Failure of libertarianism, 1

[RedSkunk]

Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights. These are rights that do not necessitate action from others, but simply lack of action. Examples are things such as the right of free speech, right of freedom from violence or coercion. and, chiefly, property rights. (Taxation, therefor, is illegitimate because it is coercive (there is no real choice presented – your property is taken by the government).) Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.

However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth). The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights. Consider the following example.

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

[Heritage]

So what do you propose?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 05:12 PM, Heritage wrote: So what do you propose?

The liberal method of moderate government intervention, the protection of "positive" rights.

[Politics]

Yeah, that outlines the basis to a significant amount of liberal thinking, but I hope you don't expect many responses, since there isn't much to disagree with, imho. That, and 90% of people would probably rather post "tldr" than actually spend the time of day.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

And for the question, why does she have minimal job skills? If it through her own inaction in her studies, then the effects will be noted and the government has no responsibility for that person. Likewise, to help defend this person "social rights" but be to dictate to the corporation and infringe on the ideals of a free market that our nation was founded on.

There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

The Libertarian Model is for the one to live life as they see fit, with little restrictions and controlls by the government to deem what they do, and tax them on the part of it.
There is no such thing as economic freedoms. You feel that your job isn't paying you well enough. Then quit, find another job, unionize or educate yourself. Social movement and upward mobility aren't restricted to people.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 05:18 PM, Politics wrote: Yeah, that outlines the basis to a significant amount of liberal thinking, but I hope you don't expect many responses, since there isn't much to disagree with, imho. That, and 90% of people would probably rather post "tldr" than actually spend the time of day.

A cursory look found a lot of people running around here claiming to be Republicans, but endorsing libertarian thought. I was hoping to piss on them a bit.

[RedSkunk]

bingo.

At 3/21/07 05:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And for the question, why does she have minimal job skills? If it through her own inaction in her studies, then the effects will be noted and the government has no responsibility for that person. Likewise, to help defend this person "social rights" but be to dictate to the corporation and infringe on the ideals of a free market that our nation was founded on.

The government doesn't have responsibility for any particular individual. But I believe the government has some responsibility in fostering an equal opportunity for a decent life for all of its citizens. And even if this woman made mistakes in the past, I believe she still has the right to determine our she lives her life. Damning someone for the rest of their life because of (possible) mistakes made when they were younger is hardly an even, just punishment. In my opinion.

The Libertarian Model is for the one to live life as they see fit, with little restrictions and controlls by the government to deem what they do, and tax them on the part of it.
There is no such thing as economic freedoms. You feel that your job isn't paying you well enough. Then quit, find another job, unionize or educate yourself. Social movement and upward mobility aren't restricted to people.

Yes, I already outlined the libertarian preoccupation with negative rights. As far as whether we have economic freedom, you contradict yourself in the very next sentence. We have the ability to change occupations, to determine how we earn and spend our money. We have the ability to own property and to buy and sell in fair exchanges. But a problem arises when, as in my example, there is no choice in the matter of where or what or for whom to work.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/21/07 05:43 PM, RedSkunk wrote: bingo.

At 3/21/07 05:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The government doesn't have responsibility for any particular individual. But I believe the government has some responsibility in fostering an equal opportunity for a decent life for all of its citizens. And even if this woman made mistakes in the past, I believe she still has the right to determine our she lives her life. Damning someone for the rest of their life because of (possible) mistakes made when they were younger is hardly an even, just punishment. In my opinion.

Yes, equal oppurtunity is a noble dream but hardly possible. The best that can be available is a decent education. And beyond that it's thier own fault for suceeding or not. They make the choices, they make the consequences. If I don't study, I don't go to college and I don't get a better paying job. They mistakes will be wholey mine and I will live with them.

Yes, I already outlined the libertarian preoccupation with negative rights. As far as whether we have economic freedom, you contradict yourself in the very next sentence. We have the ability to change occupations, to determine how we earn and spend our money. We have the ability to own property and to buy and sell in fair exchanges. But a problem arises when, as in my example, there is no choice in the matter of where or what or for whom to work.

Then that is the individual's fault. Like I mentioned earlier, the only excuse that I would be willing to tolerate is a lack of a decent education, otherwise the problem is wholey theres.

[Elfer]

Social libertarianism is generally good, while economic libertarianism doesn't really work.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 07:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I'm not sure why you're talking about education here. Obviously there are many factors that determine our lot in life. Formal education is just one. And, again, even if someone is not college-educated, this ought not to preclude them from basic rights. Perhaps you could respond to my earlier post again.

[K-RadPie]

So some crack-addicted lazy retarded loser should have equal opportunity as someone who works hard and stays out of trouble?

[TheMason]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights. These are rights that do not necessitate action from others, but simply lack of action. Examples are things such as the right of free speech, right of freedom from violence or coercion. and, chiefly, property rights. (Taxation, therefor, is illegitimate because it is coercive (there is no real choice presented – your property is taken by the government).) Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.

These rights do not necessitate a lack of action, I think you misunderstand Libertarian thought. The idea is that the government's ability to act is restricted and in some cases restrained. Thus what human rights theorists term "negative" rights are actually non-aggressive in nature in that they do not use political or legal force to assert a will (be it another individual or a society) to take property or limit freedom of thought or opportunity. It allows people to produce.

On the other hand, the liberal's "positive" rights tend to take freedom from the citizen to give to government. Positive rights restrain the individual and empowers government. The "positive" rights are actually aggressive in nature in that it would allow political or legal force to be used by the governments to asserts its will on the populace. In this system a government takes and redistributes from a central position that does not allow it to be flexible and responsive to local conditions.

This inflexibility is why large systems based upon "positive" rights often fail to meet their lofty goals and gaurantees. Communual societies are only effective on the level of the village (not even cities), any larger than that and the society has a tendancy to deginerate into Totalitarianism.

However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth). The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights. Consider the following example.

Why not be intellectually honest and call it what it is: socialism and social engineering? And besides, what more do you want? Do we not already have a minimum standard of living? Do you realize that if a person owns a refrigerator they are more wealthy than 66% of the World's population? I have seen extreme poverty in this country, as I will talk about below. I have seen people who by our standards are exceptionally poor yet they still own not only a frige, but a microwave, car, TV, etc.

Besides postive rights can NEVER protect negative rights. As in nature (the basis for non-aggressive/negative rights), the aggressive will seek to prey upon the non-agressive. This is nature, the government's momentum in gaining power. They will not give it up once attained.

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

A few things here, an employer who cares little for his employees he will not remain in business for long. There is a cost involved in mismanagement of all parts of a business...to include mismanagement of employees. But if your yardstick is the wages earned by his employees...what is to be benefited from requiring a marginally successful business to pay more? Could this not cause the employer to make the decision to: 1) close permanently resulting in job (and therefore 100%) income loss for all employees. 2) Cut hours to maintain solvency resulting in ZERO gain for his employees. 3) Cut some jobs so that some may continue to earning.

This is the problem with "positive" rights, they set in motion a chain reaction that in the end often worsens the plight of those very people who are trying to be saved from whatever.

I present the following non-hypothetical story of a woman:

Grew up in a rural and economically depressed area. Her mother was a mentally deranged, abusive and neglectful drug addict. She lived on a farm in which her mother was too handicapped, her grandparents too old and her father not present to work to produce anything commercially. Her family grew their own vegetables and hunted game for meat. They lacked indoor plumbing. Her school was small, only six students in her class, so you know they were not that well funded. Especially when her situation was not uncommon, and thus there was not a significant tax-base to fund school initiatives. Now the state could kick in, right? Wrong, the state is Missouri and the Federal Government used its positive right to demand MO spend its education dollars in desegregating St. Louis and Kansas City schools (a social experiement that Liberals and Conservative both agree has been a failure).

But back to my ex-wife. Her family could not send her college...she understood this and so she studied hard and earned a full-ride scholarship to a small private college in the South where she earned a degree in Biochemistry. Last year she graduated from Medical School, her childhood goal to become a doctor.

She did not become a doctor because her parents were, or pressured her to. She did not become a MD on her parent's money. She became a MD by WORKING for it. She was a waitress. She was a secretary. She took internships that paid very little just to gain experience, over a comfortable standard of living. She took out student loans to pay for the parts her scholarship could not cover. She ate ramen noodles to save on food.

And, when she tired of being a military spouse and left me, she finished three years of Medical School as a single mother.

In her pursuit of her goal she did not ask for anything to be handed to her, without giving of herself and her talents.

If she can raise herself from living in a trailer with an outhouse for a toilet, to earn her MD I am sorry if I cannot feel too much sympathy for someone who makes excuses for their lack of skills rather than go through the steps necessary to sustain herself. I feel no remorse in holding the idea that it is immoral to take from producers to lift up the lazy, the looters.

Positive rights is just a means to the end of human progress.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/21/07 08:25 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 07:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I'm not sure why you're talking about education here. Obviously there are many factors that determine our lot in life. Formal education is just one. And, again, even if someone is not college-educated, this ought not to preclude them from basic rights. Perhaps you could respond to my earlier post again.

Why?

What point is there. I posted, if my post is inconsistent with the flow of the idea, then just extend to your original idea.

[TheMason]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

Liberalism maximizies coercion in that all things must go through the government from how we interact with each other to our standard of living. Society manages/governs what is good.

However, Libertarianism takes a minimalist approach to government power. We cannot live in a totally free society. Just look at Enron. However, you do not gain security by giving the government even more coercive power.

And you present a logical fallacy here. Have you ever thought that many of these people in economically depressed areas are actually living their lives as they see fit? I have seen a certain level of comfort in being poor. I have been a factory worker and airman (equivalent of Private or Corporal) in the AF. I have struggled financially. But you know what? I did not have to compete with classmates in HS about wearing designer clothes. No one could afford them. As a factory worker I could go home, drink a beer or play with my child. I did not have to worry about homework or papers. I did not have the weight of the world bearing down upon me, I was unfamiliar of the plight of the N. Koreans starving to death under the ultimate in "Positive" rights rule.

Maybe yes they want to have the plasma TVs, the designer clothes, the tricked out cars, etc. But have you ever thought that by what right does anyone deserve to take from the people who produce those things? That right is their own ability and inclination to produce. Anything else is looting...be it non-permissive as in an unorganizied mob or the official sanction of a welfare state. If a person truly wants these things they will do what is required to get them. They will work for nothing to get the experience to get into the better positions/educational programs. They will be gauranteed, under the libertarian model, a position based upon their ability. In the liberal model a looter would be eligible for a position not because they possess any superior qualifications, but out of some warped notion of fairness.

RedSkunk, you would raise a society of looters under the liberal model that would be parasites whose very reason for existence would be to suck the lifeblood of the society that spawned them until that society is dead, withered husk. Wheras I would raise a society of producers whose goal in life would be reach further than those who came before, and thereby spreading opportunity.

Oh well...who is John Galt?

[LazyDrunk]

So this is how communism is capitalized? By saying taxes are a negative because you didn't "choose" to live here? This isn't North Korea, you're free to leave and never pay taxes again.

Really, if I wanted to support the mandated government funding of stupid-people support, I'd just not teach my kids, let them grow up into needy monkeys and suckle off the teat of others under the guise of a "right" to a pampered life.

NO thanx

[SyntheticTacos]

You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/21/07 09:32 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

So who do you cast your lot to represent you?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 08:55 PM, TheMason wrote: These rights do not necessitate a lack of action, I think you misunderstand Libertarian thought. The idea is that the government's ability to act is restricted and in some cases restrained. Thus what human rights theorists term "negative" rights are actually non-aggressive in nature in that they do not use political or legal force to assert a will (be it another individual or a society) to take property or limit freedom of thought or opportunity. It allows people to produce.
On the other hand, the liberal's "positive" rights tend to take freedom from the citizen to give to government. Positive rights restrain the individual and empowers government. The "positive" rights are actually aggressive in nature in that it would allow political or legal force to be used by the governments to asserts its will on the populace. In this system a government takes and redistributes from a central position that does not allow it to be flexible and responsive to local conditions.

This is exactly what I said. Negative rights do not require coercion, positive rights do (from the position of a libertarian, that is). I simply avoided your editorializing.

This inflexibility is why large systems based upon "positive" rights often fail to meet their lofty goals and gaurantees. Communual societies are only effective on the level of the village (not even cities), any larger than that and the society has a tendancy to deginerate into Totalitarianism.

I fail to understand what is inflexible, and I've already acknowledged that utopias do not exist. But this does not mean that we ought not to strive towards a better tomorrow. Finally, societies are inherently communal (it's part of any definition), and for examples of states which protect positive rights today, I need simply point to.. Well, nearly every single one. How about the US and the European nations? Personally I don't see the US "degenerating into totalitarianism," more than 200 years after its founding.. This is a pretty subjective claim in any case. Maybe you do see this decline.

Why not be intellectually honest and call it what it is: socialism and social engineering? And besides, what more do you want? Do we not already have a minimum standard of living? Do you realize that if a person owns a refrigerator they are more wealthy than 66% of the World's population? I have seen extreme poverty in this country, as I will talk about below. I have seen people who by our standards are exceptionally poor yet they still own not only a frige, but a microwave, car, TV, etc.

The existence of positive rights does not automatically create a "socialist" state, in the modern sense of the word. The US acknowledges and protects positive rights, and I don't consider it to be particularly "socialist." I consider that a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, and being a reactionary isn't "intellectually honest" as far as I'm concerned.

Besides postive rights can NEVER protect negative rights. As in nature (the basis for non-aggressive/negative rights), the aggressive will seek to prey upon the non-agressive. This is nature, the government's momentum in gaining power. They will not give it up once attained.

Positive rights can protect negative rights as I've already noted. The creation of anti-discrimination law in the US has allowed black Americans increased job and property rights, for example.

A few things here, an employer who cares little for his employees he will not remain in business for long. There is a cost involved in mismanagement of all parts of a business...to include mismanagement of employees. But if your yardstick is the wages earned by his employees...what is to be benefited from requiring a marginally successful business to pay more? Could this not cause the employer to make the decision to: 1) close permanently resulting in job (and therefore 100%) income loss for all employees. 2) Cut hours to maintain solvency resulting in ZERO gain for his employees. 3) Cut some jobs so that some may continue to earning.
This is the problem with "positive" rights, they set in motion a chain reaction that in the end often worsens the plight of those very people who are trying to be saved from whatever.

I can point to conditions in your typical factory in the 3rd world as a rebuttal for both of your points here. A factory owner there need not pay as much attention to livable wages or workplace safety as an equivalent in the US. The labor pool being drawn upon in a given area in China has little alternative, and less bargaining power with the owner. In terms of whether positive rights have a positive impact, it seems indisputable that they do. Compare the working conditions now (in the US, say) with what was common during the industrial revolution.

I present the following non-hypothetical story of a woman:

And this is a heart-warming story but essentially irrelevant. I never disputed the fact that social mobility is possible in the US. It's a class system, not caste. Your "moral" of the story, that everyone's place in society is "deserved," is a commonly held but incorrect notion. If this was universally true, then the average CEO deserved 400% more in 2000 than they did in 1992. And the average worker apparently deserved less in the same time span. Odd. If our incomes were tied to what we deserved, then you'd be absolutely right, of course. But they're not, really. Income is based on many more factors than just "how hard you've tried."

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/21/07 09:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 09:32 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

So who do you cast your lot to represent you?

Some one who combines the strong points, of course.

Nowhere is it written that one has to pigeonhole into just one strict idelology.

~~~

I consider myself a libertarian. However, I'm also a realist. Yes, there has to be a government, of course, not as bloated as the one we have now, but a government nonetheless and yes, there has to be taxes. Taxes are the fee we pay to have a government to safeguard our rights. Without them, we would have to constantly exercise our rights, even when we didn't want to, to keep others that would take them away from doing so.

In itself, I have no problems with tax money going to welfare programs unlike some diehard libertarians. We're all Americans, and with that, we ought to be able to provide the essentials and a decent standard of living.

Where I draw the line is when medicine, health care, etc. is socialized across the board. There should be clinics, hospitals and health care available to those that need them, sure. However, the government should not force individuals into the same plan as those dependent on government health care. As long as the health care that poor patients need is available to them, then those that are willing and able to spend more on their health care should be allowed to do so.

As long as society supports a decent standard of living for those in poverty, then those that are not in poverty should not be bound from utilizing their remaining rights to life, liberty, or property as long as it doesn't effect someone else's.

If it takes a 30% tax to ensure that the poor have a decent standard of living, then so be it. But government should not have any say so in how one uses that other 70% of their earnings as long as it does not violate the unalienable rights of others.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 09:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Liberalism maximizies coercion in that all things must go through the government from how we interact with each other to our standard of living. Society manages/governs what is good.

However, Libertarianism takes a minimalist approach to government power. We cannot live in a totally free society. Just look at Enron. However, you do not gain security by giving the government even more coercive power.

You look at government as some sort of adversary. The US is a democracy, and whatever its problems, the government is ultimately comprised and sustained by the people. Additionally, "liberalism" does not state that "all things must go through the government." At least no definition of liberalism that I know of. You're not arguing with what I'm saying here, you're arguing with a make-believe version of me.

And you present a logical fallacy here. Have you ever thought that many of these people in economically depressed areas are actually living their lives as they see fit?

There's no logical fallacy here. I'm endorsing an "equal training room" to go hand in hand with the "equal playing field." People can live as they see fit.

The libertarian mindset you're endorsing is flawed because it ignores reality in favor of lofty notions of "individualism" and Ayn Rand hysterics. To juxtapose the US with North Korea is absurd, but this is exactly what you've done. The creation and support of positive rights does not axiomatically create a totalitarian state.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights.

You know, you're using a broader term of "Libertarian" to only describe the extreme part of Libertarianism.

I'm a consquentialist Libertarian. I believe that the government should only step in when it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.

However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth).

The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights.

That makes absolutely no sense. So you're saying you need to tax people... to save them from government intervention?

Libertarians believe that nobody should have authority over them. All people should have dinviidual responsibility and the government should only seek to protect those who can't protect themselves, and support those who can't support themselves.

Libertarians still believe that welfare should be used ONLY for those who REALLY need it, not just some uneducated, underachieving drug addict.

Consider the following example.

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

Wait so you're saying instead of her working. She should be able to just choose not to and allow the government to FORCE other people to pay for her?

Thats bullshit.

"oooh I don't want to work there, but I can work, but I don't want to because I have no skills and I i flunked out of school so I can only work a job that I don't like. I want the government to steal money from other people. I want the government to do something that is morally wrong which is FORCE other people to pay for other people, even for people who CAN work but refuse to. Oh and in the process, i'm completely fine if the government has to grow its power exponentially in order to do it."

There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized.

Human dignity? How much dignity can someone have if they accept money that was stolen from HARD WORKING people just so that they can avoid working a tough job themselves?

Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit.

Um no it doesn't. It allows the government to moderate the economy with a strong arm and have a position of authority to tell other people what they must do with their money.

In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit.

Political coercion? You just fell back on your own words and negated your whole point by saying that. There is LESS political coercion in the Libertarian model. In your beloved socialist model, politics takes precedent over freedom. And politicians have the power to FORCE other people to pay to support people who CAN work for themselves, but refuse to.

Thats fucking ridiculous. You basically believe that the more power the government has over the individual the better because they can support the poor. Meanwhile, hard working people would be punished for working hard and creating their own success.

The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

Now you're just talking nonsense. You make absolutely no sense. Libertarianism results in vastly more liberty and freedom. Your "liberal" model actually results in a more powerful government and a reduced emphasis on liberty and freedom of the individual.

You preached the something, yet came to the exact opposite conclusion at the end that someone who knew wtf they were talking about would have.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 10:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You know, you're using a broader term of "Libertarian" to only describe the extreme part of Libertarianism.
I'm a consquentialist Libertarian. I believe that the government should only step in when it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Point taken.

That makes absolutely no sense. So you're saying you need to tax people... to save them from government intervention?

Taxes are needed for a functioning government that is able to protect negative rights..... Yes.

Libertarians believe that nobody should have authority over them. All people should have dinviidual responsibility and the government should only seek to protect those who can't protect themselves, and support those who can't support themselves.

Libertarians still believe that welfare should be used ONLY for those who REALLY need it, not just some uneducated, underachieving drug addict.

My post was mostly concerned with true libertarians who believe in a minimized or nonexistent government. I generalized. I can't address libertarians who "believe in welfare some of the time."

Wait so you're saying instead of her working. She should be able to just choose not to and allow the government to FORCE other people to pay for her?

Thats bullshit.

Nope, that's not what I said. The rest of your post was confused and angry. I don't think you understood my post. And I'm not going to begin defending positions I haven't taken.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/21/07 10:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 10:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You know, you're using a broader term of "Libertarian" to only describe the extreme part of Libertarianism.

I'm a consquentialist Libertarian. I believe that the government should only step in when it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Point taken.

Well then maybe you'll learned about the broader Libertarian genre of political views before you made such a grandiose conviction of Libertarianism.

That makes absolutely no sense. So you're saying you need to tax people... to save them from government intervention?

Taxes are needed for a functioning government that is able to protect negative rights..... Yes.

That makes no sense. You're saying that in order for people to have individual freedom, protection of their livelihood, that the government has to take away these rights by taxing them and controlling the economy to distribute wealth...

You realize that you contradict yourself repeatedly right?

Libertarians believe that nobody should have authority over them. All people should have dinviidual responsibility and the government should only seek to protect those who can't protect themselves, and support those who can't support themselves.

Libertarians still believe that welfare should be used ONLY for those who REALLY need it, not just some uneducated, underachieving drug addict.

My post was mostly concerned with true libertarians who believe in a minimized or nonexistent government.

Um all Libertarians believe in a minimized government, I don't think any really believe in no government at all.

I generalized. I can't address libertarians who "believe in welfare some of the time."

Then I shouldn't have to address Liberals who believe in total government control of the entire economy, with those who only want the government to control the economy to focus capital on welfare.

Wait so you're saying instead of her working. She should be able to just choose not to and allow the government to FORCE other people to pay for her?

Thats bullshit.

Nope, that's not what I said.

Yeah you didn't say that exactly, but thats what you were too fluxed up in your distorted political rant to realize you were saying.

The rest of your post was confused and angry.

yeah I got angry because you were making absolutely no sense. You completely contradicted yourself. What you said was similar to saying "in order for people to be politically free, the political power of the US needs to take away their individual rights"

You made an oxymoron...

I don't think you understood my post. And I'm not going to begin defending positions I haven't taken.

Thats because you didn't even make any sense... You came to a wacky conclusion at the end of a completely faulty, misguided, contradiction of a rant.

Just read what you said again and try to realize how silly and nonsensical it was. Because it was just that, nonsensical. What you said amounted to "you need less freedom to have more freedom, and while you do it the poor will be fed by the government"

Utter nonsense.

[RedSkunk]

cellardoor, you seem more interested in getting into a pissing contest than having a civil conversation. I'm not really interested in that. If you want to try again, how about a cohesive rebuttal to the post instead of a sentence-by-sentence play. Thanks.

[Malachy]

clearly, i'm not as intelligent as some other posters and there are probably more major flaws in any of my ideology than there is in the block of swiss cheese i have in my fridge but to me, extreme liberalism (to be fair, you appear to be using extremist libertarianism as your example, so you may as well compare the same degree of liberalism) puts the burden on the hard working wealthy to pay for the poor with tax dollars. Higher tax rates for rich and lower tax rates for the poor, if any at all.

yes, you can move to another country, but for now, lets assume every other country is a cesspool of hardcore conservatives all fighting wars with eachother, since this is an ideological seeming topic (i could be very wrong, if i am, discount anything i post).

Now, In a Liberal ideal wealth is spread more evenly, meaning money from the government is going to those who make less then some pre-set ammount of money per year. But, to do this that money would need to be drawn from somewhere. Typically that somewhere is those above that set ammount, the higher you go, the larger chunk of your paycheck is going to paying for those with a lesser paycheck. Now, this is in the name of fairness. Yes? So, you work hard, get yourself a degree, maybe even an advanced degree and start making some large ammounts of money. Yes, in the end you still rake in a lot of money, but does it seem fair that now 30% of your paycheck is now gone, when during your frat-boy years only 15% was taken out? (I know i'm never happy when i 'earn' $792 and only receive $622 - that was an actual paycheck, so dont go "oh no, you didn't use the same calculations).

But not everyone is working hard to distribute the wealth. Yes, there are those who are unable to work because of ligit reasons. you lose half your arm working in a mill, its understandable you can no longer provide for your family. but at the same time, Liberalism allows for a loophole for those who simply do not wish to work. They could make a livable wage working at the Mill, but because their friend Jim lost half his arm, they dont want to work there - which leaves only mcdonnalds or grocery bagging. So, they take the less paying job and the welfare check (or they dont take a job and get the welfare check...i don't receive welfare, so i dont know the system). This style of government leaves little or no incentive to try to achieve. Sure you can go to college and become the manager in the plant, but why bother? I can live the way i want with all of the thins i need and many things i want off of this government check. Instead of "if i dont get a better job, or go for a higher education, i wont be able to afford to live the way i'm used to."

What libertarianism says is that without government taking away as much money from each pay check or trying to control how you use the money you earn, you have more of an incentive to do better. In liberalism there is a government net which makes it so that you really don't even have to work, and you can live off of what those who are making enough money are taxed out of. Sure, it's degrading and embarrassing to need that check from the government, but i see it every day where there are people who are completely able to work who simply dont want to and take that check every week. Without a proper deterrent such as poverty, people would not try as hard, in fact, many more may as well just pick up that government check rather then go to school and get a good job, because they know that when more and more people are living off the system, more and more taxes will be taken out of those who are funding the system. Liberalism leaves room for leeches to suck the society dry in ultimately make it stagnate if not totally ruin itself. A government that distributes wealth by taxing those who can afford it can only work if there are actually those who can afford it there. right?

okay, sorry, that was an extreme example. clearly some places with socialize health car and safety nets for the poor aren't imploding.

but it is not just about the taxes, its about every other aspect of society. Why should the government tell a young man he has to go to war and possibly die because the president has deemed it law. (draft) why does the businessman have to hire people based solely on merit, why can't he just run his own business into the ground by hiring people he likes instead? i mean, he's just going to embezzle the money later on. Business ethics are there because they are proven techniques which help a business thrive. If an owner of a resteraunt denies service to everyone with brown hair, he's going to lose a lot of money from it. a smart owner would let anyone with a bank account in if money is the main focus. Hiring is the same. dont like certain people, dont have employees.

Schools, why should the kid who doesn't try get to receive the High School diploma just like all of the other kids? anyone can pretend to not be able to read, and i've personally seen kids use this kind of loophole into not trying in highschool. but because of programs in the district to keep graduation up, they still graduate - just like little ole me who got Cs in math and studied my ass off to get a B in history. He water colored and got the history credit. (true story). "what about the kids who really can't read?" well, let them stay that extra year in high school, it'll be a good deterrent for those who are just there so they can get out easier.

There are also loop holes in libertarianism. Monopolies and unchecked business practices make it so that workers are treated very poorly and consumers given sub-par products. Poverty could potentially become worse, and wealth a lot higher. But we're looking at the extremes, so of course the extremes expect a much more willing society to work, eh?

I hope i made some sense, if not, then i have a lot more learning left to do (which i really do). But to me i find libertarianism feels more fair in that it rewards those who work hard over those who dont work at all whereas liberalism rewards you even if you mooch off those who work hard. I dont like paying for the red neck down the street with a meth lab and the abused children and wife. I dont think that's really what government ought to be doing.

[Demosthenez]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

I am confused. Under the liberal model, what exactly would be the solution here to someone living in a poor area with almost no job skills? Or are we on the pipe dream that the poor would not be as poor and she wouldnt have ended up in this way to begin with?

I mean, I get the example, poor person, poor job, poor area, poor job skills. But what exactly is the liberal counterpoint to this example? Because the United States government and the states now are clearly not libertarian in any definition of the word and this happens already as it is. Are you advocating even more government involvement in peoples lives and increased social engineering by the government?

And honestly, this argument will go nowhere. We are using opinions and words to try and debate a philosophical diffrence in our views. You cant refute words and opinions and beliefs and it would be foolish to even try. Because mark my words, the only one who will win in a debate like this is not the one who is correct (if there is indeed one) but the one who is the most clever and can write the most coherently. But then again, that is just my opinon and I have no faith in simple opinions. BLEH.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 3/21/07 09:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 09:32 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

So who do you cast your lot to represent you?

If you're talking about elections, usually I prefer the candidate I think is right for the job. I lean more Democrat in the U.S. elections, but I'd prefer McCain over Hillary. One of main concerns is keeping the Republicans from legislating their morality and crushing the poor, but banning handguns is a severe civil rights abuse as well. But since the Dems aren't focusing on gun control right now that's less of a concern. I'm still not completely grounded in my position on Iraq (which is bad)...

[WolvenBear]

At 3/21/07 04:40 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Libertarianism is centered around so-called 'negative' rights. These are rights that do not necessitate action from others, but simply lack of action. Examples are things such as the right of free speech, right of freedom from violence or coercion. and, chiefly, property rights. (Taxation, therefor, is illegitimate because it is coercive (there is no real choice presented – your property is taken by the government).) Negative rights are the yardstick when measuring the justness of a society.

Taxation is not illegitimate under the Libertarian worldview, because libertarianism acknowledges collective goods and services, and the responsibility of the government to protect its citizenry. Both of those things cost money and the libertarian doesn't expect it to materialize in thin air. This confusion is that the libertarian often objects to how the money is spent and the rate of taxes, not the fact that they are being taxed.

However, the libertarian is incorrect to only defend 'negative' rights. Today's "liberal" defends 'positive' rights, such as a minimum standard of living (the minimum wage), anti-discrimination laws, and taxation (particularly in the pursuit of redistributing wealth). The libertarian is short-sighted because these positive rights are required to protect the former negative rights. Consider the following example.

Today's liberal invents rights based on things that conservatives oppose. They do not so much promote rights as they react to conservative principals.
Promoting a higher minimum wage does not promote a higher standard of living. All it does is cause inflation. The minimum wage earner may have more money, but everything costs more. In a perfect world, raising the minimum wage is a null effect. In the real world it leaves the minimum wage earner (that is teenagers who live at home with parents) in the same position (or a slightly worse one) and screws everyone else...mainly the elderly, the disabled, and those on fixed incomes.
Anti-discrimination laws have a historic foundation in the Republican party. See: end of slavery, 13th-15th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1965, Affirmative Action, etc. Discrimination tends to foster in the Democratic Party. See: Jim Crow laws, KKK, opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, etc.
And the liberal tends to tax the crap out of EVERYONE. The only people who didn't benefit from Bush's tax cuts were those who didn't work, as taxes were lowered on everyone. And the earned Income Tax Credit was expanded giving people more money back that they didn't pay in.

The reality of taxing hurting everyone is best shown by JFK's informed tax cuts and the loss of business from bigger cities every time they raise taxes.

A woman lives in an extremely depressed area. She has minimum job skills, and faces the "choice" of either starving or working for an employer who pays poorly and cares little for his employees. As with taxation, there is no choice presented here. The woman must, to survive, accept this job. This is economic coercion, and the libertarian ignores it.

You have to work for money to get food. This isn't coersion.
The libertarian recognizes that there's not a single city in the US that doesn't have some kind of charity to help keep people from starving. Most of them have crosses on them.

The woman will take the crappy job and gain job experience. Within a year, she will get a raise. She can either still work the job for more money or she can look for something new now that she has experience. Raising the minimum wage and forcing her employer to pay more to the bottom rung raises the possibility that he will:
a. not give anyone else raises (assuming he even falls under the umbrella and HAS to pay minimum wage), and return everyone to the minimum wage standard.
b. fire some employees to keep costs down (the least likely option)
c. cut hours
d. all of the above

There will be coercion in both models. The difference is that in the liberal model, human dignity is respected, and coercion is minimized. Prudent, progressive taxation allows even those most-taxed to live their lives as they see fit. In the libertarian model, economic, political, and social coercion is unrestricted by any controls, and those affected are disallowed to live their lives as they see fit. The libertarian ideal then is one that results in decreased liberty and freedom, and following this, an unjust society.

Meh. Bottom line, liberals tend to hurt those they claim to help. The unspoken goal of many liberals is to impose some sort of socialism which (in addition to not working) hurts the economy and tends to screw everyone. With the New Deal, while I believe Roosevelt had his heart in the right place, he began a system of government supported poverty.

[WolvenBear]

At 3/21/07 09:55 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Well, nearly every single one. How about the US and the European nations? Personally I don't see the US "degenerating into totalitarianism," more than 200 years after its founding.. This is a pretty subjective claim in any case. Maybe you do see this decline.

John McCain's Campaign Finance Reform or the laws on how you can comment on Political Matters during a campaign. Almost all attacks on the first Amendment come from the liberals. 2nd Amendment rights at all?

The existence of positive rights does not automatically create a "socialist" state, in the modern sense of the word. The US acknowledges and protects positive rights, and I don't consider it to be particularly "socialist." I consider that a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, and being a reactionary isn't "intellectually honest" as far as I'm concerned.

The US is pretty socialistic. It may not be as bad as...let's say Europe. But it's still socialistic.
And when someone proposes the government forcing "fairness", all they're doing is advocating socialism.

Positive rights can protect negative rights as I've already noted. The creation of anti-discrimination law in the US has allowed black Americans increased job and property rights, for example.

Really? Is that why many economists originally considered the Minimum Wage one of the most anti-black laws in existance?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=356
No one has ever explained how forcing racists to hire black people helps the black people.

I can point to conditions in your typical factory in the 3rd world as a rebuttal for both of your points here. A factory owner there need not pay as much attention to livable wages or workplace safety as an equivalent in the US. The labor pool being drawn upon in a given area in China has little alternative, and less bargaining power with the owner. In terms of whether positive rights have a positive impact, it seems indisputable that they do. Compare the working conditions now (in the US, say) with what was common during the industrial revolution.

They're similar to the conditions in early America. And they are the start of an economy.
http://www.footprintsrecruiting.com/content.p hp?cat=506&abarcar_Session=6908db0653dbb43163 d305ad310741b7
China is also much cheaper than America. Many of the companies provide domiciles for their employees.

China is the perfect example. The more capitalistic they become the better the citizenry has it. Things are much better today than under...let's say...socialism.

And this is a heart-warming story but essentially irrelevant. I never disputed the fact that social mobility is possible in the US. It's a class system, not caste. Your "moral" of the story, that everyone's place in society is "deserved," is a commonly held but incorrect notion. If this was universally true, then the average CEO deserved 400% more in 2000 than they did in 1992. And the average worker apparently deserved less in the same time span. Odd. If our incomes were tied to what we deserved, then you'd be absolutely right, of course. But they're not, really. Income is based on many more factors than just "how hard you've tried."

The average CEO does deserve 400% more. The average CEO makes decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of people's employment. The average wage of workers has increased. But the average responsibility of workers hasn't.
Income is based on what your worth is to the economy. Which is why experience, education, supply of your brand of labor, skill...all affect the price you get for your services.

To your claim that liberalism doesn't mandate everything be oked by the government...I'm hard pressed to think of an example where the government isn't involved in a liberal solution. Not once.

And as to that touching story about the wife...she sounds remarkable.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 11:48 PM, Demosthenez wrote: I am confused. Under the liberal model, what exactly would be the solution here to someone living in a poor area with almost no job skills? Or are we on the pipe dream that the poor would not be as poor and she wouldnt have ended up in this way to begin with?
I mean, I get the example, poor person, poor job, poor area, poor job skills. But what exactly is the liberal counterpoint to this example? Because the United States government and the states now are clearly not libertarian in any definition of the word and this happens already as it is. Are you advocating even more government involvement in peoples lives and increased social engineering by the government?

No, I'm pretty much advocating the status quo. (fyi) I'm not really addressing specific problems or solutions (just a few examples here and there). I am disagreeing with those who say that smaller, minimal government would result in more liberty and and a more just society.

And I don't think it's especially a "pipe dream" to create and sustain a safety net (since one already exists). Wouldn't Mason's example of his wife likely be quite different had she lived 100 or 200 years ago? (This is largely rhetorical. We don't know. But what can be safely said is that economic mobility has drastically improved by the creation of positive rights in the past 70 years.)

And honestly, this argument will go nowhere. We are using opinions and words to try and debate a philosophical diffrence in our views. You cant refute words and opinions and beliefs and it would be foolish to even try. Because mark my words, the only one who will win in a debate like this is not the one who is correct (if there is indeed one) but the one who is the most clever and can write the most coherently. But then again, that is just my opinon and I have no faith in simple opinions. BLEH.

This is unrelated but also interesting. If our political or moral convictions can't be argued for (if no one can be found "right"), then how can we even hold such convictions? How can you believe in something that you don't believe is right? Or don't believe can be proven? It's paradoxical. The only way in which a debate like this would be futile is if everyone believed in different "end goals" or fundamental truths. But I think most people here are on the same page. Humans are unique from animals in that they are rational beings with free will, and therefor should be afforded freedom, or dignity, or basic rights or opportunity. Something along those lines. (Semantics aside.)

Concerning my targeting of "extreme" libertarianism, it's simply because libertarianism is an extreme ideology. Liberalism is not. Liberalism is quite moderate, it's not "socialism" or "communism." Liberalism shares with libertarianism a belief in free markets and free exchange of goods, and some sort of democratic governing system. Yes there are different "sorts" of libertarians. I can only respond by saying I can't address every single one, since (obviously) libertarians are not a monopolistic block all thinking the same.