Libertarianism

[JimC]

Do all libertarians support unrestricted gun ownership? (or perhaps a minor restriction or two to do with age, serious mental health issues and/or a criminal record...)

[Drewish]

Do all libertarians support unrestricted gun ownership? (or perhaps a minor restriction or two to do with age, serious mental health issues and/or a criminal record...)

Something to understand is that libertarians view gun ownership as important because we believe (well many of us) that it may one day become necessary to overthrow the government in violent rebellion. I am not joking, and I would include myself in that group.

[JimC]

Do all libertarians support unrestricted gun ownership? (or perhaps a minor restriction or two to do with age, serious mental health issues and/or a criminal record...)

Something to understand is that libertarians view gun ownership as important because we believe (well many of us) that it may one day become necessary to overthrow the government in violent rebellion. I am not joking, and I would include myself in that group.

Well, that is the aspect that I regard as an odd, romantic delusion, peculiar to a section of the American population. As I've said in other threads, I quite like guns in many ways, and have used them over the years. Even the argument about gun-ownership for self-defence against criminals could have some merit in a particular situation. But, in the modern world, we are moving into paranoia and fantasies about black helicopters if we go down the "defence against an evil government" path...

[Audley Strange]

Can I ask a question? It seems to me that in some respects (apropos motorways and health) that if businesses wish their employees to arrive on time and be healthy enough to work that they should be paying for infra-structure upkeep rather than the workforce of a nation being coerced by government to pay for them, since it specifically benefits their businesses. As such would a libertarian have issue with corporations being compelled to pay for the upkeep of roads or health insurance for their employees rather than fobbing off the responsibility to millions of strangers who benefit little from it?

[Drewish]

Think about what's been happening in the Middle East. Now think about Tea Party rallies and Protests where the people were armed. now think about about the Occupy movement where they weren't. Needing to be armed to protect yourself from the government forces there to, "Keep you safe," is only an outdated romantic notion to somebody who isn't paying attention.

[JimC]

Think about what's been happening in the Middle East. Now think about Tea Party rallies and Protests where the people were armed. now think about about the Occupy movement where they weren't. Needing to be armed to protect yourself from the government forces there to, "Keep you safe," is only an outdated romantic notion to somebody who isn't paying attention.

If people start taking that seriously, and going armed to protests, and using those arms if the police wish to arrest someone, you are heading for the US to become another Iraq...

Peaceful, unarmed protest is a vital component to the democratic tradition, but if you go beyond that, you have a "means justify the ends" scenario that will descend into anarchy....

[Warren Dew]

Seth, Drewish, CES, Warren, et al.(no offense intended if I missed a name) since we apparently cannot look to those who disagree with you for any sort of rebuttal beyond ad-hom and non-sequitur drive-bys, what do you consider libertarianism's weaknesses, or the weakest arguments for it? Or the best arguments you've seen against it? Based on the content of the thread thus far, I think I stand a better chance of getting an objective and reasoned argument against libertarianism from one of its proponents than any of its opponents who have shown up so far.

In my opinion, libertarianism has three major weaknesses.

The first is the initial distribution of resources, especially with respect to land. It's all very well to say, "we took it from the injuns by force fair and square", but it remains true that from a libertarian standpoint, force is not fair. While I don't think it's much more realistic to give North America back the native Americans than it is to give Europe back to the neanderthals, I do think that the murky nature of initial land distribution may make land taxes a legitimate mechanism for funding some necessary functions of government.

The second is the issue of natural monopolies. Natural monopolies are the one area where a free market does not provide an optimal solution. For this reason, I view some government involvement in natural monopolies - such as roads - as appropriate, one area where I depart from libertarianism. Preferably, funding should be through something with a rough correspondence to use: I'm okay with funding roads from fuel taxes, for example, but much less okay with funding them from income taxes.

The third and perhaps most significant is the lack of a coherent, sustainable governmental model. Nondemocratic forms of government concentrate power in a ruling elite, which then has incentive to distort contract law to their own benefit; democratic forms of government distribute power too evenly, allowing the voluntarily dependent to extort support from people who are willing to work. There may be something in between that supports libertarianism better - and some form of federalism may be part of the answer, since it forces states to compete against each other for citizens - but I don't think libertarians have yet come up with a fully coherent political philosophy that is workable.

[Warren Dew]

Do all libertarians support unrestricted gun ownership? (or perhaps a minor restriction or two to do with age, serious mental health issues and/or a criminal record...)

Something to understand is that libertarians view gun ownership as important because we believe (well many of us) that it may one day become necessary to overthrow the government in violent rebellion. I am not joking, and I would include myself in that group.

Well, that is the aspect that I regard as an odd, romantic delusion, peculiar to a section of the American population. As I've said in other threads, I quite like guns in many ways, and have used them over the years. Even the argument about gun-ownership for self-defence against criminals could have some merit in a particular situation. But, in the modern world, we are moving into paranoia and fantasies about black helicopters if we go down the "defence against an evil government" path...

Disarming the populace was an instrumental part of the National Socialists making their power dictatorial in Germany in the 1930s.

The Americas have a strong tradition of populist politicians taking near dictatorial powers and having to be deposed by force. As recently as 2007, Chavez gained the power to rule by decree. There is some possibility of this happening in the U.S., and the blase attitude of the current administration does not inspire confidence in this respect. Private gun ownership helps to deter this.

You could claim these examples aren't modern, but my response would be, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[Svartalf]

Can I ask a question? It seems to me that in some respects (apropos motorways and health) that if businesses wish their employees to arrive on time and be healthy enough to work that they should be paying for infra-structure upkeep rather than the workforce of a nation being coerced by government to pay for them, since it specifically benefits their businesses. As such would a libertarian have issue with corporations being compelled to pay for the upkeep of roads or health insurance for their employees rather than fobbing off the responsibility to millions of strangers who benefit little from it?

You obviously do not understand the basic tenets of libertarian capitalism.

It boils down to being free to make as much money as you can, by hook or by crook if that helps, but without having to pay for any infrastructure or anything, let the serfs slave away some more to fund that.

[Svartalf]

Think about what's been happening in the Middle East. Now think about Tea Party rallies and Protests where the people were armed. now think about about the Occupy movement where they weren't. Needing to be armed to protect yourself from the government forces there to, "Keep you safe," is only an outdated romantic notion to somebody who isn't paying attention.

Until the day the gummint actually sends in the army with orders to shoot "rioters, sedition sower, and anybody breaking the public peace"... that day, the Occupy guys are going to be slaughtered... at least the tea baggers can shoot back.

[Drewish]

Seth, Drewish, CES, Warren, et al.(no offense intended if I missed a name) since we apparently cannot look to those who disagree with you for any sort of rebuttal beyond ad-hom and non-sequitur drive-bys, what do you consider libertarianism's weaknesses, or the weakest arguments for it? Or the best arguments you've seen against it? Based on the content of the thread thus far, I think I stand a better chance of getting an objective and reasoned argument against libertarianism from one of its proponents than any of its opponents who have shown up so far.

One of the big reasons for me is that libertarian ideals (if put into practice) would almost certainly not sustain itself structurally. Just as if you had anarchy, governments would necessarily pop up out of local community organizations and so on. The only way to protect the 'rights' that we libertarians believe people should have requires laws defended by a government body, but any government with that power will over time begin to ignore said limitations (See the US' blatant dismissal of the Bill or Rights in various legislative actions). This means that the occasional rebellion may be needed to sustain these freedoms (as Jefferson said in talking about the tree of freedom needing to be watered with blood from time to time). I can see how that could be a turn off to those without a taste for it.

Another is the ambiguity of where rights come from and what constitutes a 'right.' There are some libertarians who honestly believe that they should have the right to own nuclear war heads personally. How does one argue against that without arbitrarily drawing a lien in the sand? Now there are a few variations on libertarianism (like Objectivism and utilitarian libertariansim) that don't have this issue, but they hardly have a monopoly on the term libertarian.

[Svartalf]

Actually, they can... if you live like a stone age hunter gatherer, or at most an iron age homesteader... better be ready to work your arse off from sunrise to sunset (and longer than that in winter), to achieve subsistance level.

and even in an iron age economy, slave labor will be necessary to achieve the finer things, like metal.

[Warren Dew]

Can I ask a question? It seems to me that in some respects (apropos motorways and health) that if businesses wish their employees to arrive on time and be healthy enough to work that they should be paying for infra-structure upkeep rather than the workforce of a nation being coerced by government to pay for them, since it specifically benefits their businesses. As such would a libertarian have issue with corporations being compelled to pay for the upkeep of roads or health insurance for their employees rather than fobbing off the responsibility to millions of strangers who benefit little from it?

I've already mentioned I'm okay with public roads. I do think it would result in a poor road system if businesses paid for the roads and no one else did, as the result would be roads that did a good job of getting you to businesses, but a poor job of getting you anywhere else. All users should share in the cost of roads.

That goes in spades for health care. I don't want my employer to buy me the health care he wants me to have - I want him to give me the money he would otherwise spend on health care, and let me buy the health care I want to have. The idea that health care is a "right" is silly as implemented anyway - everyone needs health care, but not food? That's just stupid.

That said, libertarians have no problem with the employer compensating employees partially in kind - with health care, company cars, public transit passes, or whatever - if the employer and the employee agree on it. It's governments forcing them to do it that way and no other that's the problem.

[Seth]

Do all libertarians support unrestricted gun ownership? (or perhaps a minor restriction or two to do with age, serious mental health issues and/or a criminal record...)

Something to understand is that libertarians view gun ownership as important because we believe (well many of us) that it may one day become necessary to overthrow the government in violent rebellion. I am not joking, and I would include myself in that group.

Well, that is the aspect that I regard as an odd, romantic delusion, peculiar to a section of the American population. As I've said in other threads, I quite like guns in many ways, and have used them over the years. Even the argument about gun-ownership for self-defence against criminals could have some merit in a particular situation. But, in the modern world, we are moving into paranoia and fantasies about black helicopters if we go down the "defence against an evil government" path...

Problem is, it's no fantasy. The helicopters aren't actually black, they are dark OD green, and they are supplied by the DOD and the National Guard to the DEA and local drug task forces for drug surveillance overflights. I had them flying over my ranch on a yearly basis up until the newly-elected Sheriff withdrew from the Metro Drug Task Force aviation program. At that point they were supposed to suspend overflights in my county, but in 2009 we had one show up that found some ditch weed along the creek and insisted on hovering for nearly an hour within 200 feet of an active bald eagle nest while they called for the county Sheriff to come and dig it up. I complained to the commanding general in charge, making a formal complaint because the task force members on the helicopter were far outside their jurisdiction and they absolutely disturbed the eagles, which is a federal crime. I got a written apology from both the Sheriff and the commanding general in charge, who promised to make sure that the choppers stayed within their authorized AO from then on.

And then there was the "black helicopter" raid on downtown Denver a few years ago, where military Blackhawks were used as a part of a "terrorist training exercise" to fast-rope Delta Force troopies onto several abandoned buildings in a mock assault.

The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms against governmental tyranny is not in the least bit fantastical, it's a very real and effective bar against government tyranny. The very first thing every tyrant or despotic government does, or has ever done, throughout history, is to disarm the populace. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment, to ensure that our government can NEVER disarm the citizenry.

And attempts to disarm the citizenry is one of the prime triggers for armed rebellion in this country, which is why the government hasn't tried it since, quite literally, the Civil War.

If you doubt the effectiveness of an armed citizenry, I need but point you towards Afghanistan, whose citizens are not nearly as sophisticated or well armed as Americans, and point to the fact that a very small insurgent force of Taliban has kept the US tied in knots in Afghanistan for longer than any other war in our history. Now imagine what 150 million armed Americans could do against our standing military of only about 2.5 million.

You may not take it seriously, but believe me, there are many millions of people here in the US who take it absolutely seriously, and who are prepared and trained to do our part in putting down a tyrant or defending the nation against its enemies, foreign AND domestic.

[Seth]

Can I ask a question? It seems to me that in some respects (apropos motorways and health) that if businesses wish their employees to arrive on time and be healthy enough to work that they should be paying for infra-structure upkeep rather than the workforce of a nation being coerced by government to pay for them, since it specifically benefits their businesses. As such would a libertarian have issue with corporations being compelled to pay for the upkeep of roads or health insurance for their employees rather than fobbing off the responsibility to millions of strangers who benefit little from it?

Well, a benefit to the business owner is a benefit to the employees, is it not? If the business does not prosper and profit, the employees will not get paid, now will they?

Libertarians firmly believe in paying for what you use, which is why the toll system is most equitable. However, the thing you need to understand about Libertarians and taxation is that taxation is not anathema to Libertarians, only COMPULSORY taxation is wrong. Nothing at all in Libertarian philosophy prevents groups of Libertarians, or individuals, from agreeing to pay a tax to support a particular project or service the government offers. The catch is that by agreeing to be taxed for a SPECIFIC thing, only those who pay the tax get to make use of that service. Others either have to pay a la carte or not use the service. Nor would it be wrongful for a libertarian community to collect voluntary taxes from members at a lower rate than the a la carte price paid "at the gate" by those who don't want to pay for more than occasional use of the service or amenity. In this way, a community can agree to tax itself (which simply means have the government send them a bill for those projects/amenities they have voluntarily agreed to pay for, or perhaps send them a menu of items that need funding which people can check off and then send in a check for) to pay for streets, or parks, or public buildings, and it can still charge non taxpayers a "per use" fee for the service or amenity. Are you a developer who needs a good deal of service from the building inspector? Then it may be cheaper to pay an annual tax (fee) for such use than to pay by the visit, which may be most economical for the homeowner wishing to make a single change to his home.

Enjoy the park and swimming pool? Do so regularly? Then buy your "season pass" in the form of a tax payment. Only go once or twice a year? Then pay as you go.

Need to drive a heavy semi-truck on the local streets to deliver goods to your store on a regular basis? Then pay the annual road tax for that vehicle. Only make occasional deliveries? Then pay by the run.

Want the police to regularly patrol your house/property? Then pay the police tax. Want to provide your own security and only use the police for investigations/prosecutions in the event of a crime? Then pay from the a la carte police services list available at the local precinct.

Need hospital care and don't have any money? Then go to the Catholic charity hospital that serves the poor for free. Need advanced medical care from the best physicians? Then pay for those services yourself.

Hungry and don't have any money? Then politely ask any of the dozen charitable organizations that take donations and provide food to the poor for help.

Pay for what you get, get what you pay for, and don't demand that others labor on your behalf. If you need help, then ask for it, don't steal what you need from the unwilling.