Libertarianism means nothing.

[Figleaf]

I see where your going, but once again their are too many different schools of thought in the libertarian camp with regards to how government should intervene in an individual's life.

All I can really answer is that government should provide a bare minimum to the country, however emergency services, military, and a judiciary, must all be maintained in order to protect individual rights.

During a crisis I'd imagine a government can intervene. However the rules governing a country can vary greatly depending on whether or not their is a crisis, war, emergency, etc.

In all ideologies their will be question's as to what the role of the government is for the individual. Libertarianism tend's to be socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

Thanks for your answer. I'm not sure if you are trying to dispute my contention about the paucity of content in libertarianism or if you are simply contributing information. Ultimately, based on the responses tendered so far, I'm more convinced of my stance than ever.

[Figleaf]

Figleaf, if you want to understand the Libertarian perspective, you should first understand - as Margaret Thatcher once said - there is no such thing as "society" or the "collective".

That just sounds like doublespeak. Thatcher lead the government of a major state ... did she think that was a mere fiction?

What "common" interests do you mean?

Interests which multiple individuals each hold.

In the Libertarian scheme of things, there are only individuals who ideally should be each free to pursue their own interests.

Answering a challenge to libertarian nostrums merely by referencing those nostrums is insufficient as an answer.

IOW, libertarianism is a 19th century debate but we live in the 21st century. We understand better now the complexity of collective decisions based on individual choice, just as Einstein gave us the insight of relativity.

Yes, I think that's sort of what I am getting at. Aptly said.

[ClearWest]

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

I think a certain gov't activity, if the gov't is reduced to doing only that, is a good step. And I think that if there should be a limited list of activities that the gov't can do, then it should be to protect (or prosecute those who infringe upon) the basic human rights to life, liberty, and property. Why these rights? Because they are the rights that every individual needs in order to be truly free. It's based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life, you own what you do with your life (liberty), and you own the product of your life and liberty (property). Theoretically these rights can be protected by private means, and they should be - but if government must exist, it seems like the most moral and basic thing that they can do with their power is to protect the freedom of the individual.

In clarification of my view of 'Libertarianism' and government in general: I believe that government has gotten too large and continues to threaten individual freedom by growing larger, and that this process should be democratically reversed. I think that the role of government should be greatly reduced - I don't believe that there is necessarily a set point where we draw the line and say, 'this much government is okay', I just want it to start decreasing in size.

The decreases proposed by the libertarian party - whether they 'make sense' or not compared to something as 'principled' as anarchy, that doesn't matter to me - what matters is that the steps are being taken, and they're being taken in a way that is peaceful. The success of the party, incidently, doesn't matter greatly to me either. But the work they're doing in being a voice for smaller government is a good thing in my view.

[Figleaf]

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

I think a certain gov't activity, if the gov't is reduced to doing only that, is a good step. And I think that if there should be a limited list of activities that the gov't can do, then it should be to protect (or prosecute those who infringe upon) the basic human rights to life, liberty, and property. Why these rights? Because they are the rights that every individual needs in order to be truly free.

On what basis do you limit 'truly free' to being supplied by those rights and not others?

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

It's based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life, you own what you do with your life (liberty), and you own the product of your life and liberty (property).

You "own" your life? What does that mean?

Theoretically these rights can be protected by private means, and they should be - but if government must exist, it seems like the most moral and basic thing that they can do with their power is to protect the freedom of the individual.

The freedom of the individual to- or the freedom of the individual from- ? And to or from what? And how do you decide?

I think that the role of government should be greatly reduced - I don't believe that there is necessarily a set point where we draw the line and say, 'this much government is okay', I just want it to start decreasing in size.

Yes, but there's not way to operationalize a sentiment, or analyze its content. Government does numerous things, so where do you start pruning and how do you choose?

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]

On what basis do you limit 'truly free' to being supplied by those rights and not others?

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

I'm not sure. Could you outline a scenario where this might be a problem? It'll be easier for me to explain my views on an issue when I have a better understanding of what the issue is.

You "own" your life? What does that mean?

It means that no other person has a higher claim to your life than you do. You are free to exist, and no one should be allowed to take that from you.

The freedom of the individual to- or the freedom of the individual from- ? And to or from what? And how do you decide?

The freedom of the individual to have life, liberty and property. Freedom of the individual from infringement upon those rights.

I think that the role of government should be greatly reduced - I don't believe that there is necessarily a set point where we draw the line and say, 'this much government is okay', I just want it to start decreasing in size.

Yes, but there's not way to operationalize a sentiment, or analyze its content. Government does numerous things, so where do you start pruning and how do you choose?

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?

Good question! Well, I wouldn't want to eliminate road maintenance - but I would like for the service to be done by a non-governmental entity, and I would like for it to be paid for in a manner which is not contributing to our large tax bill. (So basically I want it eliminated from gov't jurisdiction). I think most things can be privatized, and that's where most of the 'pruning' occurs. The CBC would be one of the first to be privatized on my list, I think. There is no logical reason for it being subsidized by the taxpayers. And there are many other services which can, and perhaps should, be out of the gov't's hands, and in the hands of individuals.

I think that our first steps should be small ones. I have been exploring ideas for moderate reforms. Take this for example: services can be provided privately, but paid for publicly in the form of vouchers - at first. (School districts that use this system have been very successful in cutting back on all the waste, and when schools compete for enrollment, the quality of the education goes up. Check out "Stupid in America" on Youtube). Of course, in principle, it would be ideal if vouchers were funded in a way that did not involve 'force' (there's that word again). But I think this would be a welcome start.

There are many areas where we can cut costs, increase productivity, and increase the quality and quantity of the services which we need. Those of you who support free markets know full well the benefits of letting individuals make voluntary trades with little to no gov't interference. There is more of everything and everyone can get what they need and want when the laws of supply and demand are allowed to work freely. Libertarians would reduce that gov't interference. To what? I don't know. People have differing opinions on what it should be reduced to. But I think we should start reducing it in practice and not worry quite as much about the philosophy/ideology. Nothing gets done, and the arguments only rage on.

[Figleaf]

On what basis do you limit 'truly free' to being supplied by those rights and not others?

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

I'm not sure. Could you outline a scenario where this might be a problem? It'll be easier for me to explain my views on an issue when I have a better understanding of what the issue is.

They're two questions. There should be no need for an example for the first. An example for the second might be nuisance cases where one neighbor lets smells blow onto the land of another.

You "own" your life? What does that mean?

It means that no other person has a higher claim to your life than you do.

But why characterize that concept as 'ownership'?

The freedom of the individual to have life, liberty and property. Freedom of the individual from infringement upon those rights.

1. Are people at liberty to restrict their own liberty?

2. If I 'own' an item, then you cannot own it. I have a right that you don't. Why/how is this justified?

I'll have to answer the rest of your post later.

[geoffrey]

1. Are people at liberty to restrict their own liberty?

Sure, but how could you? Are you asking if you should be able to sell yourself into slavery? I suppose. As long as the slave knows what they are getting into (similar contract law provisions).

2. If I 'own' an item, then you cannot own it. I have a right that you don't. Why/how is this justified?

I'd justify that depending on the method of aquisition. If we're talking rule of capture I found a deer in my bathroom so it's mine, that's a little tough to justify. If we're talking about my paycheque, I earned it and you did not.

[Figleaf]

Yes, but there's not way to operationalize a sentiment, or analyze its content. Government does numerous things, so where do you start pruning and how do you choose? ...

Good question! Well, I wouldn't want to eliminate road maintenance - but I would like for the service to be done by a non-governmental entity, and I would like for it to be paid for in a manner which is not contributing to our large tax bill. (So basically I want it eliminated from gov't jurisdiction). I think most things can be privatized, and that's where most of the 'pruning' occurs. The CBC would be one of the first to be privatized on my list, I think. There is no logical reason for it being subsidized by the taxpayers. And there are many other services which can, and perhaps should, be out of the gov't's hands, and in the hands of individuals.

...

The only unifying concept I can see there is a desire to reduce taxes. I still have no idea what principle tells you to keep one service or turf another.

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

Those of you who support free markets know full well the benefits of letting individuals make voluntary trades with little to no gov't interference.

Markets don't necessarily provide everything efficiently (or at all).

[Figleaf]

1. Are people at liberty to restrict their own liberty?

Sure, but how could you?

I mean by attorning one's individual choice to the collective wisdom

2. If I 'own' an item, then you cannot own it. I have a right that you don't. Why/how is this justified?

I'd justify that depending on the method of aquisition. If we're talking rule of capture I found a deer in my bathroom so it's mine, that's a little tough to justify. If we're talking about my paycheque, I earned it and you did not.

You explanation doesn't solve the issue because it just references an preceding property relationship that itself needs to be justified. How is it 'your' bathroom? Who do you earn your wage from and why do they start with the dough?

[Renegade]

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either:

a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or

b- would never get organized initially without government?

I'll answer in the abstract then.

a. It would be fine for a govenment to take on responsibilites which are if done governmentally are massively less expensive, provided it doesn't achieve these cost savings through the use of coercion or force.

b. It would be fine for the government to take on the organizing part of the task, as this is a variation of what I previously described. (ie something only government can do)

[Renegade]

I mean by attorning one's individual choice to the collective wisdom

Any individual can have his own choice restricted by the collective if he so wishes, however the individual must explicitly make that decision to give up individual liberty. He can't default into it, by example, just existing within the collective.

[Figleaf]

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either:

a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or

b- would never get organized initially without government?

I'll answer in the abstract then.

Thanks!

a. It would be fine for a govenment to take on responsibilites which are if done governmentally are massively less expensive, provided it doesn't achieve these cost savings through the use of coercion or force.

b. It would be fine for the government to take on the organizing part of the task, as this is a variation of what I previously described. (ie something only government can do)

...

Any individual can have his own choice restricted by the collective if he so wishes, however the individual must explicitly make that decision to give up individual liberty. He can't default into it, by example, just existing within the collective.

Well, we may be off on a tangent from the OP here, but it might also prove fruitful.

You appear to acknowledge that people can choose to use government if it is wise to do so. To that degree, libertarianism and liberalism are agreed. Your comments suggest divergence, however, around the issue of implicit vs. explicit consent.

Do you think it is on that axis that libertarianism should be distinguished/defined?

[Renegade]

Do you think it is on that axis that libertarianism should be distinguished/defined?

I think it is not the only distinguishing feature.

There real distinguishing feature is the weight of individual rights and freedoms, over the "common good". Libertarianism doesn't acknowledge a "common", so it don't acknowledge a "common good". The weight is completely toward individual rights and freedomes.

[Figleaf]

Do you think it is on that axis that libertarianism should be distinguished/defined?

I think it is not the only distinguishing feature.

But do you see it as an operative one?

There real distinguishing feature is the weight of individual rights and freedoms, over the "common good". Libertarianism doesn't acknowledge a "common", so it don't acknowledge a "common good". The weight is completely toward individual rights and freedomes.

With respect, that sounds nonsensical to me. Refusal to acknowledge 'common' is merely an ideological slogan used to deny reality. If libertarianism admits contracts, then it implicitly acknowledges a common interest.

[August1991]

With respect, that sounds nonsensical to me. Refusal to acknowledge 'common' is merely an ideological slogan used to deny reality. If libertarianism admits contracts, then it implicitly acknowledges a common interest.

A contract is merely the expression of a voluntary and mutually beneficial trade between two individuals - accent on the word "individual".

When it comes right down to it, if you want to promote the "common interest", then it must show up as a benefit to some individuals. I don't think any reasonable person would advocate a policy that made everyone worse off.

The notion of a group or common interest arrises ina different way than you imply. An example. If the government were to print up new hundred dollar bills and send everyone in Canada one of them, each of us as individuals might feel better off. Of course, we wouldn't be and indeed we'd probably be worse off. To understand why, you have to view the suggestion from the perspective of the group.

Going back through this thread briefly, this caught my eye:

I already know social conservativism doesn't make any sense.

Figleaf, if you find social conservatism nonsensical, then you should feel quite comfortable with Libertarianism - or some variant of it.

The logic of social conservatism usually comes at the end of a long life when one looks back at various errors and missteps.

[Figleaf]

With respect, that sounds nonsensical to me. Refusal to acknowledge 'common' is merely an ideological slogan used to deny reality. If libertarianism admits contracts, then it implicitly acknowledges a common interest.

A contract is merely the expression of a voluntary and mutually beneficial trade between two individuals - accent on the word "individual".

When it comes right down to it, if you want to promote the "common interest", then it must show up as a benefit to some individuals. I don't think any reasonable person would advocate a policy that made everyone worse off.

The notion of a group or common interest arrises ina different way than you imply. An example. If the government were to print up new hundred dollar bills and send everyone in Canada one of them, each of us as individuals might feel better off. Of course, we wouldn't be and indeed we'd probably be worse off. To understand why, you have to view the suggestion from the perspective of the group.

Going back through this thread briefly, this caught my eye:

I already know social conservativism doesn't make any sense.

Figleaf, if you find social conservatism nonsensical, then you should feel quite comfortable with Libertarianism - or some variant of it.

1.

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.

2.

My opposition to social conservativism is explained by my classical liberalism.

[Canadian Blue]

If your a classical liberal Figleaf, then you are a libertarian already.

[August1991]

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.

So "common interests" (I notice you add the plural) means the interests of individuals.

Figleaf, fundamentally, I ask you if there is such a thing as "society"? That is, should each individual give up, lose something for this so-called "collective"? If each and every individual in a society loses, how is that good for society?

---

IOW, libertarianism is a 19th century debate but we live in the 21st century. We understand better now the complexity of collective decisions based on individual choice, just as Einstein gave us the insight of relativity.

Yes, I think that's sort of what I am getting at. Aptly said.

Frankly Figleaf, I think you are terribly confused by 21st century politics. You are a Newtonian physicist faced with the Michelson/Morley results.

You don't get it.

[Renegade]

But do you see it as an operative one?

Please explain your question more clearly.

With respect, that sounds nonsensical to me. Refusal to acknowledge 'common' is merely an ideological slogan used to deny reality. If libertarianism admits contracts, then it implicitly acknowledges a common interest.

I don't think I could have responded any better than August.

[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.

So "common interests" (I notice you add the plural) means the interests of individuals.

Well, you read my definition -- note the part about interests held by 'each of multiple'.

Also, individuals can hold purely individual interests and conflicting interests as well.

Figleaf, fundamentally, I ask you if there is such a thing as "society"? That is, should each individual give up, lose something for this so-called "collective"?

Individuals gain benefits by participation in society.

IOW, libertarianism is a 19th century debate but we live in the 21st century. We understand better now the complexity of collective decisions based on individual choice, just as Einstein gave us the insight of relativity.

Yes, I think that's sort of what I am getting at. Aptly said.

Frankly Figleaf, I think you are terribly confused by 21st century politics. You are a Newtonian physicist faced with the Michelson/Morley results.

I think that's a strange and surprising comment. And not very informative.

You don't get it.

I thought I just agreed with you, so I don't get what I'm not getting.

[Figleaf]

But do you see it as an operative one?

Please explain your question more clearly.

In light of the challenge that Libertarianism lacks definition and theoretical coherence, do you think a response is to be found in a characteristically Libertarian stance on implicit vs. explicit consent?

[Renegade]

In light of the challenge that Libertarianism lacks definition and theoretical coherence, do you think a response is to be found in a characteristically Libertarian stance on implicit vs. explicit consent?

My short answer is no. The need for explicit consent doesn't define libertarianism. It is simply a mechanism to ensure that when an individual gives up his liberties, he truly means to do so.

[Figleaf]

In light of the challenge that Libertarianism lacks definition and theoretical coherence, do you think a response is to be found in a characteristically Libertarian stance on implicit vs. explicit consent?

My short answer is no. The need for explicit consent doesn't define libertarianism. It is simply a mechanism to ensure that when an individual gives up his liberties, he truly means to do so.

Hmm. Okay then, do you think libertarianism has a response to the challenge that it lacks definition and theoretical coherence? If so, what is it?

[Renegade]

Okay then, do you think libertarianism has a response to the challenge that it lacks definition and theoretical coherence? If so, what is it?

As I've already said, the definition is around the precedence given to individual rights and freedoms in libetarianism. Along with that comes the presumption that the individual is responsible for his own well-being, success or failure.

[Figleaf]

Okay then, do you think libertarianism has a response to the challenge that it lacks definition and theoretical coherence? If so, what is it?

As I've already said, the definition is around the precedence given to individual rights and freedoms in libetarianism. Along with that comes the presumption that the individual is responsible for his own well-being, success or failure.

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.