Why do libertarians think their ideology would lead to freedom? (health care, highway)

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by bUU

Precisely. It isn't (just) a matter of the inadequacies of libertarianism (nothing is perfect) but rather (mostly) about the inadequacies of libertarians, their avarice and callous disregard for those most vulnerable in society.

Look, I don't believe libertarians are any less compassionate than anyone else. In fact, based on myself, I am far more giving now that I am a libertarian than I was when I was a socialist.


When I was a socialist, it wasn't that I felt like I was personally responsible to help other people. Instead, I felt like it was the job of society to help other people. I didn't say that I should make sure people had healthcare. No, I said it was the governments job to make sure people have healthcare.

I didn't say that I should share my money, or home, or food with the less fortunate. I said that those with so much, should be the ones responsible for providing struggling people money, or housing, or food. And I would pat myself on the back for feeling that way, as if I had the moral high-ground compared to those who said that the government should do nothing. Because I assumed that if they didn't support the government providing services, then they must not believe that services should be provided at all. Thus, anyone who opposes government charity, must be advocating selfishness.


The truth is, simply saying that other people should be giving money or time or whatever, means nothing. I know plenty of people who might run around saying how the government should be helping the poor. All the while they wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone else. And then they run around blowing every dollar they have on drugs and gambling.

They might argue that we should have mass-transit for instance. And they might even try to argue how it would benefit all of us if we had more mass transit. But ultimately, in most cases. Its not so much that they really think society wants mass transit. The reality is that "they" want mass transit. And they want society to provide it for them.


If socialists could prove that they were the great and wonderful people they claim themselves to be. I would be much more sympathetic towards them. But I simply do not believe that on average, the kinds of people who advocate for the welfare state, are any more charitable with either their money, their possessions, or their time, than are people who don't want a welfare state.


In fact, all of the evidence points in the other direction. And even history itself, points in the other direction. People were far more giving of their time and money before the welfare state than after it.

So please spare me the "libertarians are evil" crap. Its just not true.


If you were to actually look at the actions of individuals, and not just their words. You could make a far more compelling case that liberals are less compassionate than conservatives.

[Patricius Maximus]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

Really??? When was that? In its first 90 or so years when slavery was legal and black people had the same rights as cattle or horses? Maybe in the next 100 years when blacks were systematically terrorized and denied their civil and human rights?

The frame of reference libertarians (and most other people) use when comparing regimes for modern use is what sort of political and legal system that "normal" Americans lived under. There were many excluded classes of people (e.g. blacks), but that says nothing about the merit of the system itself. It must have been pretty good judging on the excluded class's fervent desire to be included in it . Also, it's not as if the system only applied to a few aristocrats; the included population in the early Republic was very diverse and amounted to a majority of the population, so you can draw conclusions about how it would work for the population as a whole.

If libertarians, or just about anyone for that matter, were to recreate a system that applied in the 18th or 19th century, it would include everyone. Also, by 1820 slavery was abolished in every northern state, and barred from most of the future western territories. Going from slavery being legal everywhere to it being abolished in most of the country is quite an accomplishment on the part of those slaver Founders . What the Founding Fathers did in the North in an attempt to carry out the great principles of liberty and equality they laid down was the foundation for the later abolition of slavery in the South, which was based on those same principles, and that in turn laid the foundation for the end of Jim Crow. As evidence of this, Vermont was the very first country* in the (western) world to abolish slavery in its constitution

The actual opinion of the Founding Fathers on slavery varied by the person; some (mostly from the South) supported slavery, others were abolitionists, and still others fell somewhere in between. Manumissions came into fashion in the late 18th century as part of the general anti-slavery effort, but later laws tightening the grip on blacks and manumissions pretty much closed that option well before the mid 19th century. A provision in 1784 banning slavery in the new western territories (west of the Appalachians) fell just one vote short of passing Congress, which provides an excellent illustration of the political landscape of the day concerning slavery. Jefferson was a one-man embodiment of that, who was somewhat racist (as just about everyone was at that time), was a slave-owner, considered slavery an evil that should be abolished, but took very little action himself until a practicable plan could be developed that would pass the legislature.

Ben Franklin founded the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, and Benjamin Rush published "An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, upon Slave-Keeping" where he not only argued that the institution of slavery should be abolished, but that blacks were not inferior by nature and only appeared that way because of the effects of slavery. That's a very modern viewpoint, and none of these anti-slavery views gained any traction at all until the Founders fomented a revolution in thought concerning slavery in America.

*Vermont was independent as of 1777, joining the United States in 1791. In 1780 Pennsylvania followed Vermont's lead, and by 1784 all of New England had proceeded to do the same, and slavery was banned in the Northwest Territory in 1787.

Originally Posted by Linda_d

So, libertarians would take a "hands-off" approach to domestic violence, to child abuse, to dumping sewage and chemical wastes into rivers, to ponzi schemes, to fraud, to essentially anything that wasn't a blantant crime like "murder, rape, and theft"?

Simply put, libertarians believe that for there to be a crime there must be a victim, and for there to be a victim there must be an initiation of force against the victim. So let's go off the checklist:

Domestic violence - there is a victim and an initiation of force
Child abuse* - there is a victim and an initiation of force; a child is a person
Dumping sewage and chemical wastes into rivers - provided a person or their property are harmed by sewage and wastes, there is a victim and an initiation of force
Ponzi schemes - there is a victim and an initiation of force (fraud is included in the force package); libertarians were as relieved as the rest of us when Madoff's scheme was discovered
Fraud - see above

*By which I mean the sort of acts that come to mind when most people think about child abuse, not failing to get vaccinations or homeschooling without permission.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Look, I don't believe libertarians are any less compassionate than anyone else.

That could be because you don't want to admit negative characterizations that could be ascribed to you, due to your own political stripe, which you yourself admit to:

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

In fact, based on myself, I am far more giving now that I am a libertarian than I was when I was a socialist.

A statement which is unreliable as a reflection of truth because you may have substantial vested interest in prevaricating in this regard, again, due to your own political stripe.

In a nutshell you're trying to say, "Believe me, trust me, kowtow to my preferences." In response, I'm saying, "No." There is no reason to believe your claims about yourself or your political cohorts. There is no good reason to trust libertarian intents. And society should not kowtow to what libertarians want.

It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

When I was a socialist, it wasn't that I felt like I was personally responsible to help other people.

Even if we grant some credence toward this one statement of yours, it ends up meaning nothing, since the nefarious aspect you're claiming is in your past could have been simply a reflection of your own personal character flaw - especially since so many liberals being responsible for helping other people demonstrates how neither end of the liberal/libertarian spectrum has any overriding correlation with compassion.

And again, that's all putting aside the fact that your claim that you were bad then and you are better now remains without independent (and therefore without believable) corroboration.

The challenge for libertarians is not to try to deceive others into accepting their offensively self-serving perspectives, but rather to actually stop projecting offensively self-serving perspectives and start projecting perspectives that aim to make things better for people who really need such regard. As long as libertarians aren't talking about how to lessen the struggle of the most vulnerable in our society, they're simply ratifying the criticisms which those criticizing libertarians are charging libertarians with.

And please don't get me wrong: I've met honorable and compassionate libertarians. My brother's father-in-law is one, actually. But I suspect you'd claim he's not a libertarian. Perhaps some of your cohort would make up childish names to call him, like "LINO". Mix libertarianism with social conscience, compassion, regard for those most vulnerable in society and you have a very good person, who has absolutely no place within the libertarian movement, because the latter is so badly afflicted with egoistic avarice and refusal to accept that they are members of society.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Instead, I felt like it was the job of society to help other people.

The mythology that society isn't the people in it is a standard libertarian lie.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I didn't say that I should make sure people had healthcare. No, I said it was the governments job to make sure people have healthcare.

Social conscience isn't a solo sport. It's a group venture. Even if libertarians refuse to muster enough honor and respectability to admit it.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If socialists could prove that they were the great and wonderful people they claim themselves to be.

I don't know any socialists, but from what I know of socialism, your statement itself demonstrates either ignorance or malicious deception on your part, since what socialists claim is how great and wonderful people are, collectively, under their system. So essentially, you're either inadvertently or deliberately failing to understand the nature of their perspectives, and instead inanely imposing your own corrupted view, perhaps your "black" to their "white", in the "black and white" world your statement seems to come from - perhaps some libertarian fantasy land where only libertarians and socialists exist.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I would be much more sympathetic towards them.

Probably because, for you, it's "us and them" instead of just "us". Thanks for confirming the nature of what you understand.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

You don't have to be a libertarian to know how "they would govern". The problem is, libertarians don't "govern". They are opposed to imposing controls on you and what you do and what your neighbor does. Libertarians don't believe in 'governing' like kings and governors, as the word implies. They would hold the office and conduct the business of the state as unobtrusively and hands-off as is possible.

Your presumption that self governance is choosing which dictator to live under is merely symptomatic of your own lack of comprehension that governance is evil, in and of itself, as power corrupts. There are no "good" governing powers. There are only those held in strict limitation so as to limit the damage they can do to the people themselves.

How does one hold an office of any kind and not govern? Would it be more of a hollow figure head position that didn't do anything? Your statement is so vague on how a libertarian government would function that I don't think even you know how they would function.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Because it won't take our money, won't obstruct our enterprises, won't cost us much of what we work for, and won't play favorites, deciding who wins and who loses.

Maximum individual freedom from coercion is the ultimate expression and goal of civilization. Liberalism is the opposite of that.

So there would be no taxes? How would that libertarian government function? Of course you can't call it a government if they don't govern. Who would pay for federal things like highways, FAA, and the military?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

They do, but Washington DC controls almost everything, leaving the local governments twisting in the wind trying to meet their demands.

I am beginning to think you have no idea how your local and state governments function. Those two forms of government have more of an impact on you than the federal government.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

So, libertarians would take a "hands-off" approach to domestic violence, to child abuse, to dumping sewage and chemical wastes into rivers, to ponzi schemes, to fraud, to essentially anything that wasn't a blantant crime like "murder, rape, and theft"?

Once again, that is describing the anarchist.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Once again, that is describing the anarchist.

Yet many people in here have stated they want a vaguely hands off government.

[NHartphotog]

Considering that NOTHING equals the power of Big Government to enslave the average American--to the point that Washington gets to take as much of your paycheck as it WANTS before you even see it--it is obvious that a less powerful and all-intrusive government will result in more freedom for everyone.

Consider that if our leaders hadn't gotten us embroiled in WWI and WWII we would never have even had an income tax on the working class--let alone the withholding system that basically makes every worker a slave to the corrupt upper class in Washington.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Yet many people in here have stated they want a vaguely hands off government.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Libertarians understand that the Constitution grants certain things to the government and other things it doesn't.