Libertarianism means nothing.

[Renegade]

I'm sorry, I thought we had already found that that formula doesn't take us anywhere.

That is, it seemed no-one was able to provide an outline of how the formula allows a decisionmaker to choose between alternatives in any what that is distinctly Libertarian as opposed to, on the one hand classical liberalism, or on the other hand situational self-interest.

Actually it is pretty clear to me how libertarian principles steer a dicsionmaker, so I don't understand why you are having difficulty with it.

Perhaps if you give a specific example of the kind of situation a decisionmaker would be faced with, in which liberterarian principles does not provide guidance, we can take it from there.

[Figleaf]

Well, here is a list of the questions I've possed on this thread which have so far not been satisfactorily answered. Pick any you like to start with...

Post 1:

What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough [government]? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

Post 7:

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

Post 11:

Why limit gov. to only protection from force and fraud? How are they to be defined?

Post 16:

Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

Post 29

How do you determine where 'protecting' someone's property becomes 'interference' with someone else's property?

... Would you want to eliminate road maintenance? Why or why not? How about government archives? Why or why not? Search and rescue? Forest fire suppression? Legal tender? Anti-money-laundering efforts? Public parks?

[ClearWest]

What makes sense: How do Conservatives determine what is an appropriate role of government? They cut funding and taxes, yet they increase restrictions on people if it means greater safety or morality. How do Liberals and New Democrats determine what is an appropriate role of government? They reduce restrictions on people at a personal level, but increase imposition upon their bank accounts and what they can do with their property. Do either of these make sense? Both ideologies reward the well-connected in their own way. Libertarianism would reward every individual by allowing them their life, liberty, and property - something which governments have impeded upon for many many years.

Post 1:

What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough [government]? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

Government is limited to the point where it cannot interfere with liberty, but merely protect it. (I know your rebuttle to this is already below, so see my answer to post #29)

Classic Liberalism did advocate liberty the way Libertarianism does today. However, if Liberalism now involves waving a red flag and voting for Paul Martin, then Liberalism has changed.

Post 7:

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

I think the same answer above works for this one.

Post 11:

Why limit gov. to only protection from force and fraud? How are they to be defined?

Those are the crimes that directly involve victims, and as such, are the ones that should be prosecuted. Since a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, then if gov't is to exist then its only legitimate role is to oversee the use of force in a given geographical area and enforce laws. It should do this rarely and sparingly if at all - only if voluntary means of settling disputes fail.

Post 16:

Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

In principle, basically everything that government does now - it can be done by voluntary means. In practice, voluntary means will fail. Some think that in those situations, government should step in. Again, gov't has the monopoly on the legal use of force - that's a powerful tool. But any tool can become a weapon when used incorrectly. It's a weapon today, and it's hurting many people. It has been for centuries.

Can it be useful though? Can it work as a tool to do good? I say yes, if the power is used sparingly. Others would disagree with me, and I would hear them out, but so far I still have hope in minimal usage of gov't force. Still, my main point is that its usage must be decreased! We're flinging a sword around - and more people are going to get hurt.

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

Protecting common interests from devastation. Are you referring to propping up businesses that are going under? Or something to that effect? Please clarify if that's what you mean or if you had something else in mind.

Post 29

How do you determine where 'protecting' someone's property becomes 'interference' with someone else's property?

If one person takes another person's property they have violated the right to property. In an effort to protect that right, the gov't can interfere and restore the property back to the rightful owner.

... Would you want to eliminate road maintenance? Why or why not? How about government archives? Why or why not? Search and rescue? Forest fire suppression? Legal tender? Anti-money-laundering efforts? Public parks?

I can't think of anything to add here, but I stand by my prior answer in that I am more interested in the actual reduction of gov't. We can cut costs depending upon what is most wasteful/unnecessary.

[August1991]

Figleaf, I have the impression that you are either trolling or else genuinely curious to understand why Libertarians are against government. I'll assume the latter.

Earlier I defined the concept of common interests as being an interest held by each of multiple individuals. Unless there's bad faith, in the example of a contract, each party has an interest in the contract -- thus there's a common interest.

Don't mistake what you call a "common interest" to what in effect is the individual interest of the two parties to the contract. Each benefits, and they probably benefit in different amounts.

In a "good" society, we would like those individual benefits to be as large as possible. I use the word "good" (in a moral sense) because I think we can all agree that if a beneficial trade doesn't occur, that's probably good for no one.

This provides an inkling of what government should do. It should assist individuals to make good trades or sign mutually beneficial contracts.

As to taxes, if collective purchasing in a given thing is cheaper, why not obtain it that way?

That's to view the problem of society as shopping at Costco. Buy in bulk.

There are some things that are more cheaply produced by a single large producer rather than having several. For example, most networks such as a city's water supply. It would make little sense to have two water suppliers with two piping systems in a city. OTOH, the Soviet Union is graphic evidence that bigger is not always cheaper, despite what the engineers say. Big organizations with many people are hard to manage.

What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough [government]? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

This seems like a key question to you: what are the limits to government?

Let me pose that question in a different way: do you have someone in your own family cut your hair or do you go to a hair salon? Or, how do you decide when to eat a meal prepared at home by someone in your family and when to go to a restaurant?

In some cases, you use "family" to obtain something and in other cases, you use the "market" to obtain something. Is it possible to generalize about this choice? That is, is it possible to establish a general rule to explain why individuals obtain some things through family but other things through markets?

For example, most individuals finance a car purchase through markets but they finance their education through family.

And that leads to government. Government is an institution that performs a similar role to a market or a family: it allows people to contract.

So, your question about the limit of government, in my mind, is similar to whether it's better to let your brother cut your hair or go to a hair salon? In general, I'd use government as a last resort. If I lived in a small town of blind people, I'd probably ask my brother to cut my hair. Choice is a good thing and governments, like family, rarely offer much choice.

----

In general, Libertarians believe that society should allow individuals to be free to contract. All relations should be voluntary.

A good riposte to a Libertarian is to ask about a marriage contract.

If two people freely marry, and then one spouse wins a lottery or receives a promotion, should the winnings/earnings be shared? What if the two people are already divorced but have common children? IOW, a marriage contract is a long term contract with many terms not specified. When two people marry, they make a commitment to be possibly coerced in the future depending on unknown future circumstances.

So, ask a Libertarian why individuals get married and accept the possible future coercion of paying alimony.

We have institutions such as marriage (and government) because as individuals, we'd be worse off without them.

[August1991]

Since a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, then if gov't is to exist then its only legitimate role is to oversee the use of force in a given geographical area and enforce laws. It should do this rarely and sparingly if at all - only if voluntary means of settling disputes fail.

ClearWest, you repeat this several times that "government has a monopoly on the legal use of force". That's false, and it also misrepresents what government is.

A shopkeeper can close a door and stop you from entering the shop. Is that "force"?

If you don't make your car payments, the lessor or bank will seize your car. Is that "force"?

If you don't make your car payments, you'll get a bad credit rating and the shopkeeper will refuse your credit card. Is that "force"?

IOW, many private contracts are enforced through private means.

I think what you mean is that "government has a monopoly on the legal use of physical force". But even that's false because parents can slap a child and private hospital orderlies use physical force to restrain patients.

If I sought a definition of government, I would describe it as an institution with the power to seize anything from anybody within its jurisdiction in order to transfer it to anyone else. In simple terms, government can transfer money from your bank account and put it into mine.

Government is a useful institution for a civilized society but like fire, it may be useful but it's also dangerous.

[ClearWest]

ClearWest, you repeat this several times that "government has a monopoly on the legal use of force". That's false, and it also misrepresents what government is.

A shopkeeper can close a door and stop you from entering the shop. Is that "force"?

If you don't make your car payments, the lessor or bank will seize your car. Is that "force"?

If you don't make your car payments, you'll get a bad credit rating and the shopkeeper will refuse your credit card. Is that "force"?

My answer is no, I don't think those kinds of 'force' are the same as the kind that gov'ts are empowered with. In the last two examples, someone failed to uphold their part of the deal, so the deal was cancelled and the benefits revoked. In the first example, that isn't force because the shop belongs to the shopkeeper and he has the right to stop offering his service if he so chooses. He had no legal obligation to allow that person to enter his shop.

IOW, many private contracts are enforced through private means.

As they should be. However, private parties do not have the legal right to take what does not belong to them. Which brings us to your definition... Incidentally, I do not disagree with your definition. However, I chose to make my definition more broad (actually, to adopt a more broad definition - I didn't invent it myself) because gov'ts do more than seize and transfer. The best word that I can think of to describe it in simple terms (as non-specific as it is) is 'force'. They sit in parliament and pen down legislation, forcing people to comply to their terms. Yes, in many cases that involves transferring property from one person to another - it can also involve sending people overseas to fight a war (conscription), disregarding the liberty of the person sent and the lives of both the soldier and all others involved in conflict.

Anyways, I hope we can find a better definition. 'Til then...

[Charles Anthony]

So, ask a Libertarian why individuals get married and accept the possible future coercion of paying alimony.

They do so for sex, trophies, bragging rights and maybe to have children -- children who can take care of their old parents -- if their parents deserve it. Some people also fall in love.

Some riposte. You forget that people are not perfect. Do you deny people the right to make their own mistakes?

Ask a non-Libertarian why individuals have unprotected and promiscuous sex with people whose sexual background they do not know. People do not need a special Department of Itchy Reminders branch of the government.

[Figleaf]

Earlier I defined the concept of common interests as being an interest held by each of multiple individuals. Unless there's bad faith, in the example of a contract, each party has an interest in the contract -- thus there's a common interest.

Don't mistake what you call a "common interest" to what in effect is the individual interest of the two parties to the contract. Each benefits, and they probably benefit in different amounts.

Each has an interest in the existence and completion of the contract. This is common to each of them.

In a "good" society, we would like those individual benefits [from the contract] to be as large as possible. I use the word "good" (in a moral sense) because I think we can all agree that if a beneficial trade doesn't occur, that's probably good for no one.

This provides an inkling of what government should do. It should assist individuals to make good trades or sign mutually beneficial contracts.

Well, that makes sense, but is it the Libertarian position, or August1991's position?

There are some things that are more cheaply produced by a single large producer rather than having several. For example, most networks such as a city's water supply. It would make little sense to have two water suppliers with two piping systems in a city. OTOH, the Soviet Union is graphic evidence that bigger is not always cheaper, despite what the engineers say. Big organizations with many people are hard to manage.

Correct. Different economic decisions should arise depending on the environment, technology, etc. But again, how much collectivism would Libertarianism accept for efficiency-sake (in proper circumstances) and how does it decide that?

What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough [government]? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

This seems like a key question to you: what are the limits to government?

My key question is what, if anything, are the core mechanics of Libertarianism as a supposedly applicable political philosophy?

[Figleaf]

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

I think the same answer above works for this one.

You didn't answer the question. Please give it a go.

Since a government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, then if gov't is to exist then its only legitimate role is to oversee the use of force in a given geographical area and enforce laws.

I don't follow... just because government has the 'monopoly' on legal use of force, why should it then confine its activities only to those relating to force?

... In practice, voluntary means will fail. Some think that in those situations, government should step in. Again, gov't has the monopoly on the legal use of force - that's a powerful tool. But any tool can become a weapon when used incorrectly. It's a weapon today, and it's hurting many people. It has been for centuries.

Can it be useful though? Can it work as a tool to do good? I say yes, if the power is used sparingly. Others would disagree with me, and I would hear them out, but so far I still have hope in minimal usage of gov't force. Still, my main point is that its usage must be decreased! We're flinging a sword around - and more people are going to get hurt.

But still, you reveal no means by which governments might choose according to Libertarian philosophy, which uses to put itself to.

How do you determine where 'protecting' someone's property becomes 'interference' with someone else's property?

If one person takes another person's property they have violated the right to property. In an effort to protect that right, the gov't can interfere and restore the property back to the rightful owner.

You're giving an example of a determination, not an explanation of how you make the determination. What about other situations ... I burn grass on my lawn and your afternoon hammock snooze is ruined.

Also, your example opens another question: Who say's whose property is whose and how do they decide that?

... Would you want to eliminate road maintenance? Why or why not? How about government archives? Why or why not? Search and rescue? Forest fire suppression? Legal tender? Anti-money-laundering efforts? Public parks?

I can't think of anything to add here, but I stand by my prior answer in that I am more interested in the actual reduction of gov't. We can cut costs depending upon what is most wasteful/unnecessary.

You could add the key item I'm seeking -- address: "Why or why not?"

[DarkAngel_]

in my opinion, libertarianism is a fancy more conservative way of controlling government... its liberal and conservative i guess?

i think every action of the government, that may be 'world changing' should be decided by the people, not representatives of the people with hidden agenda's and deviousness. (as in methods of deception to get vote’s) :angry:

[Figleaf]

in my opinion, libertarianism is a fancy more conservative way of controlling government...

DarkAngel, you may be right. If there is no coherence to how or why libertarians want to shrink government, then it really does just boil down to a way of framing pedestrian individual beefs in the guise of a political philosophy.

[DarkAngel_]

DarkAngel, you may be right.

really? i mean to be honest i was just shouting out words... i mean just look at how much i wrote compared to these other postes... i feel small!!

i just wish i had a part in saying for us to add science and world benifit into the US spending soup!

no luck there to say the least...

[Renegade]

If there is no coherence to how or why libertarians want to shrink government, then it really does just boil down to a way of framing pedestrian individual beefs in the guise of a political philosophy.

Figleaf, it would seem that that your mind was made up well before you ever posted the question.

If you look at other political philosophies you will see that they too do not provide specific guidance on what or what government shoudl undertake, they simply provide a mindset from which those decisions are made.

BTW, what philosophy do you ascribe to that does provide this coherence you seek?

[ClearWest]

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

How does a socialist determine what is enough and too little government?

What matters to me is not the exact line that we draw in the sand. We have lived under socialist governments for a long time, each one increasing their own power and jurisdiction. From observing this, and comparing it to historical events (we have plenty of examples of the negative effects of fascism, socialism, and light versions of the two), I conclude that we are going in the wrong direction. It is time we start thinking about reducing rather than increasing the scope of government.

Every year it's another wasteful program, another harmful policy, or another imperialistic military conquest. That's why I'm a libertarian, because I find that these things are producing a negative effect and preventing people from getting the things that they need, pursuing their own goals and dreams, and living peacefully.

-

What makes sense to you? You've already said Social Conservatism doesn't make sense to you. Does socialism make sense? Lenin's NEP doesn't make sense to most communists. What level of government would please them? I don't think you can count any ideology as drawing the line. Over the years the line changes. Alcohol is sold and regulated by the government (at least in my province), I predict that marijuana will be in the same boat in the near future. Are the leftists 'drawing a line' as to where they will stop?

You know, I'm enjoying this discussion, but I think the questions that should be asked should not relate to 'how much and how little, what program and why', because different libertarians have different views on that. It makes me wonder if any political party or ideology would pass your test of making sense or 'meaning something'. Honestly, would any of them?

[Figleaf]

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

How does a socialist determine what is enough and too little government?

The topic here is libertarianism, not socialism.

Libertarianism, not socialism, proposes that limiting the level of government is a matter of key importance.

What matters to me is not the exact line that we draw in the sand.

Whether it matters to you or not, how you draw that line is the whole original point of this thread.

You know, I'm enjoying this discussion, but I think the questions that should be asked should not relate to 'how much and how little, what program and why', because different libertarians have different views on that.

But that's my very point. Libertarians have different views on that because there is no central coherence to the 'philosophy' of libertarianism. It's simply griping dressed up with a fancy name.

[ClearWest]

You know, I'm enjoying this discussion, but I think the questions that should be asked should not relate to 'how much and how little, what program and why', because different libertarians have different views on that.

But that's my very point. Libertarians have different views on that because there is no central coherence to the 'philosophy' of libertarianism. It's simply griping dressed up with a fancy name.

I disagree. Conservatives may sound like they're 'griping' when they say society's morals are going to the dogs. Leftists may sound like they're 'griping' when they say the war in afghanistan is going to the dogs. Libertarians suggest that big government is producing a less than positive result - it isn't griping, it's legitimate opinion, and a legitimate want for change in policy.

All the other parties have internal differences of opinion on certain issues - I don't think that constitues a weakness. It's a healthy thing if people are thinking differently - you might even say that that's what Libertarianism is all about.