabble out at bay? Why? Just because the government offers a minimal support to keep them exactly where they are?

Hasn't worked so far.

 

[Valjean]

I've read it before.
And I break wind in its general direction.
Fundamentally, no country can have Marxism or
socialism without a very authoritarian government.
It's necessary to prevent free economic association.

One that believes in laws that are set up to protect others from harm. Not laws to arbitrarily control others in order to amas power and money.

Government serves ONLY to protect liberty, NOT to take liberty.

But wouldn't protecting liberty for others entail restricting liberty for an individual? Should a factory owner be permitted to dump his waste into a river used by others downstream?

 

[Nakosis]

Simple. For me its duty and responsibility over rights. One gets rights by being responsible and answerable to one's social and ethical obligations and performing their duties in this cooperative endevour of a civilized society. These duties of care and cooperation are what makes having rights a possibility and hence stand above individual rights in the hierarchy of values.
Basically I disagree with the idea of inalienable rights. Rights are goods that one seeks to acheive, and responsibility and dutiful action is how we acquire those goods.

Ok, I guess that means you are fine with others deciding for you what right you have and what goods you can possess. So if the group decides it is in their benefit that you go to war, kill folks you don't know, risk your own life, livelihood for the benefit of the government it's all part of the deal.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that I see the purpose of Libertarianism as a political force.

In my mind, the very reason for being of politics is the establishment and caring for a social contract of some form.

Sure, there is such a thing as an excessively big government. But it seems to me declaring Libertarian principles in an actual political party misses the point. It is not for the political candidates and office holders to address that matter, but for the grassroots.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think that I see the purpose of Libertarianism as a political force.

In my mind, the very reason for being of politics is the establishment and caring for a social contract of some form.

Sure, there is such a thing as an excessively big government. But it seems to me declaring Libertarian principles in an actual political party misses the point. It is not for the political candidates and office holders to address that matter, but for the grassroots.

Are you still an anarchist?