Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Chinaski]

The following rant is not my own work, but it expresses my ideas perfectly.

"Libertarians are just incapable of putting themselves in anyone else's shoes. I have health insurance, why can't this guy get it?....

I happen to know a couple of nerds who are left-wing. I don't see what being a nerd has to do with libertarianism. My impression is that psychopaths tend to be the archetype libertarian and not the nerds.

It's not a causal relationship, it's simply an example.

[Godless Libertarian]

Well...

At least I know what i'm up against lol

[Strontium Dog]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

[Coito ergo sum]

I said it many times on RDF -- I'd rather the U.S.'s 2 main parties be The Progressives vs. The Libertarians rather than the clusterfuck we have now. At least Progressives and Libertarians can agree on a few key social policies, whereas I can't find myself agreeing with one damn thing a modern Republican politician says.

Right now we have a batshit insane Republican Party with all kinds of testosterone, who might inexplicably start winning seats come 2010 even after driving the country into the ditch like they did, and a Centrist Democratic Party with a lot of great individuals here and there, but as a whole has no cajones whatsoever. Defeating the current crop of Republicans should be a piece of fucking cake, but not for the dunderheads running the DNC. They couldn't find a coherent message or agenda if it bit them in the ass.

Well, I agree with you on many of the Republicans. Where I disagree with you is the suggestion that the Republicans are to blame for driving the country into the ditch we are in. Frankly, the Democrats were just as much to blame, as they have held majorities in the Senate and House quite often, and over the last 50 years, most of the time. Many of the policies that caused the economic debacle - repeal of Glass Steagall act - FNMA/FNMC and their role in the housing crisis - and many other economic policies were created not only with the consent of, but the actual driving support from, Democrats. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that we lived in some conservative Republican Wonderland where a pure conservative Republican policy set was tried and shown to fail so "now" we have to try and see what the Democrats, who have not participated in the process, have to offer.

George Bush was a big problem, of course. I won't suggest otherwise. It's a shame he was ever elected.

[Coito ergo sum]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

[Strontium Dog]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

The libertarian idea of liberty is the removal of constraints.

My broader idea of liberty involves the removal of constraints and government intervention to actively boost personal freedom.

This is the key difference between libertarianism and liberalism.

[Daan]

Well...

At least I know what i'm up against lol

Oh well, an opinion is only an opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

The following rant is not my own work, but it expresses my ideas perfectly.

"Libertarians are just incapable of putting themselves in anyone else's shoes. I have health insurance, why can't this guy get it?

Well, I think that depends on the libertarian. Some people are incapable of putting themselves in anyone else's shoes.

It is quite possible to sincerely believe that the greater good is served by having a free market than a government controlled one.

These people fail to realize that they are wired for certain types of jobs or activities, and not everyone else is. I don't really want to debate whether it is all genetics or upbringing or whatever, but some people are naturally inclined to just pick a field that requires you to read a bunch of manuals and memorize a bunch of commands and are very comfortable working in a field where they bounce around a lot and performance is very easily quantified and evaluated. IT guys talk about how they would conduct interviews for people in their field, and it was just asking them questions about programming with very definite right and wrong answers and some other pertinent math questions. IT people also know that they can usually find jobs fairly easily because their skill set is pretty universal and companies are always looking for people to run their networks. Libertarians will argue that all this is fine because he chose the right profession and got the right schooling, and that everyone who didn't deserves what they get.

Very true. However, a libertarian would say that everyone is free to do as they please. If you don't want one of those jobs involving reading manuals and things, then do what you like.

They fail to consider that people, by and large, don't really "choose" professions like that, it depends on what you are drawn to and what you are good at and the opportunities you had where you grew up and a bunch of other shit.

Yes, but I don't think they fail to consider that. I think that libertarians generally understand that what a person does depends on a lot of external factors. I mean, if you're a paraplegic, you likely won't be an Olympic skier.

They also fail to consider that half the people in the world are of below-average intelligence. Leave aside whether IQ is a valid measurement and whether or not there aren't multiple types of intelligence. Of course it is more complicated than all that, and even if it weren't, some stupid people still happen to be good at other random things.

I don't think libertarians fail to consider this at all.

Maybe we'll use competence, or usefulness, instead of intelligence.

I think the key is that for a libertarian there really isn't generally a "we." They wouldn't require a person - you or me - to "use competence, usefulness" or even intelligence to decide anything. Many people, when hiring someone for example, look for competence rather than "intelligence" and always have. That's why we have resumes, and that's why a construction company hires a worker who may be quite dim, but surely is competent at putting roofs on houses. The way a libertarian looks at this kind of thing is that the individual is free to judge others on whatever criteria they like. There isn't a State imposed criteria that "we all" must use.

Just so that it's clear that a very large cross section of humanity is incapable of doing what libertarians expect everyone to do, excel in business and manage their money and make sure to always have a skill that is in demand.

I know of no libertarian who has ever said that they "expect everyone" to "excel in business and manage their money and make sure to always have a skill that is in demand." I do know that libertarians think that every individual has the right to do what they like and excel or slack if they so choose. However, they would say that no individual is bound to pay a slacker for being a slacker. And, they would say that if you want to manage your money, then great, but if you don't that's great too - do as you like. Not everyone wants to manage money. Some don't take the time to balance their checkbook. It's up to the individual.

Libertarians and conservatives really expect these people to manage their own retirement plans, choose from a group of competing health care providers and be shrewd enough to not get ripped off, etc.

Yes, because usually a person, when he or she is spending his or her own money, is more frugal with it than if they are spending other people's money. That's why we see when one's health care is paid for entirely by someone else a person will not care how much of that resource is used. If, however, you add a deductible and a copay, then the person will think twice before wasting their money.

I do not think that most libertarians think that frauds and rip offs should be legal. But, I do think that most libertarians would, in fact, leave price comparisons and the responsibility for obtaining competing quotes for various products up to the individual. I think that most libertarians would suggest that this results, generally speaking, in a lower cost-to-consumer price level than if the State steps in, sets up a bureacracy and controls prices.

And that's just the stupid people. It is obvious that there are many people who could achieve but, for various reasons, don't. Smart people who grew up in fucked up rural towns and didn't get shepherded into elite schools like rich kids from LA or Boston. Some of them clearly made some stupid mistakes when they were young that resulted in them not finishing college, but a lot of it had to do with their temperaments and personalities, too. A woman might not really be built for most working class jobs because the ones that suited her were hostile to women and the ones she could get like being a secretary or whatever didn't work because she was too much of a ball-breaker to last in an office environment.

What is the alternative? That people are shepherded into jobs not of their choice?

Obviously, anyone could theoretically go back to school this instant and bust their ass to get a marketable degree and then bust their ass to get to the top, but neither of them is going to do that.

Don't be so sure. Some do. Some don't. The current President and the last Democratic President both claimed to have come from lower-middle class backgrounds. Richard Nixon came from a middle of the road middle-class background, as did Ronald Reagan. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, wasn't he?

Some people get degrees and bust their ass. Some people, like Bill Gates, grow up middle class and drop out of college to achieve success. Same thing with Steve Jobs - he built his career in a garage early on.

The point is that you are at liberty to do what you like. If that is to spend your life in the business world, that's fine. If it is to be an artist, that's fine too. It's up to you. Whether a particular profession or calling is valued is up to an individual's discretion to make their own value judgment.

So, fine, they don't get to make what a CEO makes or drive luxury cars. No one has any problem with that here. But the idea that they should have to worry about making sure their kids have health insurance and struggle mightily to keep a roof over their head, that this is how it should be, they DESERVE that because they didn't do everything perfectly? That is nonsense.

I think this misses the point. No libertarian really talks about whether a person "deserves" what they get. I "deserve" a raise, or I "deserve" some benefits. The libertarian perspective is that you get what you get.

Regarding the economics of providing health care for free to everybody, well the libertarian perspective is that ultimately it is more expensive overall and per capita for health care to be provided to everyone by the government, and less efficient. They would suggest that the level of health care would drop, the level of innovation would drop, and the availability of health services would drop overall. You may disagree with their philosophy on that, but that is their philosphy.

This whole screed you posted is all about imputing a base motive to the libertarians, as if they "don't give a shit" about their fellow man. I think this is incorrect. I think most of them, like most progressives, honestly think that the world would be a better place if their philosophy prevailed. They honestly think the greater good is served by libertarianism.

Obviously, a lot of republicans, specifically males, think like this. Women break down like 60/40 democrat/republican, and it is basically the opposite for men, and it is a certainty that a large number of female republicans support the party for reasons like stopping abortions and keeping boobs off TV. I don't think anyone would disagree with the assertion that most women possess far more empathy than most men.

I would disagree that there is any real proof for that assertion.

It's what makes them good at dealing with young children. Even though most men can understand that kids do stupid shit and need help and attention because they are young and still developing, most of them still have that automatic, "shut the fuck up! Why are you so stupid?"

I feel sorry for whoever wrote this. Their dad sounds like a real prick.

reaction whenever they have to deal with kids, ESPECIALLY if the kids they are dealing with are not their own. This is why basically no men except gays, pedophiles, and gay pedophiles teach kindergarten through 3rd grade or so,

That's not true.

Yes, it's true that the demographics of teaching are highly female. However, that's more a product of American culture than sexuality. Up until the 1980s, most women did not work at all, and those that did predominently engaged in support jobs and teaching, etc. Men did the rest.

and even then, there are still basically none of them until middle school. It's also why men tend to be more politically conservative, although there are other factors like natural aggressiveness leading to supporting military spending and standoffish foreign policy as well as the general desire men have for simplicity and the way the conservative mindset panders to this (with us or against us, if you are poor it is your fault, racism holds no one back, everyone should have the same sexual orientation, good people go to heaven, bad to hell).

Libertarians absolutely do not think everyone should have the same sexual orientation. Most libertarians I think support gay marriage.

libertarianism has nothing to do with religion. Many libertarians, like Randian Objectivists, tend to be atheist or agnostic.

And, no libertarian says "racism holds no one back." It's not that libetarians think that the world is some gentle garden where all people are, in fact, equal and nobody has unfair things happen. I think libertarians recognize that there is plenty of unfairness in the world.

As for poverty and fault - I never heard a libertarian say that it is a person's "fault"they are poor. Some people are at fault for their own poverty if they did stupid things. However, I think libertarians would say that ifyou're poor it is up to you to make yourself not poor, if that is what you want to do. Not everybody wants to be wealthy, or needs to be wealthy and/or not everybody's first priority is wealth. Many artists and musicians forgo wealth for artistry.

Anyway, few female republicans are really fiscal conservatives, or even know what fiscal conservatism is. This is why Bush and co have been able to raise government spending so sharply despite the cries of horror from the section of the party that reads the business pages and worship the free market. "How can Republicans do this?" they wonder. It's because a significant portion of their party couldn't give a fuck about small government and personal freedom, they just don't like blacks, gays, Hollywood movies and the coastal elites that watch them, and they want to be able to keep their guns so they can go hunting. This is what What's the Matter with Kansas is about. Whenever I suggest to conservatives that half the people who vote Republican do so because the party plays on their prejudices, they are aghast that I would even make such a suggestion.

Is this writer implying that Democrats while Bush was in power were trying to control spending but that "tax and spend" Bush made them spend unnecessarily? Weird.

You'll notice that most IT nerds are men, and men who have chosen a profession that has much more to do with ones and zeroes and very little to do with human interaction, so they are a subset of the population that is very unlikely to be particularly empathetic. This is true of nerds in general, there's a reason why the nerdiest nerds have asperger's and they are just one step away from autism. Nerds are outcasts because they can't figure out how to interact with other people without seeming awkward and looking foolish. Of course, Libertarians will tell you that this is all a choice, and maybe for a select few it actually is, but the vast majority of them would prefer to be liked and have a shot at getting a date. The problem is that they cannot stop being awkward, because they don't understand how other people see them and they can't pick up on social cues and protocol. This is why they will do things like talk about Doctor Who for five minutes straight when a girl who was trying to do a good deed says hi to them. They can't read the expression on her face that is clearly indicating a lack of interest and a fear of rape, and it doesn't occur to them that other people might not share their interests. If it does occur to them, they decide that people who don't share their interests are flawed.

All this may be true about nerds and IT people. Who knows?

What I don't get is what this writer thinks should be done about it?

A libertarian would say - that's the way it is. Some people don't have much empathy. Some people choose to go into IT. Some get stuck there for whatever reasons.

The question becomes - what do we do about it? Have a State agency evaluate nerds and see which ones the State thinks should get training in "how to pick up girls" and "how to win friends and influence people?"

The most common- and infuriating- conservatives

Somehow this guy's screed turned into a rant against "conservatives." Note - conservatives are NOT libertarians, and there is a HUGE difference between a conservative and a libertarian.

do is point to that one black guy they know who grew up in the ghetto but persevered, started his own business, and achieved prosperity. They will laud him for his rare combination of skill and dedication, but then they will turn around and ask why everyone else who started in his position couldn't do what he did, as if there was nothing special about him. Christians who have no problem with all the Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus going to hell do the same thing- a small number of people convert, so why can't everyone else?

I think what libertarians suggest is that the reason some people succeed and persevere and improve their lot in life is because they have the liberty to do so, an an incentive to do so. If we just pay for everyone's things across the board, then many people who otherwise would work to improve their situations would not do so.

So IT nerds can't appreciate that not everyone is capable of doing what they have done, and some people are capable but are held back by things like institutionalized racism or a bad upbringing or shitty schools, .....

Fuck libertarianism.

This just got too long and the long and short of it is that this writer is just all over the map - he seems to equate libertarians with conservatives and with IT nerds who lack empathy. Those are not the same sets of people.

[Coito ergo sum]

The biggest problem with libertarianism is their incredibly narrow vision of what liberty is.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how so?

What is a broad vision of liberty?

The libertarian idea of liberty is the removal of constraints.

My broader idea of liberty involves the removal of constraints and government intervention to actively boost personal freedom.

This is the key difference between libertarianism and liberalism.

I think a lot of libertarians would question whether government intervention does actively boost personal freedom. And, for me, I would take each measure as it comes.

Some measures the government takes boosts some people's personal freedom and limits other people's personal freedom. So, the question often becomes "whose personal freedom is superior."

Libertarians tend to suggest that the if an active boost to one person's freedom actively constrains another person's freedom, then the government's measure should not be adopted.

[MrJonno]

Libertarians tend to suggest that the if an active boost to one person's freedom actively constrains another person's freedom, then the government's measure should not be adopted

And that is libertarian major flaws, there is not one single action a person or organisation can take that doesnt restict someone freedom somewhere.

Even a person breathing is spewing out germs that could kill someone, should that persons be detained by the state for breathing?

In some cases I would argue yes, not for a common cold ,the risk doesnt justify it but someone with a fatal contagious disease absolutely.

I don't see people are free individuals totally isolated from each other unless they choose to interact, I see a massively complicated web with millions of threads coming from each person in a complex network. Sure in a decent society you have a lot of flexibility but those connections don't dissapear

[Coito ergo sum]

Libertarians tend to suggest that the if an active boost to one person's freedom actively constrains another person's freedom, then the government's measure should not be adopted

And that is libertarian major flaws, there is not one single action a person or organisation can take that doesnt restict someone freedom somewhere.

I wouldn't call it necessarily a "flaw." It is a difference in philosophy.

Libertarians differentiate between government or State action and individual/personal/private action. No libertarian suggests that private action does not often limit someone else's freedom. If, for example, I kick a person out of my house because they are being rude, I am limiting their freedom. A libertarian would view my property right - the right to my own own home - to inherently involve the right to exclude others from it (for what property right do you have if others can just ride roughshod over it?).

So, the issue for libertarians is not that freedom is restricted - rather the issue is about who is doing the restricting. A libertarian would say that we each as individuals have a right to do with our own bodies what we please, and that a law restricting that right is improper. However, if I want to make a rule that nobody can drink alcohol in my house because it's unhealthy then that is my right. Others can drink alcohol but not on my property.

The basic principal is a balancing of individual rights on the principle that each individual has those rights.

Even a person breathing is spewing out germs that could kill someone, should that persons be detained by the state for breathing?

No. A libertarian would not suggest that.

Once again, the libertarian is not suggesting that people don't interfere with each other. The libertarian, however, limits the government's role to certain areas - one of which would be criminal laws to prohibit one person from infringing on the personal liberty of another. There is necessarily going to be some grey area here as to what constitutes infringing on personal liberty. However, most libertarians would be against a law that makes it criminal to breathe at someone, but would be in favor of a law that makes it criminal to spit at someone.

In some cases I would argue yes, not for a common cold ,the risk doesnt justify it but someone with a fatal contagious disease absolutely.

I think most libertarians would be in favor a law that prohibits someone to attempt to infect someone with contagion even if that was through breathing. e.g. if a person knows they have tuberculosis and starts breathing in people's faces.

I don't see people are free individuals totally isolated from each other unless they choose to interact, I see a massively complicated web with millions of threads coming from each person in a complex network. Sure in a decent society you have a lot of flexibility but those connections don't dissapear

I don't think anybody, including libertarians, would think that they would disappear.

[Coito ergo sum]

By way of full disclosure - i am not Libertarian, but I do sympathize with the libertarian perspective.

I'm more of an anti-federalist republican in the Jeffersonian sense, which is not synonymous with libertarianism. I think that government has in some areas a greater role than libertarians would give it. I have no problem, roughly speaking, with the balance struck in the US Constitution, delegating enumerated powers to the federal government, but some of those enumerated powers are beyond what a libertarian would be in favor of delegating

[MrJonno]

By way of full disclosure - i am not Libertarian, but I do sympathize with the libertarian perspective.

I'm more of an anti-federalist republican in the Jeffersonian sense, which is not synonymous with libertarianism. I think that government has in some areas a greater role than libertarians would give it. I have no problem, roughly speaking, with the balance struck in the US Constitution, delegating enumerated powers to the federal government, but some of those enumerated powers are beyond what a libertarian would be in favor of delegating

The problem is the libertarians at least many of them on RDF did take very extreme positions like the ones I quoted earlier

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying personal freedoms are generally good thing and should be encouraged, its when someone takes the position that your individual freedom is the only factor that matters nothing else.

The same with the free market and capitalism, its a useful tool that can improve the quality of lives of many people. My problem is when people start treating a tool as a religion. The free market is never going to supply a heart transplant to someone who is unemployed or on minimum wage. Now you may think that doesnt matters, you may think if you want to pay for someone elses heart transplant then I am 'free' to do so. Well I not prepared to pay on my own for someone heart transplant I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

[Feck]

By way of full disclosure - i am not Libertarian, but I do sympathize with the libertarian perspective.

I'm more of an anti-federalist republican in the Jeffersonian sense, which is not synonymous with libertarianism. I think that government has in some areas a greater role than libertarians would give it. I have no problem, roughly speaking, with the balance struck in the US Constitution, delegating enumerated powers to the federal government, but some of those enumerated powers are beyond what a libertarian would be in favor of delegating

The problem is the libertarians at least many of them on RDF did take very extreme positions like the ones I quoted earlier

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying personal freedoms are generally good thing and should be encouraged, its when someone takes the position that your individual freedom is the only factor that matters nothing else.

The same with the free market and capitalism, its a useful tool that can improve the quality of lives of many people. My problem is when people start treating a tool as a religion. The free market is never going to supply a heart transplant to someone who is unemployed or on minimum wage. Now you may think that doesnt matters, you may think if you want to pay for someone elses heart transplant then I am 'free' to do so. Well I not prepared to pay on my own for someone heart transplant I am however prepared to pay for 1/60 millionth of one (UK) as long as I know 59.9999 million other people will pay the rest on the basis that if I need one in the future the rest of the country will do the same

Seems like a good system to me too .

[blackarmada]

But in order for Libertarianism to work, everyone has to agree on the basic rule of behavior in the society isn't it ?

It's like playing a card game, it only works when everyone agrees that Ace of Spades is the biggest card, or that a royal flush will trump a pair.

What's to stop a bigger group of players from changing the rules? You can say laws will be enacted to prevent that but the ultimate nature of the law is still set by the guy with the biggest group backing him up isn't it ?

If so much faith is placed on that everyone could agree on a common rule of behavior and abide by it, how would this in the end be any different from communism?