Libertarians

[squealiox]

did someone say libertarians are not utopians?
if that's the case, you should have no trouble naming a few libertarian countries then.
you know, ones where the government does law enforcement and defence, and nothing else whatsoever.
just one? anybody?



ps -- the republic of sealand is out of the running since it caught fire and everybody went home

 

[George Wallace]

With all due respect George I think that you infer upon Ethical Funds a much more significant position within the stock market than they really command. 

Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.

Just got back, and do agree with you.  Most don't pay much attention to these Funds or practices.  It is, however, interesting that they have made an appearance on the Stock Markets and also that Corporations are conducting training in "Ethics". 

It does give the appearance that there are changes/inroads being made in the higher echelons of 'Big Business'.

 

[a_majoor]

if that's the case, you should have no trouble naming a few libertarian countries then.

Given the power and privilage available to the career politicians and permanent bureacracy with access to the powers of the State, I think it is pretty obvious why there are no Libertarian countries today.

Given the appaling record of career politicians and the permanent bureacracy using State power, there is a very good argument as to why there should be some......

 

[FrenchAffair]

"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky

 

[Reccesoldier]

"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky

Ah, Chomsky... The King nutbar of planet wing-bat.

Of course Chomsky's own brand of tyranny is extreme left wing.  He and his ilk spout off about human rights, freedom and liberty too without hesitating for a second to advocate the enforcement of leftist ideals on EVERYONE in society.

No, Libertarians do not have all the answers, nor is their solution THE solution, but their claim on perfection is no less tenuous than any other ideology either.

For those that think Libertarianism does have all the answers, step outside of the social/economic sphere and take a cold hard rational look at Libertarian ideals of Defence and foreign policy.  Implimenting just half of what Libertarians advocate in these areas would utterly destroy a nations credibility on the world stage.  Perhaps (and that is probably giving undue credit) it could work on a world filled with Libertarian nations but we are nowhere near the point where individual sovereignty trumps national sovereignty.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky

"Matt Damon" -Matt Damon

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.

A straw man constructed by Noam Chomsky is nonetheless a straw man.  Tyranny assumes the possibility of one person arbitrarily infringing the rights of another without consequences, which is antithetical to libertarianism.  Chomsky is writing or speaking of something else.  The defence and foreign policy of a libertarian state has already been summed up in classical liberal, republican terms: friends of liberty everywhere; guardians of our own.

The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state: the means by which some people live at the expense of others.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Tyranny assumes the possibility of one person arbitrarily infringing the rights of another without consequences

Seeing as you are, or at least are arguing from a Libertarian point of view you should make perfectly clear that what Libertarians consider “rights” are not what most humans consider rights.

Libertarians believe the only rights are that to Life and Property.

There is no right to education, health care, food, shelter, water, or any of the other things that we in the western world are afforded, and that humans everywhere should be entitled to. All thoses rights and more would be arbitrarily denyed to citizens of Canada with out consequences under Libertarian goverment.

The defence and foreign policy of a libertarian state has already been summed up in classical liberal, republican terms: friends of liberty everywhere; guardians of our own

In other words, a Canadian Libertarian would have had no issue with Nazi Germany taking over Europe and would have not deployed Canadian forces to fight against the evils of Nazi Germany and the holocaust.

The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state

I would say it is more because most people are not heartless enough and not deluded enough to support the policies of Libertarianism.

I’m glad we live in a welfare state, because we are all better off for it.

 

[a_majoor]

The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state: the means by which some people live at the expense of others.

author=FrenchAffair link=topic=45537/post-552853#msg552853 date=1175740000]
I’m glad we live in a welfare state, because we are I am all better off for it.

Summed up quite nicely

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Seeing as you are, or at least are arguing from a Libertarian point of view you should make perfectly clear that what Libertarians consider “rights” are not what most humans consider rights.

Libertarians believe the only rights are that to Life and Property.

There is no right to education, health care, food, shelter, water, or any of the other things that we in the western world are afforded, and that humans everywhere should be entitled to. All thoses rights and more would be arbitrarily denyed to citizens of Canada with out consequences under Libertarian goverment.

...

I have been reluctant to join this debate because I’m not a libertarian and I see many flaws with the way organized and institutionalized Libertarians see the world.  Rather, I would describe myself as a classic liberal, firmly rooted in the middle of the 19th century – I think pretty much all liberal values were established then and, except for Isaiah Berlin, not much was added to liberalism in the 20th century.

But, as to rights:

• There are natural rights – life, liberty, equality and property.  These reside with the individual and are rights relative to all collectives – governments, churches and all other organizations which cater to intrusive, conservative busybodies; and

• There are legislated rights – health care, education, welfare, ‘special’ preferences and so on.  Look at the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see the inherent nonsense of legislated rights.  The first 21 articles will not trouble any real liberals, even conservatives will only be modestly troubled by some (§17, for example).  It is the next five, §22 – 27, which render the Declaration and all legislated rights pure, simple, unadulterated rubbish.

A quick and dirty test for natural rights would be: “Am I willing to fight and die, even send my sons to fight and die to defend these rights for strangers?”  If the answer is “Yes!” then it is a natural right; if the answer is “No!” then it is a rubbish right.  Is anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers really willing to send her son to fight for someone’s right to enjoy the arts or participate in the cultural life of his community?  Anyone?  Anyone at all?  Step right up ...


Edit: typo - "will not trouble anyd real liberals"

 

[Brad Sallows]

>There is no right to education, health care, food, shelter, water, or any of the other things that we in the western world are afforded, and that humans everywhere should be entitled to. All thoses rights and more would be arbitrarily denyed to citizens of Canada with out consequences under Libertarian goverment.

You misphrased the concept in your second sentence.  Let us leave aside the fact that libertarians are not philosophically restrained by principle from providing or receiving those services.  If I don't pay to educate and care for you, I have denied you nothing - you still have unlimited liberty to see to your own desires and needs.  I can only deny you education and health care if I restrain you from attending school or seeing a doctor.  A libertarian would do neither.  What you need to understand and accept is that many of the rights you cherish are privileges provided by others.  In the simplest terms, you have no natural power except tyranny (force or threat of force) to demand anything which must be granted or provided by another person.  The rights you claim above, you can have only three ways:
1) You provide the benefits for yourself.
2) Someone consents to provide you those benefits.
3) Someone is, effectively, enslaved (his productive work is confiscated) to provide you those benefits.  Slavery may be an overly crude way of describing it, but it helps to reinforce the blunt fact that the value of one person's time and labour are transferred to another by dictate and force, or threat of force.  It doesn't matter to me whether you (through the state) lay claim to ownership of two or twenty-four hours of each day of my finite life; both amount to slavery.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Summed up quite nicely

“I” am part of the collective “we” I was referring to (Canadian Citizens) so yes, of course I am better off for it. Though not in the insulting way you are implying, my family is affluent upper middle class to be modest about it so no I am not on welfare. But being in the social position my family has afforded me I still benefit from the services and laws the government enacts to enhance the lives of all Canadians.

I benefit from our public education, I benefit from our public health system, I benefit from our roads, museums, parks and long list of other government programs and services.

I’ve lived in places that are as close to Libertarian governments that you will find in the western world (New Hampshire, center of the Libertarian party in America) and have come to realize that what our government provides us is invaluable. We all benefit from so many government institutions and programs, ones that we do not even realize and that I only appreciate that much more because I’ve had the opportunity to experience life with out them.

Even small things, like playing hockey. In New Hampshire for a child to play recreational hockey (like our house league) costs close to 4000$ a season for one child. That’s because the Arena there are not owned by the government, the ice time is not subsidized, the leagues are not funded by the government. That might not have been much of an issue to my family, but that is a large financial burden to most people. Compared to the 200$ fee you pay per child here in Canada for your child to play hockey.

That’s just one small example, you might not realize it but we all benefit from the small things like this that the government subsidizes, or helps pay for and no matter who we are, rich or poor we benefit from that.

Would we have more money in the bank under a Libertarian government, of course. My family pays the highest tax bracket in Canada possible, so under Libertarian policies I’m sure we would have more money, but I much rather pay those higher taxes, and be afforded all the benefits that our social democracy provides us, and that is far from an abstract ideology, according to the last Canadian federal election 99.98% of Canadians feel the same way I do to varying degrees. Because when it comes down to it I can either pay those slightly higher taxes and have that money collectively put into an origination that is accountable to me for them to use to the best interests and benefits of me and other Canadians, or I can be a Libertarian, get that extra tax break and have to pay for everything and pay more for it, to people who do not have my best interests in mind, but who are motivated only by their goal to get as much money from me as possible and make the largest profit possible.

 

[FrenchAffair]

If I don't pay to educate and care for you, I have denied you nothing - you still have unlimited liberty to see to your own desires and needs.

To sum it up, “Each man for himself”. The barbaric principles that not even western societies in the darkest times of our history abided by.

In the simplest terms, you have no natural power except tyranny (force or threat of force) to demand anything which must be granted or provided by another person.

So how do Libertarians propose to collect taxes? Just ask really nicely?

1) You provide the benefits for yourself.

So if someone can’t feed themselves they should starve in the streets?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>To sum it up, “Each man for himself”. The barbaric principles that not even western societies in the darkest times of our history abided by.

The darkest times in our history were generally when governments of one stripe or another used some people to the benefit of others.  If you're going to keep making ridiculous assumptions that people can't or won't co-operate with something less than a welfare state holding a gun to their heads, you're not really criticising libertarian ideas.  You're criticising fiction.

 

[FrenchAffair]

If you're going to keep making ridiculous assumptions that people can't or won't co-operate with something less than a welfare state holding a gun to their heads, you're not really criticising libertarian ideas.  You're criticising fiction.

We could end world poverty and hunger with in a matter of months… easily. The western world possesses more than enough wealth and the logistical ability to do so. But we don’t….

So what in that would ensure me that when Canadians are starving on the streets and in poverty that other Canadians out of their own altruism would provide enough to eliminate that? 

There are plenty of people accost this great nation that would contribute as much as they could to charity, but it would fall short. A Libertarian nation would greatly increase the amount of poverty in this nation and there is no indication that it would increase the amount of charity. More people would end up on the streets and with out government programs to help them their situation would only get worse.

No institution will ever be able to combat poverty and ensure the minimum standard of living to all Canadians as well and effectively as the government can.

 

[a_majoor]

I benefit from our public education, I benefit from our public health system, I benefit from our roads, museums, parks and long list of other government programs and services.

At who's expense? So long as you refuse to acknowledge you are claiming the time and effort of others without their consent, then you will fail to understand why your so called arguments are so flimsy

No institution will ever be able to combat poverty and ensure the minimum standard of living to all Canadians as well and effectively as the government can.

Despite the untold billions of dollars spent on "eliminating poverty" through government programs, poverty remains a fact of life. If we are to believe the proponents of more government spending/intervention, the situation has gotten worse in spite of all the vast sums of money being spent. I see no empirical evidence to support ANY of your assertations, and lots to refute it.

So long as people believe they can live at someone else's expense, then Libertarianism faces an uphill challenge. Perhaps Ayn Rand had the right idea with "Atlas Shrugged"; only when the people who are being imposed upon refuse to shoulder the unearned and unconsented claims on their time and energy will the system collapse and the parisitical and (as noted in the wording of French Affair's post) selfish philosophies behind welfare statism die out.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from French Affair,
Even small things, like playing hockey. In New Hampshire for a child to play recreational hockey (like our house league) costs close to 4000$ a season for one child. That’s because the Arena there are not owned by the government, the ice time is not subsidized, the leagues are not funded by the government. That might not have been much of an issue to my family, but that is a large financial burden to most people. Compared to the 200$ fee you pay per child here in Canada for your child to play hockey.

                        MOD POST

French Affair, I have no dog in this fight but you WILL stop pulling things out of your ass to make an arguement. The above kife is simple and pure garbage, $200 doesn't even make a down payment on what a kid costs for hockey,........ so here it is, play with facts or don't play at all.

 

[FrenchAffair]

French Affair, I have no dog in this fight but you WILL stop pulling things out of your *** to make an arguement. The above kife is simple and pure garbage, $200 doesn't even make a down payment on what a kid costs for hockey,........ so here it is, play with facts or don't play at all.

Feel free to contact Sandy Hill or the Bytown Minor Hockey League.

Sandy Hill Minor Hockey Association
P.O. Box 74207,
5 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa,
ON K1M 2H9 (dave@sandyhilhockey.ca)

Last season for my younger brother, playing Atom “b” house league hockey required a $275 check at the beginning of the season and that was it to play from October to March.

Playing the same level of hockey in New Hampshire cost just short of $4000 American.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Off-topic but from thier website
ATOM  9 & 10    $400.00 
Holding the line on registration fees: The 2006-07 registration fee structure remains unchanged from last season.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

What I don't get is how anyone can claim that it is fair that that people who have kids who don't play hockey (or don't have kids at all) have to subsidize the parents of kids who do play hockey: why can't they use their money on their own kids for a sport that their kids play?  Of course it's a great system if you happen to be the parent of kids that play hockey ...

Similarly, why is it that people who work after high school have to subsidize the tuitions of the other people that go to college/university (and tend to get higher-paying jobs as a result)?

Libertarianism is about being able to use your own resources to provide the best possible life for your family: socialism is about trying to steal other people's resources in order to provide the best possible life for your family.