Libertarianism

[amused]

The problem with adopting a filter through which to view reality is that the filter removes relevant information that is useful.

[Seth]

Seth? CES? Laklak?

Hey, how come I'm not on that list?

Justice from a libertarian standpoint does not include entitlement. Everyone is free to make their own way through life without harming others, but there is no guarantee that they will succeed. You do not have a right to anything, including health care, at others' expense.

With respect to complaints that may or may not be fictitious, each person would decide for himself whether to seek treatment, and from whom; those from whom treatment is requested would decide whether to provide it, and for what price.

Most doctors are more than happy to provide treatment for free when they can if they think it's necessary and the patient unable to pay; that might be the practical answer to your question.

Until there is an epidemic - one that stands to decimate the workforce, a queue of hundreds with the complaint - most without means - and the doctor has hungry mouths to feed back home...

The truth of libertarianism is that those without the means to pay will get fucked EVERY time if there is a limited amount of time/resources available to the provider of any service - however egalitarian they might LIKE to be!

Well, the only answer to your little conundrum of those without money not getting what they want in your model is to enslave everyone else to their needs and desires. I personally eschew slavery, both as a slave and as a slaver.

Relying on those with the means to "do what's right" is a fool's paradise!

This is the most common canard and accusation laid against anyone who disagrees with the forcible seizure of wealth from "those with the means" as a supposed justification for such seizures for the benefit of "the poor." But this is merely a rationalization, not a legitimate justification. Collectivists are selfish and greedy, and they want to take from others what does not belong to them and what they have not labored to obtain, but they always use the EXCUSE that they are only doing it out of necessity, for "the poor." This, of course, is utter horsepucky, because collectivists never, ever stop with "the poor," they just bracket-shift the definition of "the poor" to mean "everyone but the top 1 percent."

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating communism, or even socialism - but I do hold that there are times where government funding needs to be used for the good of the community - and, like it or not, that requires taxes, a pool of available-when-necessary cash and SOME level of social welfare!

There's no inherent problem with "government" providing such services, providing that the funds it needs to do so are obtained voluntarily, donated by those who choose to exercise charity, altruism and rational self-interest free of government force or coercion.

[Rum]

What I find rather amusing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an ideal based on theory and ideas and stands no chance, again like communism, of ever being a practical reality. While societies remain as complex as they currently are, there is likely to remain a messy mix of selfishness and social responsibility, based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the maw of the greedy and generally speaking nasty one percent.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What I find rather amusing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an ideal based on theory and ideas and stands no chance, again like communism, of ever being a practical reality. While societies remain as complex as they currently are, there is likely to remain a messy mix of selfishness and social responsibility, based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the maw of the greedy and generally speaking nasty one percent.

It's all about greed:

[Seth]

Still wondering what the military would like in a libertarian country. Fifty militias? We used to have militias based around counties. They defended Washington in the War of 1812.

Yes, exactly. That's still the way it is today, in main. Our standing army is actually comparatively small as compared to many other nations. It's larger now that it should be in fact. The whole point of having a small, or non-existent standing army was precisely to insert another check and balance against tyranny from Washington...or any state.

In the Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton expresses this concept:

The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes --

"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire";

discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

[Seth]

What I find rather amusing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an ideal based on theory and ideas and stands no chance, again like communism, of ever being a practical reality. While societies remain as complex as they currently are, there is likely to remain a messy mix of selfishness and social responsibility, based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the hands of the productive class one percent maw of by the greedy and generally speaking nasty socialist proletarian dependent (and indolent) class.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And we lost the next serious war we were in. We were a joke to the world, two bit pirates in North Africa took Americans as slaves routinely, because we had no military to challenge them.

Libertarians are like the guys with a $1000 deductible on a $1200 car. Save some bucks every year on insurance, but any loss is a total.

[Warren Dew]

based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the maw of the greedy and generally speaking nasty one percent.

I think it's generally the ones that "rip" others' belongings away that are the greedy ones. Obama's class warfare is the ultimate in lionizing greed.

[Warren Dew]

Still wondering what the military would like in a libertarian country.

Ronald Reagan's administration had a strong streak of libertarianism, so it would probably look a lot like his military. That military was composed of motivated volunteers, and his military strategy with it caused the oppressive Soviet Union to fall with minimum loss of lives on either side.

Compare that to the numerically larger but less effective military of Lyndon Johnson, throwing unwilling draftees into an ill conceived and poorly executed war, ending up losing to a country a tiny fraction of our size.

The lessons of history are obvious here, and they do not support a large standing army.

[Seth]

Interesting post. You say you were a fan of Rand until you came to the conclusion she "wasn't violent enough". What does that mean? As you would know, being a fan of Rand, she was against violence. Are you saying that she was in favor of violence but just not enough violence to satisfy you? And just how much violence will satisfy you?

Under Rand's philosophy, there is no basis for collective defense. The use of the state as an arbiter for disputes and a national military is not justifiable under Objectivism. Rand simply hand waved that away. Though ideally no centralized military force sounds wonderful, the existence of other national militaries necessitates having one. It's similar to nuclear war heads. Ideally no, but if others have them, so should you. Slow and steady disarmament treaties are wonderful, but Objectivism deals too much with proclaiming what the ideal should be, and avoids answering questions of how to actually get there. In this regard it is similar to Marxism. Thankfully we are not beholden to treating such philosophers as infallible demigods and can think for ourselves. Just as the modern progressive (or democratic socialist, depending on your region) movement seeks to find a practical application for their utilitarian values, so does the modern libertarian / neo-liberal movement seek the same for their individualist values.

In the days of the Founders, war was a relatively slow-moving thing that allowed time for militias to be called to duty. Of course, at the time, people knew that they were expected to be prepared for militia duty, unlike today, which made calling up the militia much easier. The lag time inherent in having a small standing army and an UNTRAINED unorganized militia leads to severe problems in a world where thousands of enemy troops can be inserted by aircraft into critical areas. The movie "Red Dawn" use this exploit as it's basis, and while not particularly credible as military strategy, it has some rational basis in military truth. This militates for a much better prepared and trained STATE militia system, combined with a sophisticated national defense system and small rapid-reaction standing force that can intercept and hold any credible invasion threat against the United States pending the arrival of the state militias.

As for your assertions regarding the poor, where is your evidence to back them up?

Are you suggesting that society ought to rid itself of poverty by exterminating the poor?

I advocate no active extermination of peoples. Merely not guaranteeing the provisions of sustenance to anyone. If a person can provide for them self and their loved ones, than good for them. If they seek the help of their neighbors and those neighbors voluntarily aid them, then I applaud such emergent community and charity. If a person has not the ability to provide for them self, nor the personable nature to procure aid, then why should they be guaranteed it? Why should society encourage the procreation of those whom demand food, shelter, and medical care as their birth right, but provide nothing in return?

One of the foundations of Libertarianism is the notion that most people have well-formed personalities and they exercise common traits of well-formed personalities like charity, altruism, and most of all rational self-interest. You are correct to call for voluntary assistance to the truly needy, because that is what societies generally do, utilizing all those instincts common to well-formed adult personalities.

The problem is that the collectivists love to conflate the truly needy with the indolent dependent class who demand assistance not because they are incapable of caring for themselves, but merely because they have been trained to be dependent and have been told that they can expect others to provide for their security, health, diet and welfare.

The truly needy...those who are physically incapable of feeding, clothing or housing themselves, those who are physically or mentally disabled, or who are too young to care for themselves, are reasonably well served by charity, altruism and enlightened self-interest already, as demonstrated by the huge number of charities who cater to them and the fact that the US gives twice as much as anyone else other than Canada in terms of charitable giving to the needy.

But there is a serious distinction to be made between those who CANNOT support themselves, and those who WILL NOT support themselves because they don't care to work hard or improve themselves. And the collectivist entitlement mentality only grows the size of this indolent dependent class, it never moves anyone out of dependency and into self reliance because it never demands more of the indolent class than they are willing to give.

Let natural selection sort it out and, just as in the past, those best adapted to the environment will thrive. In a modern society where skilled labor, interpersonal skills, and critical thought are the means of attaining success, it will be a a better world if we let the meek parish in obscurity. People are not all created equal, there is no such thing as "the soul," and the world has little need for more unskilled manual laborers. Do not look upon those with no job who simultaneously condemn the unfaithful with their self righteous ignorance, as your "fellow man" to be cared for.

"Hunger is the best sauce." And a refusal to provide material support, combined with rational self-interest in inducing the indolent dependent class to rise above their self-imposed (and government-enhanced) mediocrity by providing them with OPPORTUNITY to improve themselves through hard manual labor is what's needed. Pack them up from the ghetto and ship them to the fields of Mississippi or California or Colorado to replace the illegal aliens who now work the jobs the indolent dependent class needs to start up the ladder to economic advancement. Put the kids in foster care. Pass out free birth control to all the women. I'll pay for bus tickets and the birth control and foster care, but I won't pay for AFDC or for ghetto-dwellers to sit around smoking crack and robbing people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the maw of the greedy and generally speaking nasty one percent.

I think it's generally the ones that "rip" others' belongings away that are the greedy ones. Obama's class warfare is the ultimate in lionizing greed.

Jesus fucking Christ, that hobby horse doesn't have any legs.

[Robert_S]

Seth & Zilla,

Knock off the oblique personal attack-type stuff please!

Edit:

...and start playing nicely in here.

[Woodbutcher]

What about law? Who decides on that? Say one area espouses a communistic lifestyle and the one next to it individual ownership. If some stock wanders over to the commune are they within their rights to keep them or are their neighbours justified in asking for their return, using force if necessary? What about a man who commits a crime in one area and escapes to another area where this is not a crime: say he had sex with an 18-year old who is considered a minor there but not in the new place. Will he be extradited and who will do it, if yes?

[Seth]

What about law? Who decides on that? Say one area espouses a communistic lifestyle and the one next to it individual ownership. If some stock wanders over to the commune are they within their rights to keep them or are their neighbours justified in asking for their return, using force if necessary? What about a man who commits a crime in one area and escapes to another area where this is not a crime: say he had sex with an 18-year old who is considered a minor there but not in the new place. Will he be extradited and who will do it, if yes?

Let's look at your livestock example: The answer is no, they are not justified in keeping the livestock because it doesn't belong to them, notwithstanding the trespass, so it would be fraud for them to keep it. However, the owner of the livestock would be responsible for the trespass and for any damage done or forage consumed by the livestock while on the land of the commune, and it would be an initiation of fraud for him to fail to pay compensation.

Now let's look at the other example: This example is much more complex because it involves societal standards of behavior and "statutory rape" laws.

Libertarianism would not have such laws in the first place. Sex with a consenting partner is a personal liberty, so if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force or fraud, so there is no triggering of a right to self-defense or compensation for wrongdoing. This of course brings up the issue of "age of consent."

But "age of consent" laws are merely reflections of majority sentiment in a particular community, and as such, they are most often infringements on the personal rights of individuals. Regardless of age, every individual has a right to personal autonomy and decision making. The conundrum occurs when we discuss children who are incapable of making rational decisions about their behavior. In such cases, the logical protector of the rights of a child incompetent to make such decisions is of course the parents.

Should a person engage in non-consensual sex with an incompetent child, then that's an initiation of force, which may be replied to by those harmed or their agents or representatives. But if the sex is consensual, there is no initiation of force, so there is no claim. There might be fraud, however, if the male told the female that she could not become pregnant by him, or would not contract a disease from him (or she does anyway because he concealed that material fact), and she did.

But again we come to the core question of who determines "incompetence" to make decisions about sexual activity.

So, we must ask if society, as a whole, SHOULD make such decisions, or even if society as a whole is competent to make that decision for all children in all cases, under all circumstances, by majority fiat? Or should the decision be left to the child, the parents or someone else?

One of the metrics Libertarianism would suggest is a metric of actual harm to the individual as a predicate for a determination that either force or fraud has occurred. Most "statutory rape" laws today do not set the bar at actual, provable harm of some kind, in fact they explicitly deny a lack of verifiable harm as a justification for the adult's behavior. But is that a rational basis for a law, or is age alone an irrational but easy to implement and enforce, and more than a little arbitrary metric?

Certainly one can rationally say that adults having sex with young children is inherently harmful, if for none other than the purely physical aspects, but by the time a child has reached biological sexual maturity, is it still rational to say that they are incapable of making rational decisions about how to use their own bodies? At some point in human biological development, logic tells us that the person is sexually mature, and therefore ought perhaps to be sexually autonomous as well.

This speaks also to the larger question of when does a person in a Libertarian society "graduate" from being a dependent child subject to parental authority into an autonomous adult responsible for his or her own actions and consequences. It's admittedly a gray area, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that in your example, an 18 year old is, and should be considered fully adult, fully accountable, fully responsible, and fully free to manage their lives and bodies, regardless of what larger society might think. I think that's true even today, in our own culture. If an 18 year old is mature enough to serve in the military, he or she is old enough to drink alcohol...that much I'm certain of.

So, in sum, there is no pat "legal" answer to your question because several things would apply to any instance of anyone having sex: First, is it consensual? Inherent in answering this question is whether or not the individuals involved have a rational capacity to make judgments about their bodies and sex; and second, is there any harm (force) or fraud involved in the relationship that might overcome an otherwise rational but not fully accountable decision on the part of the person harmed to have sex.

If it's not consensual, then it's a wrong that can be redressed. If it's consensual and a minor is involved, it's actionable if the child is not individually capable of making a rational decision to participate. This requires an individualized inquiry into the mental capacity of the minor before any wrong can be declared. If it's consensual but force (physical harm or unauthorized pregnancy for example) occurs, or if fraud (like lying about contraceptives or sterility) is involved, it's always actionable, regardless of the age of the participants.

As for who makes the decisions about capacity, rational decisions and other close questions, both neutral judicial authority, the parents, and the purported victim must be heard. But, in recognition of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism and individual sovereignty, a child who does not believe or feel that he or she has been harmed or defrauded, after that child has reached the age of biological sexual maturity, and therefore does not make the claim of harm him or herself, should not be used as an excuse by society, or the parents, for making a claim against his or her partner, regardless of the partner's age.

After all, one can only be harmed if one believes that one has been harmed. If not, then it's consensual, regardless of the consequences involved, because each person capable of making rational decisions about their life is equally responsible for accepting the consequences of those decisions, for better or worse, and they may not shift the blame (and neither can society on their behalf) to others.

I think Lord Pasternack might have some interesting input on this particular aspect of the discussion. I hope she deigns to participate.

[Woodbutcher]

OK to the first part, that's as I thought. Admittedly the second part is more convoluted, because of the consent factor and the maturity factor. Also, competence must be addressed. Is a person competent to say no harm was done to him- or herself? Say there is an issue of defective mental ability, say Down Syndrome or a similar intelligence impairing function present. I suppose the parents would decide on the competence. Would there be a militia police force present to enforce the laws, or would that fall under the powers of the government? I think the first option would be more viable because the governance would be local, therefore more accurately reflecting the local mores and customs. Would there be a police force at all?