Libertarian ideology

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

A key provision of the bill would require the FDA to review the safety of some potentially risky medications at 18 months and at three years after approval, and to conduct active, routine surveillance of large public and private medical databases to better track possible harmful patient side effects of medications.

Thus doing the job of the pharmaceutical companies at taxpayer expense.

Question for you: Again, this is an area in need of improvement, but are you looking to dissolve the FDA completely? DO you think the pharmaceutical companies will do a better job reviewing the safety of the drugs they manufacture? The FDA scope is wide and dissolving it involves many implications.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

ffg, I think it is the libertarian logic that is severely flawed. Your social contract with this country began when your parents chose this country for you.

Again, this is an anti-concept. No one can "begin" a contract for you. That invalidates the entire idea of "contract".

You can freely end that contract any time. You consent to this contract by remaining here, period.

Period? What else do I "consent to" by remaining here? Death by lynch mob? Rape? Theft? Conscription into clown college? Seriously -- what does "here" have to do with "consent"?

The rest of it follows from the flawed logic you're proposing here.

EDIT, actually, one part of it does not follow:

The landowner owns the land (in a limited sense), and the US government owns rights to govern its territory.

What do you mean by "own" and what do you mean by "rights"?

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

Question for you: Again, this is an area in need of improvement, but are you looking to dissolve the FDA completely? DO you think the pharmaceutical companies will do a better job reviewing the safety of the drugs they manufacture? The FDA scope is wide and dissolving it involves many implications.

Most Libertarians would like the FDA dissolved, yes. And some pharmeceutical companies would do a much better job, and some would do a much worse job.

CaterinaA · May 2007

Interesting thread, including the hijack. Here in Latin America Libertarianism is a very rare debate topic.

I guess the flaws -if existent- of the Libertarian ideology regarding social issues will vary according one's point of view of social justice. If one person thinks that social justice is only achieved when all individuals are maximizing their own personal utility, according to their personal needs, then that person will consider Libertarianism a fair ideology...

I have one question about the isolasionist (sp?) issue. Is that especifically related to foreign diplomacy or it also includes trade policy? Cause if that's the case I'm wondering how eficiency issues are adressed. If I have understood correctly, Libertarian economic policy would be in the line of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek ideas, hence effiency should be a key aspect of the economy. Then how if you're an isolasionist intend to achieve effiency in areas were the country is not naturally (I can't find a better suited word in english, sorry) endowed or does not have the actual resources to produce a certain good. Trade is left out of the equation?

Peace,
Caterina

farfromglorified · May 2007

CaterinaA wrote:

Interesting thread, including the hijack. Here in Latin America Libertarianism is a very rare debate topic.

I guess the flaws -if existent- of the Libertarian ideology regarding social issues will vary according one's point of view of social justice. If one person thinks that social justice is only achieved when all individuals are maximizing their own personal utility, according to their personal needs, then that person will consider Libertarianism a fair ideology...

I have one question about the isolasionist (sp?) issue. Is that especifically related to foreign diplomacy or it also includes trade policy? Cause if that's the case I'm wondering how eficiency issues are adressed. If I have understood correctly, Libertarian economic policy would be in the line of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek ideas, hence effiency should be a key aspect of the economy. Then how if you're an isolasionist intend to achieve effiency in areas were the country is not naturally (I can't find a better suited word in english, sorry) endowed or does not have the actual resources to produce a certain good. Trade is left out of the equation?

Peace,
Caterina

Caterina,

Libertarian isolationism is typically political and non-economic. Libertarians typically believe that governments have little or no business in regulating international trade, just as they believe that they have little or no business in regulating intranational trade. I say "typical" because there are some economic isolationists in the Libertarian ranks, but they are a minority.

CaterinaA · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Caterina,

Libertarian isolationism is typically political and non-economic. Libertarians typically believe that governments have little or no business in regulating international trade, just as they believe that they have little or no business in regulating intranational trade. I say "typical" because there are some economic isolationists in the Libertarian ranks, but they are a minority.

Oh I see. So, typically Libertarians are against regulating international trade, but are not against it...

Thanks Jeff!!!

farfromglorified · May 2007

CaterinaA wrote:

Oh I see. So, typically Libertarians are against regulating international trade, but are not against it...

Thanks Jeff!!!

Caterina,

I'm not sure if we're losing each other in the English or not. Libertarianism, as a modern American political ideal, is against regulating international trade. Some people who call themselves Libertarian, however, do believe that America should regulate international trade. It's a small schism in the movement that really depends on the two primary reasons people are Libertarian in the first place. Most Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary beliefs in individual liberty and human freedom. However, some Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary belief in isolationism. The latter is a rather unique American perspective that has its roots in early American history.

So in other words, the "official" Libertarian position on international trade vis-a-vis government regulation would be very laissez faire. However, some individual Libertarians disagree with that position and would like America to have a regulatory system of economic isolationism via tariffs, duties, etc. Personally, I find the latter view mostly contradictory.

It's important to note here that when I say "international trade", I'm referring to the interrelation between international individuals and corporations, not governments. This is why most Libertarians oppose NAFTA, the WTO and other governmental institutions who profess to "facilitate trade". Libertarians typically believe those institutions do the opposite.

Best,

-Jeff

CaterinaA · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Caterina,

I'm not sure if we're losing each other in the English or not. Libertarianism, as a modern American political ideal, is against regulating international trade. Some people who call themselves Libertarian, however, do believe that America should regulate international trade. It's a small schism in the movement that really depends on the two primary reasons people are Libertarian in the first place. Most Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary beliefs in individual liberty and human freedom. However, some Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primarily belief in isolationism. The latter is a rather unique American perspective that has its roots in early American history.

So in other words, the "official" Libertarian position on international trade vis-a-vis government regulation would be very laissez faire. However, some individual Libertarians disagree with that position and would like America to have a regulatory system of economic isolationism via tariffs, duties, etc. Personally, I find the latter view mostly contradictory.

It's important to note here that when I say "international trade", I'm referring to the interrelation between international individuals and corporations, not governments. This is why most Libertarians oppose NAFTA, the WTO and other governmental institutions who profess to "facilitate trade". Libertarians typically believe those institutions do the opposite.

Best,

-Jeff

Jeff

Thanks a lot, I re-read my last answer and yes it was somewhat confusing (what I tried to convey was that Libertarians are not against trade per se, but against regulations like WTO). This is what happens when you think in spanish and write in english, I guess.

I had in mind exactly what you're telling me, sorry if I made you think your first answer was not clear enough

Peace

farfromglorified · May 2007

CaterinaA wrote:

Jeff

Thanks a lot, I re-read my last answer and yes it was somewhat confusing (what I tried to convey was that Libertarians are not against trade per se, but against regulations like WTO). This is what happens when you think in spanish and write in english, I guess.

I had in mind exactly what you're telling me, sorry if I made you think your first answer was not clear enough

Peace

No problem! The way you say it above is definitely consistent with what I'm communicating.

Best,

-Jeff

OutOfBreath · May 2007

Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.

I will say this about libertarianism, it works nicely on the individual level, and I am on the same page when it comes to personal and private issues. My problem stems from it being based on extreme individualism. To the extent that it seems to be denying or ignoring the existence of collective problems and issues transcending the individual person's sphere. Actually, as I see it, it is based on some axioms, or what you wanna call them which to me looks something like this:

1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.

2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.

3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.

Am I way off with this? I dont agree with any of these three axioms at face value. But perhaps you can soften them for me?

Peace
Dan

bonaneas · May 2007

Seeing as this subject is rather close to my heart and everyday existence, I'm gonna take my time over the next few days to run through it and read everything people have to say. For now, on the subject of liberty, freedom, personal or otherwise, (and if we don't start with personal freedom where can we start?!?!?!) i can only say this...Power is given only to the man who dares stoop and take it; the man whom drinks from the well of unlawful knowledge, and profits. As an individual, as a human doing not being, as the individual soul you were born as.

As Malcolm X said - “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.”

Can the ideal of voting and this pseudo-plutocracy they call western democracy be reconciled with true libertarian ideology? Surely Libertarians should be oppposed to the ideal of the 'vote'...is'nt true libertarianism really anarchy - an archos - without the state ? I think so. Without a state, a goverment, who can tell us what to do, what to pay, and when to pay it? States enslave, states make us 'subjects', or 'citizens', or 'taxpayers'.

There seems to be some sizeable movement in the US for Libertarianism getting on the ballots in some states, and being in a country where there is jack shit of the sort, is the ballot box the way to go about bringing true liberty to the people? I dunno.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.

I will say this about libertarianism, it works nicely on the individual level, and I am on the same page when it comes to personal and private issues. My problem stems from it being based on extreme individualism. To the extent that it seems to be denying or ignoring the existence of collective problems and issues transcending the individual person's sphere. Actually, as I see it, it is based on some axioms, or what you wanna call them which to me looks something like this:

1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.

2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.

3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.

Am I way off with this? I dont agree with any of these three axioms at face value. But perhaps you can soften them for me?

Peace
Dan

You're not way off to me. That's how I see it as well, only you say it so much better.

farfromglorified · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.

You're always welcome!

1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.

The first two statements are right on, per Libertarianism. The last, not so much. Libertarians certainly agree that society exists -- the existence of society as a potential oppressive force is intrinsic in Libertarian ideology. Furthermore, Libertarians certainly believe problems, successes, and many things exist because of social forces and conditions. It's not that "all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings". Rather, it's that all responsibilities and rights can be ascribed to individual existence, rather than social circumstance.

2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.

Again, Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things. Few Libertarians believe that "government is the opposite of liberty". Rather, they believe that individual rights simply precede government. And Libertarians have a narrow view of individual rights, typically limited to life, liberty, and property. When government violates those rights, or pretends to be their determinant, only then does "government become the opposite of liberty".

"Money equals amount of freedom" is an anti-Libertarian statement and few, if any, Libertarians would agree with that. That is more a concept left to the socialists and anarchists who believe that property is an oppressive force. Libertarians view property as an individual right. The amount of property (or lack thereof) doesn't determine your freedom. The ability to pursue that property, in whatever form, does.

3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.

For the most part, yes. Libertarians typically believe that taxation is a violation of the individual rights of liberty, property and life itself (though the last is more an Objectivist view).

The predominant Libertarian axioms are more along the line of this:

1. All men are created equal.
2. All men have equal rights to life, liberty, and property.
3. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another.

OutOfBreath · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

You're always welcome!

Why thanks.

The first two statements are right on, per Libertarianism. The last, not so much. Libertarians certainly agree that society exists -- the existence of society as a potential oppressive force is intrinsic in Libertarian ideology. Furthermore, Libertarians certainly believe problems, successes, and many things exist because of social forces and conditions. It's not that "all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings". Rather, it's that all responsibilities and rights can be ascribed to individual existence, rather than social circumstance.

OK. But even after that slight correction, it seems I was on the money then. With a libertarian position that does not really consider anything beyond an individual perspective, any concessions that they may be aware of "social forces and conditions" seems hollow, as they don't seem to take the consequence of them. If there are problems created by social forces on an aggregate level, that's where they should be met, not by somehow finding the individuals whose responsibility it (arguably) is.

Again, Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things. Few Libertarians believe that "government is the opposite of liberty". Rather, they believe that individual rights simply precede government. And Libertarians have a narrow view of individual rights, typically limited to life, liberty, and property. When government violates those rights, or pretends to be their determinant, only then does "government become the opposite of liberty".

OK, I see what you mean

"Money equals amount of freedom" is an anti-Libertarian statement and few, if any, Libertarians would agree with that. That is more a concept left to the socialists and anarchists who believe that property is an oppressive force. Libertarians view property as an individual right. The amount of property (or lack thereof) doesn't determine your freedom. The ability to pursue that property, in whatever form, does.

Well that's the principal anyway. But in our current context, given a capitalistic system as of today, doing away with government just gives the power to those with the most money. And money makes money, driving differences until there are widely seperated classes in society. I wasn't suggesting that money equals freedom is what libertarians say, but I am arguing that it's a consequence under current circumstances.

For the most part, yes. Libertarians typically believe that taxation is a violation of the individual rights of liberty, property and life itself (though the last is more an Objectivist view).

Well, I tend to take the large view on those things. We are part of a system or rather system of systems. Our salaries come from the system, and the system also supports us in many ways. Thus, getting caught up in the taxation issue is a trait of a very individualistic position where the money you make is seperate from the rest of society and owing only to yourself for having it. Tax=theft falls apart the moment the individualistic position is abandoned.

The predominant Libertarian axioms are more along the line of this:

1. All men are created equal.
2. All men have equal rights to life, liberty, and property.
3. No one has the right to initiate the use of force against another.

No problems with these ones here in themselves, particularly 1 and 3, although I must say that the right to liberty is issue enough to go to town with. The precise interpretation of that point is the critical issue. Life is obvious, liberty is very fuzzy, and property should not be mentioned as a fundamental on that level, but rather as a possible "first amendment" or something. Property is a cultural and social invention, not a natural given or constant. At least not to the extent we usually draw it in modern society.

Anyway, you did soften it up a bit for me, but I won't accept it still. For me it is a way too individualistic way of thinking that disregard our traditional collective and social ways of living in favour of self.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

OK. But even after that slight correction, it seems I was on the money then. With a libertarian position that does not really consider anything beyond an individual perspective, any concessions that they may be aware of "social forces and conditions" seems hollow, as they don't seem to take the consequence of them. If there are problems created by social forces on an aggregate level, that's where they should be met, not by somehow finding the individuals whose responsibility it (arguably) is.

I think you missed the point here. Libertarians believe in society and social forces. Libertarians do not believe, however, that social forces can be greater than simply the sum of the individuals involved. They certainly recognize the "consequences" of these forces, but Libertarians would argue that those consequences and their causes only make sense when considered on the individual scale. Societies do not live in poverty. Individuals do. Societies do not commit crimes -- individuals and social bodies do. Societies do not have rights -- individuals do. Societies cannot follow through on obligations -- individuals do.

Furthermore, individuals can come together and accomplish great things. Libertarianism isn't built around the island man concept. Libertarians are often great supporters of cooperation and community. Just because they don't believe in a community's right to trump an individual right doesn't mean they don't believe in working with others and meeting problems on the "aggregate level".

Well that's the principal anyway. But in our current context, given a capitalistic system as of today, doing away with government just gives the power to those with the most money. And money makes money, driving differences until there are widely seperated classes in society. I wasn't suggesting that money equals freedom is what libertarians say, but I am arguing that it's a consequence under current circumstances.

Libertarians would take real issue with all these principles. First, they would reject the notion that today's system is "capitalistic". Secondly, they would reject the idea that "doing away with government just gives power to those with the most money", since Libertarians would reject the logic that simply transferring aggressive power from one sector of society to another can be called an accomplishment and that much of today's corporate power is explained by corporate involvement with government to begin with. Furthermore, they're not proposing to "do away with government" anyway. They believe government should exist to protect the rights of all, not create and then violate the rights of some.

The "consequence" of Libertarianism would be a small government tasked only with protecting life, liberty, and property. It would not be a government tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor (welfare), nor would it be a government tasked with protecting corporate interests (corporate welfare). It would protect both rich and poor from rights violators.

Well, I tend to take the large view on those things. We are part of a system or rather system of systems. Our salaries come from the system, and the system also supports us in many ways. Thus, getting caught up in the taxation issue is a trait of a very individualistic position where the money you make is seperate from the rest of society and owing only to yourself for having it. Tax=theft falls apart the moment the individualistic position is abandoned.

Again, this would be inconsistent with Libertarian ideology. To make a blanket statement that all money gets its value from an undefinable system doesn't sit well with Libertarians. Libertarians would argue that governmental systems have done more to devalue money than they have ever done to give it value. Money, to a Libertarian, simply represents the exchange value of labor between conscious individual actors and groups of those actors. The taxation issue, yes, is an individualistic position in some sense. But so is universal health care, in some sense. Obviously all governmental actions and services affect individuals, right? If we were only concerned about a "system" why would it matter that some individuals are poor or oppressed or whatever if the "system" could be judged healthy? If you seperate the concept of individual from society, you've rendered the latter term meaningless in the eyes of a Libertarian.

No problems with these ones here in themselves, particularly 1 and 3, although I must say that the right to liberty is issue enough to go to town with. The precise interpretation of that point is the critical issue. Life is obvious, liberty is very fuzzy, and property should not be mentioned as a fundamental on that level, but rather as a possible "first amendment" or something. Property is a cultural and social invention, not a natural given or constant. At least not to the extent we usually draw it in modern society.

This would be where the valid arguments lie, in my opinion. The issue of rights is definitely a place where a lot of people can look at Liberatrianism and say that it is too narrow or ill-defined.

Anyway, you did soften it up a bit for me, but I won't accept it still. For me it is a way too individualistic way of thinking that disregard our traditional collective and social ways of living in favour of self.

Hehe...you won't accept it? How dare you pretend that you can think and determine for yourself

OutOfBreath · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I think you missed the point here. Libertarians believe in society and social forces. Libertarians do not believe, however, that social forces can be greater than simply the sum of the individuals involved. They certainly recognize the "consequences" of these forces, but Libertarians would argue that those consequences and their causes only make sense when considered on the individual scale. Societies do not live in poverty. Individuals do. Societies do not commit crimes -- individuals and social bodies do. Societies do not have rights -- individuals do. Societies cannot follow through on obligations -- individuals do.

Societal forces, influences and trends often don't seem to add up while going from the individual up. However, social scientists can't make a good fit from the top and down either. Society can well be more or at least different than just "all the individuals together". And how individuals act is certainly in part determined by the society, which is in turn influenced by it's people and so on. It's complicated, but there seem to be reason for the time being to at least to a degree seperate society and the individual for some purposes, since we dont know how it all goes together.

Furthermore, individuals can come together and accomplish great things. Libertarianism isn't built around the island man concept. Libertarians are often great supporters of cooperation and community. Just because they don't believe in a community's right to trump an individual right doesn't mean they don't believe in working with others and meeting problems on the "aggregate level".

Certainly. I didn't say libertarians are bad people. I just question their principles and politics.

Libertarians would take real issue with all these principles. First, they would reject the notion that today's system is "capitalistic". Secondly, they would reject the idea that "doing away with government just gives power to those with the most money", since Libertarians would reject the logic that simply transferring aggressive power from one sector of society to another can be called an accomplishment and that much of today's corporate power is explained by corporate involvement with government to begin with. Furthermore, they're not proposing to "do away with government" anyway. They believe government should exist to protect the rights of all, not create and then violate the rights of some.

OK, I might be confusing libertarianism and anarchism again.

The "consequence" of Libertarianism would be a small government tasked only with protecting life, liberty, and property. It would not be a government tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor (welfare), nor would it be a government tasked with protecting corporate interests (corporate welfare). It would protect both rich and poor from rights violators.

That sounds nice. Until the difference between classes becomes large enough and the poor become poor enough for tensions to soar, increase hostility to a point where the elite either wall themselves off violently, until the inevitable overthrow, or they start welfare programs to placate the poor masses. A bit bleak perhaps, but that's roughly how the welfare state happened in the first place. Coupled with christian morality as well, of course.

Not saying it can't happen, but seems unlikely.

Again, this would be inconsistent with Libertarian ideology. To make a blanket statement that all money gets its value from an undefinable system doesn't sit well with Libertarians. Libertarians would argue that governmental systems have done more to devalue money than they have ever done to give it value. Money, to a Libertarian, simply represents the exchange value of labor between conscious individual actors and groups of those actors. The taxation issue, yes, is an individualistic position in some sense. But so is universal health care, in some sense. Obviously all governmental actions and services affect individuals, right? If we were only concerned about a "system" why would it matter that some individuals are poor or oppressed or whatever if the "system" could be judged healthy? If you seperate the concept of individual from society, you've rendered the latter term meaningless in the eyes of a Libertarian.

My point is that money is irrelevant outside it's system. Your paycheck and what digits it holds is irrelevant, unless you also consider all other factors in society, work, ideology, beliefs and so on. Hence, a narrow focus on the tax subtracted from one's paycheck is rather meaningless. The point is that we have an amount of goods, labour and people, which is somehow gonna work out to the degree that it is maintained. In practice, how much I'm deducted in taxes is irrelevant, if it is enough on top of various public programs to get by decently for a decent input into society. As for the "health" of a system, I would look at how many it cares for adequately, making that portion as large as possible, and then have welfare and other measures to secure those that fall outside the system.

It is really about completely different ways to look at this. But that's no surprise, is it?

This would be where the valid arguments lie, in my opinion. The issue of rights is definitely a place where a lot of people can look at Liberatrianism and say that it is too narrow or ill-defined.

Indeed. I would say just that, actually.

Hehe...you won't accept it? How dare you pretend that you can think and determine for yourself

Don't confuse me for Ahnimus, my friend. Besides, if I were to argue determinism (which I dont, or at least not to A's extent) it would merely be given that I would think and determine the way I do. It could not have been otherwise with my genes, background and experiences, even if I use my mind and reason to arrive at it. This is of course unprovable either way, and in my view, pretty irrelevant.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Don't confuse me for Ahnimus, my friend. Besides, if I were to argue determinism (which I dont, or at least not to A's extent) it would merely be given that I would think and determine the way I do. It could not have been otherwise with my genes, background and experiences, even if I use my mind and reason to arrive at it. This is of course unprovable either way, and in my view, pretty irrelevant.

Hehe...wasn't intending to invoke determinism here, but rather just slyly pointing out that you were, in the process of evaluating Libertarianism, acting out the highest of Libertarian ideals -- reasoned, individual thought. But it works this way too

Good stuff above. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow.

Best,

-Jeff

farfromglorified · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Societal forces, influences and trends often don't seem to add up while going from the individual up. However, social scientists can't make a good fit from the top and down either. Society can well be more or at least different than just "all the individuals together". And how individuals act is certainly in part determined by the society, which is in turn influenced by it's people and so on. It's complicated, but there seem to be reason for the time being to at least to a degree seperate society and the individual for some purposes, since we dont know how it all goes together.

When you say "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by your society", you're saying, to a Libertarian, "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by other individuals". And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, Libertarian or otherwise.

A demonstration that society can somehow exist outside of individuals or could somehow be independent of them would be interesting to see.

That sounds nice. Until the difference between classes becomes large enough and the poor become poor enough for tensions to soar, increase hostility to a point where the elite either wall themselves off violently, until the inevitable overthrow, or they start welfare programs to placate the poor masses. A bit bleak perhaps, but that's roughly how the welfare state happened in the first place. Coupled with christian morality as well, of course.

Meh...no political system doesn't live under the threat of revolution. I mean, to opposite of Libertarianism is fascism, and fascism faces the same problems. Revolutions happen when social structures no longer represent the culture of the people. It's not unique to anything Libertarian.

My point is that money is irrelevant outside it's system. Your paycheck and what digits it holds is irrelevant, unless you also consider all other factors in society, work, ideology, beliefs and so on. Hence, a narrow focus on the tax subtracted from one's paycheck is rather meaningless.

That's like saying "a narrow focus on the guy who was murdered down the street from me is rather meaningless". Or "a narrow focus on the guy who is poor down the street from me is rather meaningless". Certainly my paycheck is relevant to the society I live in, but its relevance lies in the exchange value it has with other individuals.

The point is that we have an amount of goods, labour and people, which is somehow gonna work out to the degree that it is maintained. In practice, how much I'm deducted in taxes is irrelevant, if it is enough on top of various public programs to get by decently for a decent input into society.

Not invalid, but this would require a very insipid morality, IMO. It's basically saying that a bribe is only wrong when the amount is wrong, or that a kidnapping is only wrong when the ransom is too high. Libertarians (and myself) aren't likely to find morality in amounts.

As for the "health" of a system, I would look at how many it cares for adequately, making that portion as large as possible, and then have welfare and other measures to secure those that fall outside the system.

Again, this requires the individual and the sum-of-individual theory, which seem to contradict what you say above.

It is really about completely different ways to look at this. But that's no surprise, is it?

Definitely!

OutOfBreath · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

When you say "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by your society", you're saying, to a Libertarian, "how individuals act is certainly in part determined by other individuals". And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, Libertarian or otherwise.

Well, yeah, but I was trying to show the importance, nature and power of those forces outside the self. But formally and fundamentally, sure.

A demonstration that society can somehow exist outside of individuals or could somehow be independent of them would be interesting to see.

It doesn't exist outside of individuals, but may well be out of the individuals' control and "behave" quite differently from the people in it. Hence being something more or something else than merely adding up the parts.

Meh...no political system doesn't live under the threat of revolution. I mean, to opposite of Libertarianism is fascism, and fascism faces the same problems. Revolutions happen when social structures no longer represent the culture of the people. It's not unique to anything Libertarian.

Oh, I know. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

That's like saying "a narrow focus on the guy who was murdered down the street from me is rather meaningless". Or "a narrow focus on the guy who is poor down the street from me is rather meaningless". Certainly my paycheck is relevant to the society I live in, but its relevance lies in the exchange value it has with other individuals.

Not invalid, but this would require a very insipid morality, IMO. It's basically saying that a bribe is only wrong when the amount is wrong, or that a kidnapping is only wrong when the ransom is too high. Libertarians (and myself) aren't likely to find morality in amounts.

I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I'm saying that the amount on the check in itself is meaningless for the individual involved, unless one factors in the societal, economical and welfare context around the individual. Instead of having the narrow focus on your own income, the focus should be on what your income gets you, and the societal context in which you get it. Libertarians seem to focus too much on the amount deducted in my view.

As for the morality and bribes thing, come again? I was just saying that if you look fundamentally on our system and society, it is basically about how we are to organize, how we are to distribute goods and how to do that "fairly" or at least to the extent that the system is maintained. It's about stepping back and focusing on the bigger picture and what the system is and how and why it works. It is about looking at it holistically, not exclusively from an individual perspective. Such an individual perspective also often posits a particular kind of individual as well, but that's another debate.

Again, this requires the individual and the sum-of-individual theory, which seem to contradict what you say above.

How does it contradict what I say above? It's one thing to analyze the system parts of society as just that, but the point of it all is after all the individuals' welfare. So our meauring rod should be on the individual level most certainly. No contradiction. Going for collective solutions for (all) the individuals' gain, is what socialism is about, or at least should be about. Just because it seems to me that libertarians are too individualistically focused, doesn't mean I dismiss individuals altogether.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified · May 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

It doesn't exist outside of individuals, but may well be out of the individuals' control and "behave" quite differently from the people in it. Hence being something more or something else than merely adding up the parts.

I'm confused as to why this means it is greater than its parts. Certainly some things are out of an individual's control, but those are still real, tangible things that can be ascribed to some individual.

I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I'm saying that the amount on the check in itself is meaningless for the individual involved, unless one factors in the societal, economical and welfare context around the individual. Instead of having the narrow focus on your own income, the focus should be on what your income gets you, and the societal context in which you get it. Libertarians seem to focus too much on the amount deducted in my view.

That's kind of saying the same thing. Obviously "the amount deducted" affects "what your income gets you". And Libertarians would counter this with discussions of inflation and waste and decreased competition that are a common product of the systems they (and I) dislike.

Libertarians do not believe they have a right to a specific labor value, they simply believe they have a right to exchange whatever value their labor is judged having as they see fit with anyone who will trade for it. So telling a Libertarian he or she "should be thankful" would be a tough proof.

As for the morality and bribes thing, come again? I was just saying that if you look fundamentally on our system and society, it is basically about how we are to organize, how we are to distribute goods and how to do that "fairly" or at least to the extent that the system is maintained. It's about stepping back and focusing on the bigger picture and what the system is and how and why it works. It is about looking at it holistically, not exclusively from an individual perspective. Such an individual perspective also often posits a particular kind of individual as well, but that's another debate.

How does it contradict what I say above? It's one thing to analyze the system parts of society as just that, but the point of it all is after all the individuals' welfare. So our meauring rod should be on the individual level most certainly. No contradiction. Going for collective solutions for (all) the individuals' gain, is what socialism is about, or at least should be about. Just because it seems to me that libertarians are too individualistically focused, doesn't mean I dismiss individuals altogether.

Ok, these make more sense to me now.

Libertarian ideology

Comments

Categories