Libertarianism and Why John Stossel is Cool

[The_Q]

For a moment, just close your eyes and imagine true freedom. Imagine what it would be like if people did away with government and laws and those who choose them. Imagine what things would be like if anarchy prevailed.

Scary, isn't it? Only if you're a follower of Hobbes. I, personally, find this to be as close to a true paradise, as close to a utopia, as any society could get. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no anarchist, but I'm damn close to it. I'm a Libertarian.

First off, Libertarianism is not what it seems to be up front. In fact, it's the philosophy of liberty, of human freedom (hence LIBERTarianism). In short, Libertarians believe in three main rights, the unalienable rights that were written down by one of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment Era. These three rights, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of (go ahead, have a guess) Property, are often referred to as "natural rights" and serve as the core values for Libertarian philosophy.

You see, everyone exists in the Future, Present and Past. Your right to your Life protects your future, your right to your Liberty protects your present and your right to your Property protects the products of your Talents and Time that you have spent in the past. To take someone's life is murder, to take someone's freedom is slavery and to take someone's property is theft. All of these things are not condoned in a normal society already, so it should be pretty easy to follow so far. Toss in some Magna Carta to make sure that the government officials cannot take these rights from anyone and make sure that no one else can forcibly take another's rights.

Virtue only exists in mutually consentual trade. Another very basic concept. Because people both want what they're trading for, neither is getting ripped off. They both come off for the better, sometimes the best. This is the concept behind capitalism. This is why it works. This rule also tends to override the others

Life

This seems to be rather simple, no one may take another person's right to their Life. No killing. As I mentioned before, taking away a person's right to their life is taking away their right to their future (someone who is dead really doesn't have much to look forward to, excluding all religious beliefs).

Now, a twist does apply. If someone does actually ask you to kill them, you may but only if you want to. It's a pretty major decision to make, but some people can make it. Don't ask me how.


Liberty

Don't enslave people. Another simple one. To enslave someone is to take away their ability to choose at that very moment. It refuses them the right to live their life. It is bad.

Again, there's another twist to this deal. If someone will willingly sell their Liberty to someone else, that is fine. Just so long as both parties consent.


Property

To get money (which is property) you work. Work requires your talent for developing raw materials into valuable goods and time to use that talent. Property cannot be taken from another by fraud or force and still be virtuous. Mutually consentual trade, however, is virtuous because it ends up with both parties better off than when they started. This goes the same for charity, it is only virtuous when both parties consent to the giving. When a government takes money from a wealthy individual and gives it to a poorer individual in the name of social welfare it is not virtuous because the wealthy individual did not consent to this action. This is called "taxation." To make this action virtuous, the wealthy individual must willingly and knowingly be giving his property to the poorer one without being forced to do so by the government.

The Government

A truly Libertarian government doesn't exist too much. It's essentially a private firm established by the people that protects only those who desire their protection. For those that are protected, the police are allowed to issue fines and punishments that are equal to the damage done to any individual by another. Vigilanteism is certainly permitted so long as the criminal is not wrongly accused or brought to a stop with excessive force.

Of course, there would have to be a court system and the officials selected for it would be selected democratically. These judges would determine the severity of punishments and exactly how much of a violation of a right was committed.

The Future

Most Libertarians believe that there is one way to end most domestic problems in the world. That would be to not allow the officials, elected or not, refuse anyone the rights they have been given. It is for this reason I am enraged by immigration laws, the Patriot Act and progressive taxation. If our government cannot be a shining beacon of hope as it claims to be, what hope does the rest of the world have.

Don't get me wrong, I know that my paradise will never happen, but at least we can take some strides into making it possible. Milton Friedman already established a method of welfare that limits the amount of money redistributed by the government. He also suggested the draft-free army (which was a shock, as he announced it during Vietnam) which is a concept that will never be revoked now that it has taken effect.

Q

[GuidoHunter]

Enter talisman.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[purplepopcorn]

Jesus, even the mere mention of John Stossel and his book is enough to set me off. I'm glad to find that your post had no opinions either way.

tl;r


edit: PS 900 posts i luv tha earth

[Squeek]

DANGIT PURPLE I WAS GONNA POST TL;R

=( =( =(

[The_Q]

What I like most is that it's, in a sense, a manifesto of libertarianism.

Contradictions R Us!

Q

[talisman]

well I WAS going to go find my earlier post about John Stossel. But this topic hasn't yet mentioned him except in the title, so I'll lay off on that.

Libertarianism is an extreme. It's predicated on people making rational choices, and it's predicated on people following its rules voluntarily. Clearly, human nature dictates that no such society could ever sustain itself. Only way it could ever conceivably work is if there were an exceptional overabundance of resources such that no one ever had reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by Talisman

Clearly, human nature dictates that no such society could ever sustain itself.

Clearly? Where does it state that? Human Nature Handbook page 342?

Originally Posted by Talisman

It's predicated on people making rational choices

The alternative would be the predicate of irrationality. Considering that irrational behavior is impossible to predict, as it follows no pattern at all (by definition). I'd rather be able to predict behavior some of the time than be wrong all of the time. In any case, the principle of revealed preference shows quite clearly that the math of economics FREQUENTLY (we're talkinging 90th percentile), accurately and correctly discerns the decisions made by an individual. Due to these accurate predictions (which Libertarianism follows), we can certain say that the morals of Libertarianism are well placed.

The question is only "will it work?"

Q

[talisman]

There will always be a debate amongst humans between what's best for the individual and what's best for a given group of individuals.

Examining the vast history of our species, it is quite clear that whenever there is a scarcity of resources, it is more advantageous for individuals to band together to repel other groups and share the resources than attempt to have everyone go at it for themselves. Evolutionarily speaking, we are impelled to select courses of action that further our chances of survival and the chances of our offspring's survival. One route that our species has taken is that of forming groups in order to hedge our individual access to resources.

Pure libertarianism, as I see it, attempts to dissociate itself entirely from this evolutionary instinct with its sole emphasis on the individual, and for that reason it must fail. Only in a system of infinite resources and finite wants and needs can it succeed, and such a system is definitionally impossible.

Another reason pure libertarianism must fail is the plain fact of uneven distribution of resources. If a given individual, A, has a surplus of a given resources, X, which is in demand, then A by definition has acquired the power to subvert the system. A approaches B, who wants X, and uses X to control B, by promising more X. It's not inconceivable that A could become so powerful that A could create a small army, and use it to establish himself as a king. Oh so now the government responds? But who pays for the government military? People on the other side of the country who don't care and refuse to be taxed? Well, ok, so suppose everyone gives enough to the government so that they are well equipped enough to take down any militia. In this case, what's to stop the people in charge of the government military from abusing their power? Hell, going back to the original paradigm, what's illegal about A creating a militia? Buying territory, buying people? And then how can you protect their rights? You mentioned that someone could own a slave if the slave entered into a contract willingly... guess what: slaves in America all technically were "willing" servants, according to the contracts they were made to sign.

In addition, in a libertarian society, the art, science, and education will all necessarily suffer losses. Science cannot be performed individually, with individual resources. It requires everyone to help it, and that is why the DOE and DOH are so important to researchers. In a libertarian society, the barriers to acquiring investment are far too high. Why, after all, should people care about spending their resources on simply acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge when they can spend them on bettering their immediate circumstances? The same argument works for education. In a purely libertarian society, without public education, the costs of private education will gradually increase relative to the purchasing power of those who could benefit by it most. Disparity of worth increases, increasing the chances of subjugation and enslavement as the swelling lower classes must find some means to survive and lack the skills to compete with those who happened to have gotten lucky in the capitalism game.

(In response to your point about rational choice vs irrational choice, I believe you have misframed the debate. No choice is completely rational, and so in that sense all choices are irrational. But in order to avoid confusing the tendency to think of "irrational" choices as being random, I will refer to irrational choices instead as "nonrational" in the sense that they are "not rational" yet not random either.

As someone who has read and studied the human brain, it is evident that there is significant evidence suggesting that the human brain is simply incapable of making a completely rational choice. Every choice we make is informed at the nonconscious and conscious levels by emotional markers. These markers are, in effect, senses of negativity or positivity of a given option based on previous experience and anything associated with with an option. In individuals who have specific types of brain damage, the ability to reexperience these emotions is irrevocably damaged, resulting in catastrophic loss to decision-making ability. These people will ponder personal choices endlessly, never arriving at a conclusion as they see countless scenarios playing out depending on which option they pick. (see Antonio Damasio's Descartes' Error for more).

I mention that because it should be obvious and evident to everyone that no individual posses the processing power to see through all the consequences (rewards or benefits) a given choice. We take shortcuts based on what our own evolved experience has informed us. On the aggregated whole, these may seem rational. But at the level of the individual, all bets are off. Individuals are constantly making nonrational decisions, experimenting and learning evolutionarily.)

[The_Q]

In the manner of my late Uncle Milty (may he rest in peace) I shall dissect your argument and my own into some smaller details for better analysis.

Pure libertarianism, as I see it, attempts to dissociate itself entirely from this evolutionary instinct with its sole emphasis on the individual, and for that reason it must fail.

As much of an emphasis as I (as a libertarian speaking for other libertarians, which we can wag fingers at later) put on individual responsibility and free will, I still do not believe that any man is an island. In fact, quite the contrary, I think without other people, we'd be lost. The fact that we collaborate with each other shows that there is progress involved. What we seem to disagree on here is how collaboration occurs.

I'll make a small digression here and give a brief history of property. There have never been times when territory and private ownership haven't dominated the dynamics of a community. Even when we were stupid neanderthals, we were highly territorial. Deuteronomy has the first recorded mention of private borders and the punishments of moving or infringing upon them against the will of the owner. Plato first came out with his idea of a utopia, a world with shared everything (even women and children) and was chastised by Aristotle for it, saying "it is not the possession of an item but the desire for it that drives man."

That being said, we must return to how the groups collaborated. Did they share everything, as in Plato's utopia? On the contrary, early humans did the first trading. In fact, comparative advantage began as the first way to gather food efficiently. Men, who were stronger, went to hunt while women, who had more stamina, did household things and gathered berries. Likewise, comparative advantage brings people together. If there isn't anybody to trade with, how could they benefit? The fact that we have specialized jobs (farming, education, clergy) is all thanks to compartive advantage, not equitable sharing.

Another reason pure libertarianism must fail is the plain fact of uneven distribution of resources.

Yes, in a horrendously simplified world, this would work. However, there happen to be other factors, such as Person C, Person D, Person E etc. as well as Products Y, Z, theta etc. The problem with Person A controlling Person B with by dangling Product X in front of him is simply a matter of Person C wanting in on this Product X deal and trading some Y for it. What's to keep Person D from getting in on the exploitation, then? Eventually, the product will have spread until Person B gets in on it, and begins exploiting someone himself (most likely, Person Z by now). Unfortunately, exploitation has become mutual. Person Z is probably extorting B for some X by trading Y.

Or even more likely: Person B will say "I may want X, but Y is a good substitute." Elasticity of demand comes into effect. And even when the good is inelastic (a necessity or addiction), there are indirect ways to make the costs ineffectual. Let's say that OPEC is trying to kill America by extorting us via gas prices. We need gas to do just about everything, so when gas prices go up we all suffer, right? Well, that's unless we start buying smaller cars, use vespas, walk, bike and use public transportation more often. Which, as statistics and precious history show, we do.

I will give it to you, though, military power never has been a supreme focus for Libertarianism. Most moderate Libertarians advocate certain things be funded by the government through taxes. Depending on the locality of the issue, it could vary as far as fireworks (in order to save thumbs and provide a much more elaborate if not gorgeous show) to aircraft carriers (to bomb the hell out of militia that threaten the rights of citizens). This is, of course, a moderate course of action. It assumes that those who infringe upon the rights of others lose their rights, to a degree, themselves.

Why, after all, should people care about spending their resources on simply acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge when they can spend them on bettering their immediate circumstances?

Because the choices made by any person, firm or organization aren't based on immediate results. People do plan ahead. This is the reason we're not following Keynsian theory right now. This is the very reason Milton Friedman got his Nobel Prize.


Q

[talisman]

Sure people plan ahead, but I cannot envision an entirely privatized world in which basic and applied science will be more readily funded than in the current semi-private semi-public funding system. It seems to me that it would be much more difficult, as a scientist, to go around and ask for people's investments just because you want to do some pure research. Applied research might be an easier sell, but it would narrow fields of research to those topics which are readily translatable to technological advances.

[This sort of gets at a fundamental belief of mine (which is admittedly tangent to the discussion) that one of the main goals of our species ought to be to maximize our basic understanding of all the phenomena exist. Entropy will happen. The Universe will kill us eventually. But I sure as hell hope we will manage to at least figure out why and how everything works before then.]

I recognize that in a "real" situation interactions would be much more complex. My example was deliberately simplified. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that additional complexity will solve the problem of corruptibility, either economic or military. Any purely libertarian society puts itself at great risk for corruption of the system. People will always seek more power, and those with power, in a libertarian society, can more easily use it to exert their influence onto the lives of others. (The same, incidentally, is true of pure socialism, which exists at the opposite end of the spectrum).

I think the best system of society is somewhere in between libertarianism and socialism... somewhere right around a capitalist democracy.

[Kilroy_x]

You guys are long winded.

Also talisman, you neglect understanding the role the Minarchist state plays in Libertarian ideology, as the mediating force to prevent abuses. The problem with power distribution is that Government based power will always be more problematic, partially because of the Monopoly on the Legitimate use of force, but more broadly because of pretensions to supreme authority derived from concepts like social contract.

[talisman]

Well, ok, so suppose everyone gives enough to the government so that they are well equipped enough to take down any militia. In this case, what's to stop the people in charge of the government military from abusing their power?

That's essentially me pointing out that corruption of the libertarian system could come just as easily from within the government.

And while I certainly admit not understanding whatever the Minarchist state does (I'm no student of libertarianism, as you might guess), I think I get the basic gist of it at least.

[Kilroy_x]

Well it is a fairly intuitive neologism, minimal plus archy.

And now that we're discussing power dynamics, it's neccessary to establish something off the bat; every system within a society carries the potential to influence every other system. When you say that a Libertarian system could be corrupted by government, that's clear to see. A "libertarian system" is simply one which maximizes the function of social systems other than the government within a society. That's part of the reason behind the desire to minimize government. The idea is that since government represents, in the functions it serves, the most authoritarian social system (by some mechanism, even if just human pretension), it should be used both sparingly and with many checks and balances from external social systems. Namely society at large.

I.E. A small government regulated democratically is best, and becomes better the more localized political decisions are. A constitutional, democratic confederacy of states best protects liberty, and federal power should be used only for upholding constitutional law among the states.

[Armadegon]

A big mistake
Nobody's dumb enough to make
And would ruin the world
Anhilate Humanity
Raise Chaos and mayhem
Create Power for idiots
Hell, create living
You would have to be a total idiot to suport it.

(P.S. Im an anarchist)
(P.P.S. That was sarcasm)
(P.P.P.S. The "I'm an anarchist" Statement, not the poem thing)