posted
I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate. Or if you don't like that, just pick up where it left off in the abortion thread.
So, I'll start it off by saying that businesses grow larger every day, and there are more mergers and buyouts than I care to follow. In our government, the branches check and balance each other, and an important role any governing body plays (or should play) involves checking and balancing these corporations to protect individuals.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The federal government grows larger every day as well. I can't say I'm any more pleased with that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Government Equivalent to Armed Robbery? Well, I'd say that's a bit extreme...unless you don't feel like paying your taxes!
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. The thing is that it's better than the armed robbery by any random collection of private individuals that you get without a government; that usually has rabe and murder thrown in with it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not sure why people think wealth needs to be redistributed. How many people actually take their money out of circulation? Most people invest it so it's doing good for the economy, or they spend it and it still does good for the economy. What else is there? Do people actually bury it in the backyard or stuff it in the mattress?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I doubt that most instances of armed robbery include rape and murder.
You did not read my post sufficiently carefully. I was referring specifically to the kind of armed robbery you get in the absence of governments, which is not at all what we have today. In other words, I was referring to things like the Indo-European invasion of Europe, the Hebrews taking over the Fertile Crescent, and the Mongols over most of Eurasia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yes. The thing is that it's better than the armed robbery by any random collection of private individuals that you get without a government; that usually has rabe and murder thrown in with it.
Libertarianism does not advocate the absence of government - rather, it suggests a minimalist government.
I'll expand my thoughts on this when I haven't just gotten home from a long day at work.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
My friends love to talk idiots out of being anarchists for that reason. My friends are bigger than they are. Anarchy just wouldn't be pretty.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Libertarianism does not advocate the absence of government - rather, it suggests a minimalist government.
I understand this, yes, but I was responding to the original question, rather than your particular version of libertarianism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate.
Where in the original question does it suggest a version of Libertarianism where there is an absence of government (incidentally, that version of Libertarianism doesn't exist - it's called anarchy, and equating the two is like equating Democrats with Socialists, or Republicans with Fascists)?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all government is the equivalent of armed robbery.
Government is needed where there are large numbers of people. I like what the author says of government in this book, namely that government is essentially a large group of people hiring someone to do tasks for the greater good; things like street sweeping, building aquafirs, lighting streetlights, enforcing laws, etc. I agree that these things are needed, and that we do need government to see to these things. I just don't think government should be in the Robin Hood business. I also think most of the things we need government for are local things that are, right now, legislated on the state and federal levels. I don't think that's right.
IP: Logged |
posted
And the government pays for the street sweepers by - mandatory taxes, collected by force where required. What, you think you can make everybody in a city of five thousand agree that street sweeping is necessary? Or even a village of fifty?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You did not read my post sufficiently carefully.
You are right. My bad.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And the government pays for the street sweepers by - mandatory taxes, collected by force where required. What, you think you can make everybody in a city of five thousand agree that street sweeping is necessary? Or even a village of fifty?
Still not armed robbery though, if you benefit from those taxes. More like...forcing you to purchase something you may not want.
I think as long as a majority of the people think it's a good idea, and it will benefit at least *almost* everyone, it's fine.
I also think, as I said, that most of that should be on a local level. That would make it easier to find a nearby town with government you like...or convince people to your way of thinking and take over.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well, 'forcing you to purchase something you don't want at a price not set by you' is not exactly armed robbery, sure. But it can come quite close. It all depends on the price being set and what you are getting. Indeed, even in armed robbery you are arguably purchasing something : The robber does not kill you if you give him your money. (At any rate, that is the implied bargain. The robber may not live up to it, of course.) It's all a matter of degree.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour: given there's a Constitutional amendment that specifically allows the income tax (because it was previously declared unconstitutional), you've got a funny interpretation .
However, leaving is a perfectly good solution. Allow me to ramble about what might happen in a world absent government (and similar types of coercion):
People would quickly begin to gather together in these self-organizing, consensual "communities" -- perhaps they'd call them "cities".
People in these "cities" might periodically choose a few among them to deal with administrative details. To simplify accounting, there could even be a regular collection of the funds to be used collectively as part of the joint agreement! We could call those collections "Sexat".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government, even to libertarians, is a necessary evil. Libertarians are potent and vigilant advocates of the defense of civil liberties, not willing to see them traded for hollow comforts or temporary safeties, but they cater (in varying degrees) to the necessities of the Social Contract against forces and frauds percieved as unethical.
Their defenses of personal right, however, often come at the expense of reasonable social policy and maintenance. Postindustrial economies have a lot of public needs, and an appetite for public monies that is too large for most Libertarian tastes, but a Libertarian system would be terribly degenerative to the quality of life indexes, and the vital infrastructures, of a nation such as ours. It's an inferior system in practice -- at least in my opinion -- and this is contended against with theory and axiom.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for the benefits provided by the government. That includes some public services which do not directly benefit me. Assuming I make it to old age, I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me. I suppose it's all part of the social contract. I've voluntarily taken part in the privileges of living in this society, and I've therefore obligated myself to certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes. The problem with this viewpoint is that there's really no way to opt out. Maybe someone should go create a taxless libertarian paradise somewhere. Then again, the fact that one doesn't exist right now (so far as I know) might indicate something...
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate.
Where in the original question does it suggest a version of Libertarianism where there is an absence of government (incidentally, that version of Libertarianism doesn't exist - it's called anarchy, and equating the two is like equating Democrats with Socialists, or Republicans with Fascists)?
Not at all. There is a significant anarchist wing in the Libertarian Party.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me.
Sure it does. You interact with these children. They will grow up and either work with you, directly or indirectly, or work for you.
Or, they may not get educated, leaving them limited options, and may decide crime is the best answer, and that can also directly affect you.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armed robbery? I'm not too sure about that, but I would liken government to the mafia, or at least the portrayal of the mafia popularized by Mario Puzo novels.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I am the one who made the original comment about 'armed robbery' on the other thread, I suppose I ought to elaborate. I believe that violent force (or equivalently, the threat of it) should only be used in the protection of rights. What those rights actually are is a separate question, but for discussion's sake I'll go with those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
I think that taxation for the purpose of reasonably funding the organized protection of rights (e.g., police, the court system, national defense, etc.) is perfectly fine. All residents benefit from this protection, and to expect some small contribution for its collective maintenance makes sense; if people don't want to pay, they should be free to look for some other place to live (or perhaps even continue living here after it's made clear that they're on their own & the rest of us are not going to actively protect them). I personally prefer a sales tax as the fairest method of collection, but the point is that I do not consider all taxation immoral.
Once we leave the realm of protecting rights, which I deem to be the only legitimate purpose of government, then I certainly do regard taxation as evil.
I do not have the right to use a gun to threaten my neighbor unless he gives me money; this is true without regard to whether I plan to use it for what I think is a good cause (say, helping orphans). If I go rob him with another neighbor as my accomplice, it's still wrong; the fact that another person is willing to endorse my evil action in no way legitimizes it. If I do it with seventeen neighbors as accomplices, it's still wrong. If I do it with 300 million accomplices, it's still wrong.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me.
Sure it does. You interact with these children. They will grow up and either work with you, directly or indirectly, or work for you.
Or, they may not get educated, leaving them limited options, and may decide crime is the best answer, and that can also directly affect you.
They may. And then again, they may not. And kids who are educated in the public school system have a vastly higher crime rate later in life than those who go to private schools. By your logic, the entire public school system should be scrapped.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I'm perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for the benefits provided by the government.
And I have no problem with that. The problem comes when you're perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for those benefits.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Lisa, I seem to recall that we have had this conversation before, and you agree that some amount of government - courts, military forces - is necessary, and that these would be paid for by taxation. Right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libertarianism seems to me to rest on a number of faulty premises.
First, it seems to treat "private property" as a basic notion that can enter into fundamental moral principles, rather than a socially-constructed notion. I don't see how this can be squared with our history. My own impression is that our natural inclinations to control parts of the natural world (e.g. animals marking "their" turf, which no one would agree that they really "own") led to conflict over these objects as humans organized into tribes and later civilizations, and the idea of property eventually emerged as a solution to this problem.
Viewed this way, the free market is a useful tool that we have built rather than a natural force to be respected or protected. And we have the right to alter our tools to meet our needs.
Second, I think libertarianism takes a narrow view of "freedom," turning it into something that is in many ways useless to us. Freedom is seen as freedom from external force, rather than freedom to do what you want. But the latter form of freedom is the one that benefits us.
Someone starving alone in the wilderness has all the "freedom from" he could want, but it does him no good. He would be better off in a place where he had more "freedom to" eat and find shelter, even if the society there reduced his "freedom from." And the goal of morality, ethics and government is to make people better off. So the freedom to do what you want is what matters ethically.
Further, the whole idea of "freedom from" rests on a mistakenly limited notion of what it is to exert force on someone. There are many ways to exert force, or the threat of force, other than direct violence. I can threaten you by pointing a gun at your head. Or I can tell you that your child is starving, or about to fall off a cliff, and I'll do nothing to help unless you do as I say. In this case I am forcing you to do what I want. But the latter kind of force gets exerted in the free market all the time. People are forced into unfair contracts because they have no other choice. I believe that this kind of force, as well as violence, is ethically wrong and the laws should try to prevent it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: But those could be paid for through taxes that are not based on income, could it not?
Sure, but how is that relevant? You are still having money taken away from you without your consent.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Threats are concidered force under libertarianism (the philosophy, I don't know what the Libertarian Party position is but I assume it would be the same.) Your example is flawed. Libertarianism belives in enough government to protect us from Force and Fraud. Whatever form that Force and Fraud takes within reason.
You're correct on the concept of "Negative Rights" (or "Freedom From" as you phrased it.)
A libertarian believes in Fundemental Negative Rights and that there are no Fundemental Positive Rights (A Positive Right is one where someone else must do something for you.)
There are, however, Derived Positive Rights. For example:
You have the Fundemental Negative Right not to be imprisoned unjustly, therefore you have a DERIVED Positive Right to a fair trial.
You have the Fundemental Negative Right not to have your house broken into, so you have the Derived Positive Right to have the cops come and investigate if/when it happens.
quote:Threats are concidered force under libertarianism (the philosophy, I don't know what the Libertarian Party position is but I assume it would be the same.) Your example is flawed.
But isn't it a central part of libertarianism that I can never do wrong through inaction? In my example, all that I'm doing is allowing the child to die -- which would've happened anyway if I wasn't there.
If you allow as a threat something like "If you don't do what I want, I'll do nothing," it seems like most contracts would involve some amount of coercion.
(By the way, I think that most contracts do involve some amount of coercion, and wealth redistribution is one way of reducing this phenomenon.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that violent force (or equivalently, the threat of it) should only be used in the protection of rights. What those rights actually are is a separate question, but for discussion's sake I'll go with those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
I suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better source for defining rights than the U.S. Constitution (which after all is only accepted in one small part of the world and was written over 200 years ago when the very concept of Human Rights was a radical idea). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been ratified by all but two of the worlds nations. It represents the global majorities view on the rights of persons. That declaration enumerates the following rights.
quote:Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Given this definition of rights, efforts taken by a government to redistribute weath in a way that ensures all members of society an adequate standard of living, just compensation for work, social security, health care and education is necessary for the protection of human rights. Since it is the responsibility of the government to protect the human rights of its citizens, it is not only not the equivalent of armed robbery for a government to redistribute weath to attain this goals, it is the clear ethical responsibility of government to do so.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the case of a child falling off a cliff, ASSUMING you had no hand in putting the child in the situation, would not be force. You would be selling a service. ie: I will tell you where your child is in danger in exchange for money or whatevre you were requesting.
But tell me, how is this different from calling the gas company turning off your heat in the dead of winter for lack of payment? You could freeze to death without the heat and unless they get what they want you're doomed.
Granted, I would save the child, if possible, and return her to her mother without desire for reward. But the thing is, you don't have to.
How many people have been sued for trying to help others? Tons. That's why many places have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect them.
How often does a cry for help from a dark ally go unanswered?
Would you, as a non-libertarian, support criminal charges for anyone who fails to render assistance? Should it be a crime not to run into a burning building after someone elses child? Break up a fight where a gun is involved? Tend the bleeding of a man who just got stabbed in a robbery with the burgler still there?
Or would you reserve criminal charges for those who fail to help people when only minimul effort/risk is involved.
Remember, libertarianism doesn't address wether or not you SHOULD help others, only wether or not you MUST help others.
The glorious thing about socital pressure is that any pendejo who says "Gimme $50 and I'll tell you where your dieing 8 yr old is" would be shunned.
posted
Wow. I *THOROUGHLY* disagree with several elements of the 'Universal Declaration', and I don't know that there is any nation that actually upholds all of those things. I cannot see how a human being can assert a "right" to be given things for free by other people. The only rights I recognize are those which might be summed up as 'the right to be left alone.'
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's hard to say how high a standard people should be held to. All I need to prove my point is that some cases of failing to render help are obviously wrong and should be against the law. Especially when they involve threats like my example of the endangered child.
Also, you haven't really addressed my other two big points about the artificial nature of the market and the fact that positive rights (not negative rights) are what improve our lives.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of derived positive rights. Can you give me an example of one you think is fundemental?
You really didn't say much past "The Free Market is Artificial" and "Positive rights are Good"
The person starving in the wilderness is free to build a shelter or forage for food. Maybe you should put him on the moon if you wish to be really contrived so he'll be free from air too. Thing is though, this isn't a particularly useful analogy because what we're debating is freedom from the external force of others. It has nothing to do with resources availible.
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Wow. I *THOROUGHLY* disagree with several elements of the 'Universal Declaration', and I don't know that there is any nation that actually upholds all of those things. I cannot see how a human being can assert a "right" to be given things for free by other people. The only rights I recognize are those which might be summed up as 'the right to be left alone.'
quote:There are plenty of derived positive rights. Can you give me an example of one you think is fundemental?
I think there's only one fundamental right -- the right to do what you want. This is what I would call freedom. And it's not like you either have it or you don't. There are degrees. I would say that society should be constructed in such a way as to provide the citizens with as much overall freedom as possible.
quote:Thing is though, this isn't a particularly useful analogy because what we're debating is freedom from the external force of others. It has nothing to do with resources availible.
But it may be that giving up some freedom from external forces can provide us with more resources. Roughly, I think that's how our society works. We give up some "freedom from" (paying taxes is one way that this happens) in exchange for some "freedom to" -- which is what we should want anyway. "Freedom from" by itself is not beneficial.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better source for defining rights than the U.S. Constitution (which after all is only accepted in one small part of the world and was written over 200 years ago when the very concept of Human Rights was a radical idea). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been ratified by all but two of the worlds nations. It represents the global majorities view on the rights of persons.
Rights are not be defined based on what documents say, nor by what the majority believes should be a right. Rather, documents should be written to reflect what rights we reason that we actually do have, and be rewritten or rejected if they conflict with that reasoning. This is because documents are only as correct as whoever wrote and agreed to them, and that "whoever" may or may not have any idea what they are talking about.
In the case of the Universal Declaration, the rights given do not reflect a global majority, but rather the views of certain politicians in a majority of the countries. And I think it is a very poor listing of rights - those that you quoted, for instance, are far far more broad than the rights human beings actually have, just as members of a society. I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
It is reasoning that should determine what rights we do or do not have - rather than supposedly authoritative documents. That's easier said than done, of course.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
The same thing can be said as of the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to public assembly. At the time of that the US constitution was written, no country in the world guaranteed these rights to its citizens.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
The same thing can be said as of the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to public assembly. At the time of that the US constitution was written, no country in the world guaranteed these rights to its citizens.
Yet they *could* exist. Someone living even 3,000 years ago could assert that they should be free to talk all they want, to worship whatever god they wanted, etc. Such things are possible merely by one's existence. Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Funny, that's how I feel about private property.
You certainly can't have a fundamental right to something artificial, but you might have a derivative right to it. For instance, you might have a right to health care because it improves your life, and the job of your government is to improve your life when possible.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Funny, that's how I feel about private property.
Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept. And any society that fails to protect it will lose most of the incentive for people to *do* anything. If I could not secure my own property, I wouldn't work.
quote:You certainly can't have a fundamental right to something artificial, but you might have a derivative right to it. For instance, you might have a right to health care because it improves your life, and the job of your government is to improve your life when possible.
I disagree with the italicized portion so strongly that I am almost unable to express it in words.
And besides that, taking away my property at gunpoint doesn't feel much like "improving my life."
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
