Libertarianism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So fits, doesn't it?

And don't expect any apologies from them. They'll just huffily assert: "And that's just how things are / ought to be!" before resuming their rants about the undeserving poor, and such.

The Cause! Cliche-driven, I've always seen that.

[Warren Dew]

So fits, doesn't it?

Not too bad. I've never met a libertarian who thought he had a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor, though - that's social democrats - and I've met a lot of libertarians who actually opposed government funded roads. And I think libertarians are about evenly split on abortion.

The rest of them are good enough to make good caricatures, and I got a good laugh. Though that is the way things ought to be!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So fits, doesn't it?

Not too bad. I've never met a libertarian who thought he had a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor, though - that's social democrats - and I've met a lot of libertarians who actually opposed government funded roads. And I think libertarians are about evenly split on abortion.

The rest of them are good enough to make good caricatures, and I got a good laugh. Though that is the way things ought to be!

They carp about government funded roads, then they ride their Harleys to NATIONAL PARKS.

[Seth]

So fits, doesn't it?

Not too bad. I've never met a libertarian who thought he had a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor, though - that's social democrats - and I've met a lot of libertarians who actually opposed government funded roads. And I think libertarians are about evenly split on abortion.

The rest of them are good enough to make good caricatures, and I got a good laugh. Though that is the way things ought to be!

They carp about government funded roads, then they ride their Harleys to NATIONAL PARKS.

They have no other choice, and since they are forced to pay for both the roads and the parks against their will, it's their right to use and enjoy them as much as they like. That doesn't mean they can't advocate for a different social model.

Oh, and it's a BMW R-1200 GS Adventure, not a road pig Harley.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, rationalizations in self-interest. I see.

[Seth]

I'm interested in the premise of individual freedom to choose my course through life according to what I see is the best approach, avoiding harm to others to the best of my ability, and helping others along without giving some a free ride. Too often there are people who expect special consideration. What controls does a Libertarian society put in existence to give equal justice to all without prejudice? What about healthcare to all? I think a lot of our money is wasted on needless expense by people with fictitious complaints. Who would decide the need? I have many questions and would appreciate some reading resources as well. I have an open mind on this. I do not troll. Seth? CES? Laklak? Opposing viewpoints also sought. But keep things factual.

The essence of Libertarianism is the absolute right to freedom of consensual contract and the absence of government coercion in the provision of government services. What Libertarianism is not is rugged individualism sans any social contract. It's precisely the opposite. Libertarianism holds as its founding principle the requirement that every person avoid initiating force or fraud upon others, and that every person also has the right to respond to the initiation of force or fraud against. This does not mean that Libertarianism eschews the rule of law, criminal justice systems or government, it simply means that it is the duty of the individual to both protect and enforce his rights, and it is not the duty of the government to protect anyone from themselves.

But nothing in Libertarianism prohibits persons from voluntarily associating with others in the interests of forming a workable society. What it does prohibit is the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of action of anyone unless that action constitutes the initiation of force or fraud upon another.

Thus, things like mandatory zoning laws that dictate what one may or may not do on one's own property that purport to control non-exported harm (in particular aesthetic regulations) are forbidden in Libertarianism because what one's property looks like is a matter of freedom of personal expression. If, however, one's conduct on one's property exports harm to a neighbor, then it is an initiation of force or fraud that may be responded to and controlled. But the proper mechanism for such complaints is not the legislature and laws that control the behavior of everyone, it's private suit seeking injunction or compensation for harm ACTUALLY done to the neighbor.

As to health care, Libertarianism maintains that no individual is responsible for the medical care of another unless they have voluntarily assumed such liability as a part of a private contract between two parties. Such contracts would include, by way of example, parents having liability for their minor children's health care, and spouses being liable for each other, if that's how they choose to formulate their domestic contract.

Libertarianism does not allow the government to compel someone to pay for others health care against their will, as each person is ultimately responsible for their own health, safety and welfare. However, the concept of enlightened self interest, which is also part of Libertarian thought, holds that charity and altruism are rational adult personality behaviors that contribute to the smooth functioning of society, and that it is in the best interests of every person to make sure that the poor, indigent, sick and disabled are cared for properly, so as to enhance social stability and order. But each person is free to decide for themselves how charitable and altruistic they wish to be.

This freedom to disassociate from undesirable social misfits who demand that others labor on their behalf causes those in genuine need to humble themselves and actually ASK for assistance in the knowledge that no one is OBLIGATED to assist them rather than assuming, as the socialist does, that they are entitled to appropriate the labor of others for their own benefit by force. This in turn leads to a society of voluntary cooperation and altruism rather than a society of coercive, compelled obligation.

The control mechanism that prevents the apocalyptic societal destruction that socialists insist will absolutely follow in the wake of a Libertarian society is simple human nature and the traits of well-formed, adult personalities in people who understand the need to participate in society in order to enjoy the benefits of that society.

The pathology of socialism destroys the well-formed adult personality and replaces it with a nearly psychotic dependent personality that is stuck in an infantile stage of development where nothing beyond the individual's personal needs and desires is important, and each socialist is at war with every other socialist to get their "fair share" of the pie that the government offers.

Libertarians control such atavistic and pathological selfishness in members of a Libertarian society through direct rejection of such behavior patterns. Because Libertarians are free to trade and associate with whom they please, they are also free, as individuals or as a community to REFUSE to trade or associate with a social misfit who insists on initiating force and fraud against others. Such social "shunning" can be complete, with merchants refusing to sell to such persons and everyone refusing to associate with them. This sort of social opprobrium is very, very powerful and is very effective at modifying social behavior. Few people want to be completely alone and utterly unable to enjoy the fruits of an organized society, and the natural desire for social intercourse is a strong motivator towards socially acceptable behavior.

This does not mean that Libertarians will not engage in collective effort or even collective action against a particularly anti-social and harmful individual or group. Such collective action is fully authorized, but participation is always voluntary and not compulsory.

I hope this helps you understand the true principles and practices of Libertarianism rather than the false image that socialist detractors toss out as strawmen at every opportunity. I'll be happy to fill in the gaps for you, just ask.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Short version: I don't want to pitch in to the common good if there's no obvious benefit to me.

[Seth]

What would the military look like in a libertarian world?

Very much like it looks today, except much smaller. It would be an all-volunteer paid military force paid for through voluntary donations by those who understand the need for a small standing army to protect the Republic. It would be augmented by an all-volunteer state militia force formed by each state and again funded voluntarily.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, the old "private sector will pitch in when the need it there". Yeah, right.

[Seth]

Short version: I don't want to pitch in to the common good if there's no obvious benefit to me.

Nor should you be compelled to do so. On the other hand, neither should you be permitted to enjoy the benefits that others have paid for that you have not. An example might be that if you don't pay into the National Park System, you don't get to use the National Parks.
And how "obvious" the benefit might be to you depends on your intelligence. Sometimes the benefits are somewhat removed, but a rational person can still see the benefit and be willing to contribute to the goal. If you're like most socialists however, all you see is at best the end of your own nose and your immediate pleasure and satisfaction, so you're going to miss opportunities by being short-sighted, as well you should.

[Warren Dew]

They carp about government funded roads, then they ride their Harleys to NATIONAL PARKS.

I know - isn't it terrible? Those roads were built by the schoolteachers who taught the construction workers who worked on them, so only unionized public school teachers should be able to ride their Harleys on those roads!

[Seth]

Ah, rationalizations in self-interest. I see.

Yes, rational self-interest is a component of Libertarianism. You pay for what you use, and you get to use what you pay for.

[Seth]

So fits, doesn't it?

And don't expect any apologies from them. They'll just huffily assert: "And that's just how things are / ought to be!" before resuming their rants about the undeserving poor, and such.

It's not the "undeserving poor," it's the "selfish dependent class." Two entirely different groups.

The former may be victims of circumstance who need assistance and are willing to ask for it from altruistic and charitable adults with well-formed personalities. The latter are selfish assholes who think they are entitled to take what they want from the labor of others as a matter of right. The latter class can starve in the ditch for all I care.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, rationalizations in self-interest. I see.

Yes, rational self-interest is a component of Libertarianism. You pay for what you use, and you get to use what you pay for.

But the individual component would be insufficient in and of itself to construct the Interstate Highway system. So we wouldn't have that.

[Seth]

No prizes for guessing which forum member would win this game. Although there are several other contenders, they all are also-rans.

The thing is, you can't refute Libertarian philosophy or rationally support collectivism using reason and logic, all you can do is engage in Alinsky-style smears and ridicule. Typical socialist propaganda.