Libertarianism

[ClearWest]

Hello, everyone! Some of you may be aware that I am a Libertarian--and I noticed that many of you share a lot of my opinions, but do not consider yourselves libertarians. I do not intend to solicit you all to Libertarianism, but I would love to have a discussion about the philosophy in further detail.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, please watch this short animated introduction to Libertarianism located here. And then please post your comments and/or criticism. Let me know what you agree with, and what you don't agree with, and why.

Libertarianism advocates a free market where people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services with no restrictions, tarrifs, or regulation from a third party. We support small government, little to no taxation, and no government involvement in social issues and people's personal affairs. We oppose prohibition, censorship, and conscription. And we believe in the human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

The Libertarian Party of Canada's official website is: www.libertarian.ca

Thanks.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Hello, everyone! Some of you may be aware that I am a Libertarian--and I noticed that many of you share a lot of my opinions, but do not consider yourselves libertarians. I do not intend to solicit you all to Libertarianism, but I would love to have a discussion about the philosophy in further detail.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, please watch this short animated introduction to Libertarianism located here. And then please post your comments and/or criticism. Let me know what you agree with, and what you don't agree with, and why.

Libertarianism advocates a free market where people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services with no restrictions, tarrifs, or regulation from a third party. We support small government, little to no taxation, and no government involvement in social issues and people's personal affairs. We oppose prohibition, censorship, and conscription. And we believe in the human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

The Libertarian Party of Canada's official website is: www.libertarian.ca

Thanks.

You probably find lots of people who agree with you...except, they say, that you need affirmative action "to even the playing field" or restrictions on abortion "to protect the vulnerable" and before you can say Bob's-your-uncle we are the mess we are in now.

[Pliny]

Hi Clearwest,

That was a good introductory clip for Libertarianism. Thanks.

What more need be said

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

Thanks for moving this topic here. While I understand that you consider this a 'federal issue', (which it might become if the Libertarian party grows), it is for now more of a philisophical argument.

That being said, 'libertarianism' is an unworkable pipe-dream.

[Riverwind]

Libertarianism advocates a free market where people can make voluntary exchanges of goods and services with no restrictions, tarrifs, or regulation from a third party.

I can understand the appeal of Libertarianism and actually believe in it when it comes to moral issues. However, I feel Libertarianism is unworkable as a general political and social philosophy.

The problems with Libertarianism are caused by the presumption that the individual is always right and society or the group should never impose its will on the minority even if that individual refuses to contribute to projects which that individual benefits from. For example, consider 10 property owners that share a single roadway used to access their property. Assume this roadway regularily requires funds to pay for its repair. In an ideal world each property owner would volunteer to contribute to the repairs. In the real world, one or two property owners may decide that they don't need to contribute because they believe the other property owners will pay for it even if they don't contribute. The non-contributing property owners might likely get away with this position a few times, however, they will eventually find that either:

1) the contributing property owners will start to 'coherse' the non-contributing owners in some way;

2) the contributing property owners will stop contributing as well and the road would become unuseable over time.

In other words, Libertarianism is not a stable form of social organization and will result in either a complete social collapse because everyone refuses to fund collective projects or a return to the system of compulsary contributions (i.e. taxes) that we have today.

[ClearWest]

The problems with Libertarianism are caused by the presumption that the individual is always right and society or the group should never impose its will on the minority even if that individual refuses to contribute to projects which that individual benefits from.

It's not necessarily that the individual is always right--It's the concern with the fact that the state is NOT always right.

For example, consider 10 property owners that share a single roadway used to access their property. Assume this roadway regularily requires funds to pay for its repair. In an ideal world each property owner would volunteer to contribute to the repairs. In the real world, one or two property owners may decide that they don't need to contribute because they believe the other property owners will pay for it even if they don't contribute. The non-contributing property owners might likely get away with this position a few times, however, they will eventually find that either:

1) the contributing property owners will start to 'coherse' the non-contributing owners in some way;

2) the contributing property owners will stop contributing as well and the road would become unuseable over time.

I understand your concern, Riverwind. And I agree that there is a possibility of this scenario arising. However, take this into consideration: A road usually only requires maintainace every 10-15 years (and that's a regularly used street in a small city--so I'm assuming it will be similar in your scenario). So, whenever a concerned citizen sees that the road may be in need of repair, he can contact his neighbours and ask them to contribute to the "Fix the Road" fund. Chances are they will receive an adequate amount in voluntary funds. Not necessarily from everyone--People shouldn't care who does and doesn't contribute. Plus in most cases the donations will be annonymous, so they won't know.

#1 of your scenario is out of the picture because it is a use of force and against people's rights. #2, however, is more likely, given human nature for selfishness. And if this is the case, then obviously they care more about their neighbour's business than the road being fixed. It's quite unfortunate, but it's no call to introduce a forced tax. You can probably see my signature right now, but I will post it anyways in case it changes: "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained". -Proudhon

999 times out of 1000 it will work. They will end up raising the amount of money that they need to get the job done. That 1 time it may not isn't enough to convince me that forced socialism works. The one year that they can't afford to fix their roads. There are always alternatives to force.

If you have any other examples of how voluntary exchanges must be replaced with force, I wouldn't mind hearing it. And I appreciate the comments you have made thus far as well. But from my view, everything can be solved without means of force. More cases than not, a voluntary free market will allow everyone to get what they want and need, without giving someone else a raw deal. Unlike socialism as we know it today--where it is not a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Our goods (money) are taken, and our services (if any) are given to us. Whether we like it or not. That is not freedom. I believe in true capitalism, where exchanges are made voluntary because both people benefit from the deal.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

So, whenever a concerned citizen sees that the road may be in need of repair, he can contact his neighbours and ask them to contribute to the "Fix the Road" fund.

Whoa. Whoa Whoa.

Road repair is far down the line in the argument. Easement rights allocations supercede 'collectivist community' project notions.

Not to mention that the fact that 'collectivist community projects' are inherently 'communist' in theory, and therefore are the diametrical opposite of what you propose as the best system.

999 times out of 1000 it will work

This assumes 999 out of 1000 people will voluntarily pay 'taxes'. Rubbish.

[Riverwind]

Chances are they will receive an adequate amount in voluntary funds. Not necessarily from everyone--People shouldn't care who does and doesn't contribute. Plus in most cases the donations will be anonymous, so they won't know.

The point is people do care about whether neighbors are contributing because nobody likes be shafted by their neighbors. For that reason, it will be impossible to be anonymous since someone has to collect the money and they will not be under any obligation to keep that information secret if other people ask.

#1 of your scenario is out of the picture because it is a use of force and against people's rights.

People will eventually get to the point where they don't give a damn anymore. Furthermore, people won't forget that a system of 'compulsory taxation' has worked reasonably well for thousands of years so there will always be pressure to go back to that system. That last point is very important: the system works ok right now and the vast majority of people may not like taxes but they can live with the system. Can you make a pragmatic argument for Libertarianism - i.e. an argument that explains why everyone (rich, middle class and poor) will end up with a better life in that kind of system? I can see why the rich would love the system but that kind of change will never happen unless the system could deliver tangible benefits to the middle class and poor as well.

#2, however, is more likely, given human nature for selfishness. And if this is the case, then obviously they care more about their neighbour's business than the road being fixed.

The entire Libertarian philosophy is based on the premise that an individual owes nothing to society. People who believe in this idea will find excuses not to contribute no matter what incentives are put in place. This means that it will be next to impossible to fund public services in such as society because everybody will be trying to screw their neighbors by contributing the minimum amount possible.

999 times out of 1000 it will work.

You would be lucky if it would work 1 out of 1000 times. There are simply too many essential services in our society that provide benefits to every whether they contribute or not. For example, police and military services can only practically serve a contiguous geographic area. Whenever you have that situation the only practical form of funding is taxation.

[geoffrey]

Freeloaders exist in our regulated society already. Having people voluntarily pay for something when they don't have to is ridiculous. I'd never pay taxes if I didn't have to. I sure don't donate extra money to the government.

I'm fundamentally rather Libertarian, but I believe too much in both law and order (something I find Libertarians inherently dislike), social values and reasonable levels of state spending (military, infrastructure, ect.).

Who would pay for fire services? Police? Are you ok with having an opt-in police force?

You may argue that ok, people could CHOOSE to not pay for fire services. Ok great. Until their house catches fire, and burns down much of the neighbourhood. That is an essiential issue in the social darwinism aspects of the industrial revolution. We began to realise that co-operation on certain issues is certainly beneficial to society as a whole... like fire supression.

Issues are inter-related amongst individuals, no man is an island. And that's what Libertarism implies, that your choices don't affect my life. But they do. Hence why we need the social contract and with that comes taxes that pay for programs that benefit the common good.

You already live in a very liberal world. Chances are if you don't like how your taxes are spent, you could go elsewhere and find a country somewhere out there that has your division of money and amount of taxation.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more neo-liberal society, but most certainly not a libertarian environment.

[margrace]

It is all well and good on a small city street but what about our road, in the winter our township has a population of about 600 people. There are hundreds of miles of road, there are people living many miles from the schools so the snow ploughs must be out every snowy morning starting about 2AM.

In the summer we have an influx of tourists and cottagers. Or population goes up by 2,000 people. These people own properties worth many thousands more that the regular inhabitants homes. In fact the value of cottage properties in our area starts at around $150, 000 and our house is worth around $85,000.

So how do you justify the non tax situation to pay for these roads.

[ClearWest]

It is all well and good on a small city street but what about our road, in the winter our township has a population of about 600 people. There are hundreds of miles of road, there are people living many miles from the schools so the snow ploughs must be out every snowy morning starting about 2AM.

In the summer we have an influx of tourists and cottagers. Or population goes up by 2,000 people. These people own properties worth many thousands more that the regular inhabitants homes. In fact the value of cottage properties in our area starts at around $150, 000 and our house is worth around $85,000.

So how do you justify the non tax situation to pay for these roads.

I see a few different 'non-force' solutions to this dilemma. My favourite being the last one:

1) This situation could run on voluntary cooperation--All 600 unanimously sign on to collectively pay for the road. Thus you have socialism, but it is with everyone's approval. Rare but possible. Then everyone who moves into the neighbourhood in the future will be asked to sign on to this program. (I don't like this option)

2) OR, all 600 unanimously sign on to privatize the road, placing the burden of maintainance onto a company which values its customers. Then they just need to either a) pay a toll each time they use the road or pay a yearly flat rate for using the road (thus being quite similar to the collective payment that I mentioned previously).

Hopefully in the future we wouldn't have this problem, because right now everything is owned collectively. Roads, hospitals, schools, post offices. So it would be a given that roads are privatized in the future, and people would be aware of this when they move into the neighbourhood. And they will sign on to use the road when they buy their house.

3) Both of the above are possible--however, I think the better option would be for a group to voluntarily plough the road, funded through voluntary pledges. If this could work (which I believe it would) then it would be an awesome display of human charity. People aren't selfish pigs as some think they are. The Red Cross runs on voluntary funds, as well as hundreds of charities and churches, as well as nearly all private industries. So can a snow plougher.

Of course, the cottagers who live there in the summer should not be forced to pay for snowploughing which they never see the direct benefit of. However, the group running the charity can contact them and politely ask them if they would like to contribute. (And it will, in the long term, indirectly be for their benefit because it means the long term survival of their road. Anyone who realizes that will be compassionate toward the cause). You can benefit yourself while still benefitting others. And vice versa.

Thanks for your comments, margrace.

[ClearWest]

Geoffrey,

Freeloaders exist in our regulated society already. Having people voluntarily pay for something when they don't have to is ridiculous. I'd never pay taxes if I didn't have to. I sure don't donate extra money to the government.

If not out of the goodness of their own hearts, people will see the benefit of serving others because it will serve themselves in the end. Corporations know this principle well. Keep the customer happy, and they'll keep shopping with you. It's a similar principle. Keep donating to the road, not because you care about the other people on it necessarily, but because you would like to see the longterm benefits yourself. In other words, selfish people may see short term benefits, but their longterm downfall will be great. Everyone who works in the customer service industry (as I do) knows this principle well. You go all out for the customer, not because you have to, but because it will make them happy, and hopefully in the longterm they will return to do more business with you.

I'm fundamentally rather Libertarian, but I believe too much in both law and order (something I find Libertarians inherently dislike), social values and reasonable levels of state spending (military, infrastructure, ect.).

The problem is that people all have different social values, and different ideas of what is reasonable state spending. In Libertarianism, everyone can live by their own social values (so long as they don't interfere with others), and they will manage their own money, so government spending will not be an issue. It's the best way for everyone to be happy.

Who would pay for fire services? Police? Are you ok with having an opt-in police force?

You may argue that ok, people could CHOOSE to not pay for fire services. Ok great. Until their house catches fire, and burns down much of the neighbourhood. That is an essiential issue in the social darwinism aspects of the industrial revolution. We began to realise that co-operation on certain issues is certainly beneficial to society as a whole... like fire supression.

Privatized fire-fighting has been done before. Everyone who wants fire protection pays for the service. Just like house insurance. People who want their house insured can pay for the service.

Issues are inter-related amongst individuals, no man is an island. And that's what Libertarism implies, that your choices don't affect my life. But they do. Hence why we need the social contract and with that comes taxes that pay for programs that benefit the common good.

I would disagree there. Most of my personal choices do not affect your life. In fact I can't think of any that do.

You already live in a very liberal world. Chances are if you don't like how your taxes are spent, you could go elsewhere and find a country somewhere out there that has your division of money and amount of taxation.

There are none--none that share my culture and language at least. That's why I'm working within the system to change the system. So that I can live my culture, speak my language, and still have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. All at the same time.

When you said we live in a liberal world, I assume you're referring to social issues such as drugs and alcohol and marriage. In one sense these things are becoming accepted, but that's not necessarily what I want, because government is still involved in every one of these issues! They have to have their hands in everything. In British Columbia we have what is called the Liquor Distribution Branch, who are the only group that can legally manufacture, import, export, trade, buy, and sell liquor in British Columbia. You might say that Liquor is an acceptable thing in our society, but we still have to go through the government to get it. I expect they would do the same thing with marijuana and any other currently illegal substance. That's why I do not like the NDP's (for example) solution to social problems.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more neo-liberal society, but most certainly not a libertarian environment.

Many Libertarians are Miniarchists, which I think you would find yourself more able to relate to. They still want a government, just a very very small one. And I suppose on my more moderate days I would also support this. If a Libertarian was ever elected to the house of commons, they would most likely support bills which took us to a miniarchy rather than an anarchy--which is an idea which most of you are, understandably, uncomfortable with.

[ClearWest]

People will eventually get to the point where they don't give a damn anymore. Furthermore, people won't forget that a system of 'compulsory taxation' has worked reasonably well for thousands of years so there will always be pressure to go back to that system. That last point is very important: the system works ok right now and the vast majority of people may not like taxes but they can live with the system. Can you make a pragmatic argument for Libertarianism - i.e. an argument that explains why everyone (rich, middle class and poor) will end up with a better life in that kind of system? I can see why the rich would love the system but that kind of change will never happen unless the system could deliver tangible benefits to the middle class and poor as well.

I would dispute the fact that the socialist system has worked very well. It is a system that has resulted in billions of dollars of lost taxpayer money, increased wait times in health care, economic crumbling, and more extreme forms of corrupt government.

And yes I think everyone can and will benefit from Libertarianism. Under socialism people are more equal, yes, but more poor. In a free market, everyone can become richer. The poor in a free market country are generally better off than the poor in a socialist country! Compare the USA to the socialist scandinavian countries. (There was an interesting thread on this long ago that I found in the archives)

Take the African country of Kenya. The people there are in poverty because their government won't give them the right to property. We send them billion dollars in foregin aide (the socialist solution to their poverty) and yet they are still in poverty. What they need is a free market solution so that they can climb out of poverty. In order to open a business in Kenya right now you might have to get licenses from 20 ministries, and bribe government officials. It might take years. And even then the government can still shut you down. In a free market it wouldn't be this way, and the poor would be allowed to be rich. When you can trade, borrow, lend, everyone will be making deals that both parties benefit from. That's capitalism in action, and it works. For everyone. There's plenty of money out there.

The entire Libertarian philosophy is based on the premise that an individual owes nothing to society. People who believe in this idea will find excuses not to contribute no matter what incentives are put in place. This means that it will be next to impossible to fund public services in such as society because everybody will be trying to screw their neighbors by contributing the minimum amount possible.

The Libertarian philosophy is based on individuals finding their own societal values. Not necessarily none at all. Everybody has different value systems, so how can we claim that there is any one responsibility to society that everyone must have?

Everyone won't be 'trying to screw their neighbour'. Just because you are out for your own benefit, doesn't mean that you're out for the downfall of everyone else. I think most people will find that happiness comes when everyone around you is happy too. I've said it before, Selfishness is ultimately a stupid economic mindset, because it rewards you with short-term benefits, but deprives you of longterm ones.

You would be lucky if it would work 1 out of 1000 times. There are simply too many essential services in our society that provide benefits to every whether they contribute or not. For example, police and military services can only practically serve a contiguous geographic area. Whenever you have that situation the only practical form of funding is taxation.

I would love to see a world where no military is needed. That looks like a pipedream at the moment, but I think that in the mean time, we can have a small military, or even a voluntary militia. As for police, we can have private security guards. And also, instead of patrolmen, we can have a neighbourhood watch--afterall in Libertarianism, people will be allowed to defend themselves, rather than relying on big brother to protect them.

[ClearWest]

So, whenever a concerned citizen sees that the road may be in need of repair, he can contact his neighbours and ask them to contribute to the "Fix the Road" fund.

Whoa. Whoa Whoa.

Road repair is far down the line in the argument. Easement rights allocations supercede 'collectivist community' project notions.

Not to mention that the fact that 'collectivist community projects' are inherently 'communist' in theory, and therefore are the diametrical opposite of what you propose as the best system.

I oppose forced removal of ones property. I do not oppose people working together for a common purpose. So long as they never take away someone else's life, liberty, or property. I don't think any of these have been violated in my proposed solution. People will be voluntarily giving their property (money) to help pay for the road. And the road is collectively owned already.

About the Easement law, I agree--It would be much easier if one person owned the land, but just allowed everyone to use it. Problem solved. That one owner can be the one advocating pledge donations to the upkeep of the road. If it doesn't work that way, that one person can put up a tollbooth.

999 times out of 1000 it will work

This assumes 999 out of 1000 people will voluntarily pay 'taxes'. Rubbish.

No, it assumes that 999 times out of 1000, enough money will be contributed to take care of the road. Is that so hard to imagine? In BC, citizens voluntarily give more charity than most everywhere else in the world.

[Pliny]

Although I consider myself Libertarian I am not, as some Libertarians claim to be, an anarchist.

Men tend to organize to accomplish what they cannot accomplish themselves.

In a road building problem such as suggested by margrace he/she likes the concept of having the road built, maintained and snow-ploughed, through her/his taxes by government. Everything is taken care of as regards the road and she/he can enjoy putting her attention on other problems. I don't know if he/she is entirely happy with the maintenance and the snow-ploughing provided by government through his/her taxes but I'm sure it is adequate because he/she fully supports it.

I suppose that if the demand were there and the poeple had enough vitality and innovation and entrepreneurial skills to satisfy the demand they would do it. Perhaps it would involve pooling resources and organizing and a drive to achieve the objective but it would get done.

The way social-problems are solved today is to form an interest group and lobby for an allocation of funds from some level of government or else nothing gets accomplished.

So I understand margraces point of view. Sort of an apathetic, government is the only entity that can accomplish the resolution of social problems and special interests that whine and yell and scream loud enough will get them to do something maybe half-constructive with our pile of pooled resources.

[margrace]

It is all well and good on a small city street but what about our road, in the winter our township has a population of about 600 people. There are hundreds of miles of road, there are people living many miles from the schools so the snow ploughs must be out every snowy morning starting about 2AM.

In the summer we have an influx of tourists and cottagers. Or population goes up by 2,000 people. These people own properties worth many thousands more that the regular inhabitants homes. In fact the value of cottage properties in our area starts at around $150, 000 and our house is worth around $85,000.

So how do you justify the non tax situation to pay for these roads.

I see a few different 'non-force' solutions to this dilemma. My favourite being the last one:

1) This situation could run on voluntary cooperation--All 600 unanimously sign on to collectively pay for the road. Thus you have socialism, but it is with everyone's approval. Rare but possible. Then everyone who moves into the neighbourhood in the future will be asked to sign on to this program. (I don't like this option)

2) OR, all 600 unanimously sign on to privatize the road, placing the burden of maintainance onto a company which values its customers. Then they just need to either a) pay a toll each time they use the road or pay a yearly flat rate for using the road (thus being quite similar to the collective payment that I mentioned previously).

Hopefully in the future we wouldn't have this problem, because right now everything is owned collectively. Roads, hospitals, schools, post offices. So it would be a given that roads are privatized in the future, and people would be aware of this when they move into the neighbourhood. And they will sign on to use the road when they buy their house.

3) Both of the above are possible--however, I think the better option would be for a group to voluntarily plough the road, funded through voluntary pledges. If this could work (which I believe it would) then it would be an awesome display of human charity. People aren't selfish pigs as some think they are. The Red Cross runs on voluntary funds, as well as hundreds of charities and churches, as well as nearly all private industries. So can a snow plougher.

Of course, the cottagers who live there in the summer should not be forced to pay for snowploughing which they never see the direct benefit of. However, the group running the charity can contact them and politely ask them if they would like to contribute. (And it will, in the long term, indirectly be for their benefit because it means the long term survival of their road. Anyone who realizes that will be compassionate toward the cause). You can benefit yourself while still benefitting others. And vice versa.

Thanks for your comments, margrace.

In the 1860's, property owners owned the road in front of their property, so if I hit one of their cows on their road I was liable for the cow. Then it moved on and I was responisible for a weeks work on the toads each year. The roads were mud based and impassible in the winter and in rainy weather. I don't think it would work very well today since our roads generally require a lot of maintenance in the spring and some of them still become impassible.

[Renegade]

The problems with Libertarianism are caused by the presumption that the individual is always right and society or the group should never impose its will on the minority even if that individual refuses to contribute to projects which that individual benefits from. For example, consider 10 property owners that share a single roadway used to access their property. Assume this roadway regularily requires funds to pay for its repair. In an ideal world each property owner would volunteer to contribute to the repairs. In the real world, one or two property owners may decide that they don't need to contribute because they believe the other property owners will pay for it even if they don't contribute. The non-contributing property owners might likely get away with this position a few times, however, they will eventually find that either:

1) the contributing property owners will start to 'coherse' the non-contributing owners in some way;

2) the contributing property owners will stop contributing as well and the road would become unuseable over time.

In other words, Libertarianism is not a stable form of social organization and will result in either a complete social collapse because everyone refuses to fund collective projects or a return to the system of compulsary contributions (i.e. taxes) that we have today.

Riverwind, no system is completely implementable without practical consideration. This is true of capitalism, commumism, and is also true of Libertarianism. In the situation you have described, Libertarianism needs to be adapted to the circumstances. I would be fine with either forced taxation to support the road assuming all the owners benefited. I would also be fine with a toll system if it were practical.

This is very different from the situation as we have it today. Today, the people who pay for the road are the ones who have the income. These are not necessarily the same ones who benefit from the road.

IMV practical Libertarianism means government should restricted to only those services which are necesssary and cannot be supplied privately. In addition, the services should be funded by taxing those who beneift to the extent of the beneift. Of course in some cases it also means providing a measurement system of the beneift.

[Renegade]

It is all well and good on a small city street but what about our road, in the winter our township has a population of about 600 people. There are hundreds of miles of road, there are people living many miles from the schools so the snow ploughs must be out every snowy morning starting about 2AM.

In the summer we have an influx of tourists and cottagers. Or population goes up by 2,000 people. These people own properties worth many thousands more that the regular inhabitants homes. In fact the value of cottage properties in our area starts at around $150, 000 and our house is worth around $85,000.

So how do you justify the non tax situation to pay for these roads.

I would be fine with taxation to support the roads. Perhaps the year-round residents should be paying a higher share then the tourists or cottagers, afterall they benefit more as they used the roads year-round and the cottagers and tourist only use it part of the year.

[August1991]

If you have any other examples of how voluntary exchanges must be replaced with force, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood come quickly to mind.

The judicial system including property and contract law is also one that requires forced (obligatory) membership.

Many insurance schemes including health, welfare, pension and even auto work probably better with forced membership.

We could argue the merits of voluntary or involuntary relations in the cases above. At heart, the discussion would concern why someone would freely commit themselves now to an involuntary relationship in the future. (A question Paul McCartney is no doubt asking himself at this very moment.)

I watched part of the flash presentation linked above and I found it to be too self-engaged. Like religious fanatics, it pretends to have an answer for everything. I think it is better to be pragmatic when discussing social organization.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree, August. This idea seems as naive as Communism, where everybody works hard out of the goodness of their heart and shares equally in the bounty society gives them.

Human nature shows that people are a mix of bad and good attributes.

ClearWest:

I would dispute the fact that the socialist system has worked very well. It is a system that has resulted in billions of dollars of lost taxpayer money, increased wait times in health care, economic crumbling, and more extreme forms of corrupt government.

"Worked well" is a subjective statement. It's a system that's designed to be imperfect because that's the cheapest and most practical way to administer it. You look at a system that admittedly has flaws and declare that it needs to be completely destroyed.

In fact, the amount of time and money people would have to spend on managing these things would probably be more than we pay in taxes now, even with the waste in the system. Would you expect volunteers to manage and direct everything that government does now ?

What about corporations ? They exist in a very unnatural way - unattached to any individual, limited in their responsibility. Doesn't that special status give them an advantage over normal citizens ?

[Pliny]

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector. And no, volunteers would not do what government does now.

If you are working from the actual definition of socialism which is, "the attainment of the totalitarian state through evolutionary means", you can observe that process occurring.

If you think democracy a protective mechanism against socialistic advances you would be mistaken. Once the public coffers are opened to public vote the advancement of socialism is guaranteed.

Many Canadians don't see Canada as being socialistic. "We don't have an NDP government and we still have democracy." If you look over history you see a definite trend and it isn't towards smaller government.

I will let Clearwest answer the examples of "how voluntary exchange must be replaced with force.

I would only add that a differentiation must be made between mutual consent and agreement as opposed to force.

It is true Micheal, corporations exist in an unnatural way, they are given privilege or "special status" as you call it, by the state.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Pliny,

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector.

Not all, I'm afraid. At the administration level, I'll agree. As to the passing of laws and allocation of individual rights, it should never be in the hands of someone with more self-interest than interest in the group.

Many Canadians don't see Canada as being socialistic.

Not sure about whom you are talking, for everyone I know harbours no such illusions.

[geoffrey]

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector. And no, volunteers would not do what government does now.

Right, I forgot the successful past of private police? Private military? Private national/provincial parks? Private fire departments?

Let's be realistic, the government has a place.

[August1991]

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector. And no, volunteers would not do what government does now.

That's nonsense. I'll add traffic lights and street lights to Geoff's list.

If you think democracy a protective mechanism against socialistic advances you would be mistaken. Once the public coffers are opened to public vote the advancement of socialism is guaranteed.

Government is like fire. Dangerous but useful. It requires safeguards.

It is true Micheal, corporations exist in an unnatural way, they are given privilege or "special status" as you call it, by the state.

Two people form a partnership to work together, bake pies and sell them. Their internal relationship is not market-driven, it is an implicit, long-term contract. Corporations are in practice no different from this hypothetical partnership.

----

People like to work together (co-operate) because they can achieve more. They seek different ways to do this including market relations, marriage (family), corporations and government.

[Riverwind]

If you think democracy a protective mechanism against socialistic advances you would be mistaken. Once the public coffers are opened to public vote the advancement of socialism is guaranteed.

Your point illustrates why a discussion of Libertarianism is an interesting academic exercise but it will never be more than an abstract discussion. Democracy is the root of all social decision making in this country and that will/should never change. If the 'masses' want their socialist values reflected in the gov't then there is nothing your or I could do about it.