Embracing Libertarianism

[Pliny]

When I was a child I was at a swimming pool and way over there was the DEEP END. I had thought about going over to the DEEP END and jumping in. Of course, the water would be way over my head. What was I thinking!. There was some apprehension about going over there but, no matter my fears, I still wasn't going to pee in the pool. My parents had brought me up to be hygenic, I guess. Being a greedy capitalist today I don't think it was about thinking of others but looking after myself. So looking after myself was sort of an invisible hand looking after the other swimmers. All of a sudden I had Adam Smith all figured out. Or was it Adam West? One of those guys, I don't think I had heard of Adam Smith yet.

Later on in life I thought, I am getting kind of disheartened with the Conservatives. Since my first vote, in which I voted for Pierre Trudeau, I had already lost faith in the Liberals and Mulroney gave me cause to abandon the Conservatives. I really tried to understand Kim Campbell, who took over form Mulroney buit kept falling asleep when she was talking. Or, after listening to her for a five minutes I would look over to my wife and ask, "What did she just say?". My wife would just throw up her hands and have an "I don't know!" look on her face.

Over my voting career the NDP never appealed to me. In my view, they were about punishing the rich and squeezing whatever they could out of the economy. Not that that idea separates them from the Liberals and Conservatives.

I did know that Governments like to control their populaces and that the only way they could do that was to place the burden of taxation upon them or drug them.

So economics was a place to start, since they aren't drugging everybody, in understanding governments. I found out that all they do is tax and spend basically. It didn't matter if it was Liberal or Conservative. I'm still not considering the NDP as a viable political party they seem to eager to tax and spend.

Anyway, I had lost all faith in the popular political parties. I didn't know anything about Libertarianism which as far as I knew was about anarchy, no government! That seems kind of scary - they were at the deep end of the pool. I wasn't about to jump in there, all my apprehensions about the deep end returned.

Well, if governments just tax and spend I should really educate myself about economics and the place to start was learning about money, what it is and how it influences society. Of course money is kind of a tool. Originally, it was a commodity that people feel is valuable. Then the valuables were stored in safe houses and IOUs were issued by those safe houses. You have probably figured out by now that those safe houses were the Banks.

As I researched money I kept running across Austrian Economic Theory, which sounded interesting. You know what though, they were at the deep end of the pool. I wasn't going to go there but I eventually had to take the plunge.

Libertarianism is at first a scary concept. Small government? Does that mean less police and consequently more unsolved crimes? Does that mean the roads won't get paved? Does that mean there is no welfare? No healthcare?

Is it Anarchy

I have to go to bed so goodnite.

[kimmy]

Please! Don't keep us in suspense! Tell us how the law is enforced, the roads get paved, and the poor and sick are cared for in a libertarian utopia!

-k

[Pliny]

Please! Don't keep us in suspense! Tell us how the law is enforced, the roads get paved, and the poor and sick are cared for in a libertarian utopia!

-k

I told you it was scary!

[Pliny]

First of all, in trying to understand Libertarianism in my view there isn't a real solid agreement on precisely what it is and I have had my most confrontational political discussions with Libertarians. I don't consider a single-issue self-described Libertarian a Libertarian at all. Those that want marijuana legalized or those that want prostitution legalized are single-issue Libertarians. If the NDP said they were going to legalize those things they would be voting for them.so I don't think those individuals have embraced the concept of Libertarianism at all. They just want the government to cater to their special interest and actually that is precisely what is basically wrong with our form of universal democracy. Marc Emory was one of those. He's a smart, brave guy willing to martyr himself for the cause. He lost faith in Libertarianism ever being able to achieve, in his lifetime, what he wanted to achieve. He was ready to vote NDP. His life simply revolves around that issue and he would sell his soul to see it happen.

In addressing your concerns kimmy I must first point out that there is no such thing as Utopia and Libertarianism would not be able to prevent you from dying, getting sick or suffering loss., that sounds more like something that our current governments will promise you . Being a Libertarian does require a little intestinal fortitude and a little patience while you try and learn to swim in the deep end.

Now I am a minarchist Libertarian so I don't agree that there should be no government at all. I do think they should have a very limited mandate on a national level. As the area of influence becomes smaller the government could become larger and perhaps some may deem they form a commune based upon the ideas of Marx. The freedom of choice must exist though and if people opt out they should be able to find an area where their ideas of government are more agreeable with others. This is just my idea.

As for the market, it should be a free market to the point of being anarchical which sounds like chaos but of course rules of any activity are generally established over time so anarchy as chaos would not be the case. The thing is that government should not be making those rules or intervening in the affairs of business.

As for roads, I suppose all the wagon trains heading west had to wait for the government to make the trails for them before they could go.

Now under Libertarianism there may not be roads built where ever you think they should be built but if there is a demand for them they would be built.

There is a book that argues the case for roads built under private enterprise written by Walter Block and called imaginatively, "The Privatization of Roads and Highways"

For poverty, Henry Hazlitt has written a book called "The Conquest of Poverty".

There's the deep end and it is all about the individual learning to swim. Most people learn to swim but some obviously don't or are too afraid. You do need some confidence in yourself and your ability but once you learn to swim there is great freedom in the water. If the government is going to look after you then people won't. They will be less inclined to be sociable.

In the olden days poverty was more of a localized thing and there were only local people that could care for the poor it was more of a struggle. Today with the internet the whole globe can be appealed to for aid. As an example, little Sarah Murnaghan with only her parents arguing her case had national support and a judge overruled the federal government's decision. Do we really need government to make decisions about being compassionate. Government politicians, and bureaucrats will only follow the rules in making their decisions they have no ability to override them or think about the circumstances of its application. It boils down to that's the law and we follow the law. So we better be really careful about what laws we make. A more intelligent application to problem-solving is to look at each case instead of having a rule where no one is responsible for injustices and appeals have to be made to a judge to use common sense.

One of the greatest enemies of a society in governing is time. People don't look at the future as much as they should and sacrifice it for short term gain. It is partly the fault of politicians that promise things to the public now without thinking of the sustainability of a program in the future. Or creating something thinking that all other things will remain constant, such as economic and population growth. A sideways move in population growth and immigration becomes a very important issue. The US ignored illegal immigration for decades, mostly because of the economic benefits it provided and now it is a huge problem for them. Libertarians may say there should be no borders anyway. I would argue that perhaps you can create a country without borders but it doesn't sound feasible. In a world of choice constitutional republics would ensure there were borders even if you didn't care about them. Probably, criminals would be attracted to a place where they aren't going to hassle you at the border.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is you who has to learn how to swim, in other words, develop your skills and abilities and respect only those that earn your respect. You will have to learn social skills and interact with others to share in the production of wealth not just the production of money which is what a centralized state offers the individual. The co-operative and harmonious interaction of individuals is what makes life worthwhile and feeling that you contributed to the welfare of others is uppermost in your own personal well-being.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing is that government should not be making those rules or intervening in the affairs of business.

So, no corporations are allowed then ?

[Pliny]

So, no corporations are allowed then ?

In what respect? As legal entities? As corporate individuals?

Might it be one of the rules established by free enterprise? Perhaps, I would think there need be no recognition of that by the State but I couldn't say for sure? C'mon in Michael the waters fine!

Just a little bit more from my previous post regarding how a person's reward is best realized when they have felt they have been of service to someone else. Why would you want the government to take over all of the worthwhile endeavours of life, essentially helping others, the result being you end up becoming a self-centred consuming cow demanding government provide you your fair share and politicians, if you make enough noise, only too willing to buy your vote providing it.

[Michael Hardner]

In what respect? As legal entities? As corporate individuals?

Might it be one of the rules established by free enterprise? Perhaps, I would think there need be no recognition of that by the State but I couldn't say for sure? C'mon in Michael the waters fine!

Just a little bit more from my previous post regarding how a person's reward is best realized when they have felt they have been of service to someone else. Why would you want the government to take over all of the worthwhile endeavours of life, essentially helping others, the result being you end up becoming a self-centred consuming cow demanding government provide you your fair share and politicians, if you make enough noise, only too willing to buy your vote providing it.

It doesn't seem like you've considered the details. A limited liability corporation is a distinct legal entity as defined by our justice system. If free enterprise decides the limits of their responsibility how does that work ? 'The Government' may not work in my favour all of the time but it's designed to work for the people of the country, whereas corporations are designed to work for the shareholders. It's pretty easy for corporations to collude against my best interests, and government is often interested in helping them but getting rid of governments seems to leave no protection at all.

[Pliny]

It doesn't seem like you've considered the details. A limited liability corporation is a distinct legal entity as defined by our justice system. If free enterprise decides the limits of their responsibility how does that work ? 'The Government' may not work in my favour all of the time but it's designed to work for the people of the country, whereas corporations are designed to work for the shareholders. It's pretty easy for corporations to collude against my best interests, and government is often interested in helping them but getting rid of governments seems to leave no protection at all.

In this case I haven't in any depth.

Being a minarchist I do believe that justice is a mandate of the government. Corporations colluding against your best interests is simply your view that a free market system will be a corrupt system. What we have now is a corrupt system where corporations receive subsidies as privilege over other corporations, and get bailouts that reward bad management. What we have become is self-centred consumer cows even corporations are self-centred which explains why they need to be subsidized and bailed out at the level, and as often, as they do. Reward and punishment seems disconnected with action. It's a society where you work hard, do your best and get shafted. You have to be willing to sacrifice principle to get ahead. People who get to know the system will work it. If there is no giving out bailouts and subsidies that are essentially unfair then your success must be based upon your own merit. And that means you have to be interested in the welfare of others to be able to work in harmonious co-operation.

A lot of economic Libertarians are free market anarchists. Economically, the market works better when it is not interfered with through government fiscal and monetary policy. The legal structure of a free market system would most likely just be based in contractual agreements and the obligations therein. I doubt anyone could build a lasting corporation. They would tend to go through the cycle of conception, creation, decay and obsolescence never achieving the status of too big to fail. As far as jobs go, that would make the government look like a sanctity of security. Those are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I have a lot more reading to do before I have any where near a complete comprehension of the options let alone the best course for business to take. Perhaps it should just start and evolve from there, not letting government seize the reins by trying to stabilize the economy through degradation of the money and printing it as needed.

Or controlling it by instituting wage and price controls. Or lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing or raising them to encourage saving, adding an arbitrary and distorting the natural supply and demand of the market. Business then has to wait and see what the government is going to do.

Look at Obamacare, this is government getting in the way of the economy. Firstly, no one owning a business knew for sure how it was going to affect them. They are learning and they have to make adjustments. But Obamacare was designed to destroy the private health care insurance industry in the US and it looks like it will do just that. He wanted a single payer system which he knew would never go anywhere so he feigned giving it up and wrote the act so that the clear choice for business and the people would have to be an entirely public single-payer health care system. I think it will be turfed before it goes that far. The economy is deeply affected by Obamacare.

Did the US healthcare system need fixing. No doubt it could have been improved upon but Obama took a wrecking ball to it. The one thing the healthcare system in the US had that is advantageous over public systems was its flexibility and ability to change. Unlike Canada where no change other than adding resources is possible. We just have to wait until it collapses to get any substantial change.

Once again though it is government taking on the role of the individual in society and usurping the true joys of living in being able to help others. The government pretends it can do a better job. It can for a short time, I suppose, but in the long run it gets costly, corrupted and conservative, where service becomes a secondary purpose to its existence.

But perhaps a wrecking ball was necessary to effect real substantial change. It will be laong time before the dust settles on this one.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I think that our economic problems need more rational discussion, more visibility and more wisdom in their consideration from all concerned. I know that sounds like a nonspecific answer. Reforming the system of political contributions would help, as would taking the more complicated discussions out of the backrooms and into public forums better suited to in depth discussions.

[Pliny]

I think that our economic problems need more rational discussion, more visibility and more wisdom in their consideration from all concerned. I know that sounds like a nonspecific answer. Reforming the system of political contributions would help, as would taking the more complicated discussions out of the backrooms and into public forums better suited to in depth discussions.

The central banks aren't relinquishing any power soon. When you have the very best thinking that they know what's best nothing will change. Their world will not collapse without a fight that means economic terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

The central banks aren't relinquishing any power soon. When you have the very best thinking that they know what's best nothing will change. Their world will not collapse without a fight that means economic terrorism.

Without specifics, you could be talking about anything from a facebook protest to a revolution...

[Moonlight Graham]

Once you go down the Libertarian rabbit-hole, it can turn out to be a convincing political ideology in some respects. Many, if not most, Libertarians still approve of a central state authority, so Libertarianism can be much different than Anarchy. I think a compelling philosophical argument by the Libertarian ideology is that nobody should be able to have the absolute coercive power (ie: of a central state authority) to tell you what you can and cannot do at the rate liberal democracies do now, not to mention dictatorships elsewhere in the world, especially when certain laws are "parental" in nature and attempt to protect you from your own judgement.

Ie: Should we really have seatbelt laws? Should I have the right not to wear a seatbelt if I don't want to? Who is the government to FORCE me to wear a seatbelt, even if it may be in my own interest?

Or, who is the government to tell someone they can or can't smoke marijuana, or snort crack, or gamble, or have sex with a prostitute? Maybe these things aren't the best things for you, but is this not up to the individual and not the "nanny state"?

I don't agree with many Libertarian views, even a bunch of the ones I mentioned above, but the supreme coercive power we give our government to control our lives if something we should at least re-examine.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Peeves]

First of all, in trying to understand Libertarianism in my view there isn't a real solid agreement on precisely what it is and I have had my most confrontational political discussions with Libertarians. I don't consider a single-issue self-described Libertarian a Libertarian at all.

Truncated

With freedom comes responsibility. It is you who has to learn how to swim, in other words, develop your skills and abilities and respect only those that earn your respect. You will have to learn social skills and interact with others to share in the production of wealth not just the production of money which is what a centralized state offers the individual. The co-operative and harmonious interaction of individuals is what makes life worthwhile and feeling that you contributed to the welfare of others is uppermost in your own personal well-being.

Thanks for your opinion. I enjoyed the read. Thoughtful.

"It is partly the fault of politicians that promise things to the public now without thinking of the sustainability of a program in the future."

That is certainly a truth.

Responsibility is another.

Nothing much irks me more than those given what they demand regardless the sustainability or impact on others...taxes.moving gas plants, E health,teachers and assistants professional wages for babies going to all day school. Baby sitters jobs at teachers wages for votes. Under the table signing bonuses after declarations of NO RAISES!.

Few things piss me off more than a 'charity'-welfare recipient with cell phones and designer shoes (examples only.)

Phony disability cases.

McGuinty waste, G20 excess,Liberal Adscam, sponsorship scandal Senate neolithic anachronism, and party leaders like the likes of a millionaire Trudeau taking $ 20,000 from a charity fund raiser for his personal pleasure.

I resent paying taxes to support such.

We're in the deep end of the pool,over our heads, and socialist still want more for their followers.

Can't blame them for that. There are those with the power to do so quite willing to buy their vote.

[Pliny]

Without specifics, you could be talking about anything from a facebook protest to a revolution...

By economic terrorism I mean adverse effects the central bank can wreak upon the economy.

[Pliny]

Once you go down the Libertarian rabbit-hole, it can turn out to be a convincing political ideology in some respects. Many, if not most, Libertarians still approve of a central state authority, so Libertarianism can be much different than Anarchy. I think a compelling philosophical argument by the Libertarian ideology is that nobody should be able to have the absolute coercive power (ie: of a central state authority) to tell you what you can and cannot do at the rate liberal democracies do now, not to mention dictatorships elsewhere in the world, especially when certain laws are "parental" in nature and attempt to protect you from your own judgement.

Ie: Should we really have seatbelt laws? Should I have the right not to wear a seatbelt if I don't want to? Who is the government to FORCE me to wear a seatbelt, even if it may be in my own interest?

Or, who is the government to tell someone they can or can't smoke marijuana, or snort crack, or gamble, or have sex with a prostitute? Maybe these things aren't the best things for you, but is this not up to the individual and not the "nanny state"?

I don't agree with many Libertarian views, even a bunch of the ones I mentioned above, but the supreme coercive power we give our government to control our lives if something we should at least re-examine.

In the nanny state, with seat belt laws and the "parental laws" you mention, they certainly don't make any one smarter or more able to look after oneself by making correct choices. All you have to do is follow the laws. But the laws are getting so copious and complex no one really understands them, even the people who are charged with enforcing them - tax laws are what I'm specifically thinking of here.

We need to be able to think for ourselves. Certainly, our past knowledge gained through the experience of our predecessors should be available to us but to make laws about seatbelts, gambling and prostitution and even drugs is unnecessary.

WE should be well informed about these subjects though so we can make proper choices and often we are only given propaganda about them.

Government, in my view, has to provide an avenue for justice, essentially.

Anarchy is really a bit scary. A libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force against another. Anarchy stems more from communism which holds no concept of private property - no one should own anything - Not good if you have a favourite pair of shoes.

[Pliny]

Thanks for your opinion. I enjoyed the read. Thoughtful.

"It is partly the fault of politicians that promise things to the public now without thinking of the sustainability of a program in the future."

That is certainly a truth.

Responsibility is another.

Lots of reasons for reform but any reform government institutes will probably be based in adding to the bureaucracy. They don't know they are the problem.

[dre]

Lots of reasons for reform but any reform government institutes will probably be based in adding to the bureaucracy. They don't know they are the problem.

Governt isnt the problem... people are. For everything the government does theres millions and millions of people that want them to do it, and vote for it and lobby for it. Its in our nature.

And thats why we dont have any libertarian societies of any real scale... They exist for a while as new land as colonized/pioneered, but they will never last for long.

Libertarianism sounds like a nice idea... maybe it works great for an alien race somewhere in the universe that has a different nature.

[Michael Hardner]

Government is built on technology of the day, and when a technology comes to the end of its life, or time for change, it's a time of major upheaval.

Those who mastered the technologies of print, radio and television (with regards to getting the attention of people, and of the government) are now going to be challenged by new media and their point of view will be undermined. Who needs government to act on their behalf today ? It depends to which channel you're listening to.

The web is about conspiracies, new world order and so on... Television news has a different bent...

Who wants to be free ? Everyone does. But free from what ?

Added: my post was inspired by yours, Dre

[Pliny]

dre, on 18 Jun 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Governt isnt the problem... people are. For everything the government does theres millions and millions of people that want them to do it, and vote for it and lobby for it. Its in our nature.

And thats why we dont have any libertarian societies of any real scale... They exist for a while as new land as colonized/pioneered, but they will never last for long.

Libertarianism sounds like a nice idea... maybe it works great for an alien race somewhere in the universe that has a different nature.

Ultimately, you are right, dre, it is people.

It boils down once again to informed choice. People, for the most part, don't have and don't want to have to spend time

worrying about their government and don't even seem to understand its origin or purpose. Its purpose, with the advent of social engineering, has been skewed somewhat. One could say, instead of skewed, redefined or evolved, which implies that all is well and we are progressing as we should.

Perhaps, and maybe I am guilty of it, one could look too much into the past and our history for answers to building our future.

I have mentioned in other threads that what makes life worthwhile is helping others. Living on our own or for ourselves alone does not make for a happy life. So it is our co-operative, harmonious interaction that is vital to our well-being.

It certainly isn't money for most of us, it certainly isn't power, it certainly isn't control. Those things never satiate our appetite for happiness. They may give us some temporary pleasure but similar to an addiction there is always the desire for more. Happiness is elusive and is tied directly into our self-image, our sense of self-respect. Money, power and control are individual, and for the most part, selfish pursuits when they are goals in and of themselves. They are essential to freedom though. One would like to control his own life, at least. One finds it necessary to have "money" in this society and would like the power to direct and form his environment to satisfy his needs and desires.

Is it then the government's job to order happiness, to order harmonious interaction. Should it order one to help his fellow citizens? Generally, that means things like giving back to the community, when the community exists only because people contribute to it in the first place? Does it mean, we can relinquish our responsibilities to each other and give them to the government? Where the government is happily "helping" people and we are left desolate only to receive help from the government and never feeling happy? Not happy on either end, giving to the government or receiving from the government. These are the two factions created in a socially progressive democracy. The haves and the have-nots pitted against each other and a democratic determination for equality - that mundane, mediocre and stifling goal that steals all character, colour and personality in a society.

So is it history or is it people that we need to understand? We can understand history if we look, we are doing a poor job of understanding people, especially when they do not have the freedom to pursue their own happiness - which is not born out of selfishness but the selfless contribution to other people's happiness. Should we let government be the only happy entity of society giving us somewhat dubious results with our labour? Can we construct a society by ourselves if government just weeds out the obstructions, like threats to the safety of person and property?

I believe Libertarianism has a place if we take the time to understand what a society is. If we look and learn from history we find that when a government starts to take over the engineering of a society, the social welfare state just being the beginning of that engineering, and that being enabled only because it has seized control of the money supply, it begins to run everyone's life leaving no room for the individual to contribute to the creation of society or community.

Thus leaving people discontent with their lot and selfishly clamoring for their fair share and demanding others give their fair share.

Does that sound like an alien race with a different nature? I think we need to make some progress in the field of the humanities. Austrian economics teaches us that the individual will always act in his best interests to improve himself and his position, to build a higher standard of living. And of course that cannot be done without harmoniuos and co-operative interaction with his fellows. Those with a collective mentality emphasize the selfish aspect of that interaction where they see someone make a gain believing it to be at the expense of someone else instead of a mutual co-operative interaction. Certainly, fraud are concerns but that is not an harmonious and co-operative interaction and deserves the scrutiny of a government. There is theft, where someone gains at the expense of others. But the collective it seems has confused any person's or corporations gain as criminal and not a result of co-operative interaction.