Libertarians believe in the least possible government necessary. I have a few questions...
1.) There is a common Liberal argument, of which I agree with, that goes something like this: If you can justify taxes for the military, the law system, or the police, than I can surely justify taxes for x, y, or z (aka welfare, etc.)
- Is this a valid point to you? To me, it is.
2.) Our country, more or less, once held a position of libertarianism (go way back), but here we are, with a disturbingly large government in size and scope. I firmly believe that if you give government an ounce, it takes two. How do expect to have a small government and not allow it to grow to its current size and scope? Do you think that is the job of the people? I would argue that the majority of the people are plain simplemined, and care for nothing but pop culture, sex, drugs, partying, etc. How do you expect a government not to monopolize its control over a populace when the populace is bred into a system who are inherently simple?
This is why I have been leaning away from Libertarianism. No matter how well intentioned they may be, I feel as though their efforts are for nothing, for the people are, as I stated above, inherently simpeminded, and prone to being controlled and manipulated.
Has the history of our species not proven this? Tell me what you think, and THANKS!
OldBenjaminNOMORE: Libertarians believe in the least possible government necessary. I have a few questions... 1.) There is a common Liberal argument, of which I agree with, that goes something like this: If you can justify taxes for the military, the law system, or the police, than I can surely justify taxes for x, y, or z (aka welfare, etc.) - Is this a valid point to you? To me, it is.
Basically yes, it's more or less valid. See here:
And for a more detailed explanation, of what actual libertarianism is, and what it's logical conclusion is, see here.)
Our country, more or less, once held a position of libertarianism (go way back), but here we are, with a disturbingly large government in size and scope. I firmly believe that if you give government an ounce, it takes two. How do expect to have a small government and not allow it to grow to its current size and scope? Do you think that is the job of the people? I would argue that the majority of the people are plain simplemined, and care for nothing but pop culture, sex, drugs, partying, etc. How do you expect a government not to monopolize its control over a populace when the populace is bred into a system who are inherently simple?
Coincidentally enough, this was a large part of the debate that was had last night between Stefan Molyneux and David Nalle. Again, this is why people like Molyneux make the argument for anarchism and ultimately reject the idea of minarchism.
Again, be sure to check out the video and article above, as well as the Ultimate Beginner thread.
This is why I have been leaning away from Libertarianism.
In what direction? Not toward more statism...
I've been leaning from Libertarianism towards Anarchism, hahaha.
Sorry to give a heart-attack. Thank you for the video, I will watch it sometime today!
I got really into minarchism at one point but it's fail. You cannot believe in self-ownership and consistently advocate a state of any shape or size because a state uses taxation to fund itself and taxation violates the NAP.
Ultimately, if you believe in self-ownership then you're probably going to conclude at one point or another that the only truly consistent political philosophy is anarchism.
Conversely if you don't believe in self-ownership then you're going to have a hard time justifying a small state anyways because the degree to which the state owns you and your stuff becomes an ever-changing political question.
This is why if you're going to be a statist you might as well just be a statist all the way. This does not mean one cannot be right wing though, it just means that all the small government talk within the right wing is mostly rhetorical.
That video was absolutely magnificent. Thanks for sharing it, and please feel free to share any and all videos you would like!
Bloom, I agree with you. Thanks for the reply!
OldBenjaminNOMORE:please feel free to share any and all videos you would like!
Already done.
(also, again, be sure to check out the The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread)
"1.) There is a common Liberal argument, of which I agree with, that goes something like this: If you can justify taxes for the military, the law system, or the police, than I can surely justify taxes for x, y, or z (aka welfare, etc.) "
This argument falls flat on its face because society is impossible without security, law, and law enforcement. If you believe that a monopoly system is necessary for these things to exist then you can justify taxation because everyone is better off by their own values for living in society than not living in society unless you're the special member of this website. The same, however, cannot be said of a welfare system. I am not necessarily better off, from my own standards, if someone gets a paycheck once a month.
"2.) Our country, more or less, once held a position of libertarianism (go way back), but here we are, with a disturbingly large government in size and scope. I firmly believe that if you give government an ounce, it takes two. How do expect to have a small government and not allow it to grow to its current size and scope? Do you think that is the job of the people? I would argue that the majority of the people are plain simplemined, and care for nothing but pop culture, sex, drugs, partying, etc. How do you expect a government not to monopolize its control over a populace when the populace is bred into a system who are inherently simple?"
1. This is why democracy sucks
2. If the constitution was what most conservative minarchists like to say that it is then a minarchist state would be conceivable. If the constitution was about 20 times more restrictive than it currently is, then I doubt that the government could surreptitiously have much of a power grab. The constitution has been generally upheld (though leaving much to be desired), the fact was just that it's impossible for the minarchist to point at the founding of the nation and show that all of the founding fathers were minarchists as such. They were often fairly statist, just on a state, rather than federal level, and with the currently connected state of the United States it is very conceivable that if the founding fathers were around they could be fairly statist. This leaves the expansion of state power as very possible. A constitution could, then, keep these problems contained and a minarchist state is conceivable on that front. Ironically, however, it's the forces of democracy which pose a much greater threat to minarchism.
But at any rate, if you buy into the minarchist perspective, it's better to have a small state than absolute chaos that they would believe results from an anarchist system.
"This is why I have been leaning away from Libertarianism. No matter how well intentioned they may be, I feel as though their efforts are for nothing, for the people are, as I stated above, inherently simpeminded, and prone to being controlled and manipulated."
Then what are you leaning towards? The fact is that the common man has never been, due to innate intellect, choice, and social circumstance, fit to be in a choice of political control. With this said, if there is not some sort of tyranny of the majority, then there will be a tyranny of the minority. This is true of any social system, and exactly why we need to head towards a system which minimizes the innately terrible effects of democracy.
Neodoxy,
That argument doesn't fall flat on its face because where we both believe that perhaps society functions better with a police for or security, it can be provided without the state.
Therefore, the liberal argument I presented is well-justified against a Libertarian or statist.
What it boils down to is that Libertarians are essentially hypocrites, because they claim to admonish taxes, yet support taxation for limited things, which are, in their mind, just and necessary. But surely you can agree that many liberals view welfare as just and necessary as well, can you not? If you can justify legal theft for one thing, surely I can justify it for another.
"That argument doesn't fall flat on its face because where we both believe that perhaps society functions better with a police for or security, it can be provided without the state."
The entire scenario changes when you suggest that perhaps monopoly power isn't the best, or indeed only way to provide absolutely essential services, something which minarchists do not admit.
"Therefore, the liberal argument I presented is well-justified against a Libertarian or statist."
Only if they accept the possibility of functional anarchism, something which no minarchist I've ever known has.
"But surely you can agree that many liberals view welfare as just and necessary as well, can you not? If you can justify legal theft for one thing, surely I can justify it for another."
Not when the only way that property rights, and therefore a basis for what constitutes as theft, is only established by the state itself. That is to say that if property cannot exist in the absence of the state, something that's more or less true if you assume that the state is the only thing which can provide law and security, then it's something of a contradiction to say that taxation to fund those things is theft, when without them they would not exist in the first place.
And at any rate, the fact is that few liberals could argue that welfare is "necessary", they simply want it. The fact that society can exist without welfare and the fact that they have to argue for it is a sign of the fact that it isn't necessary. Welfare has nothing to do with keeping society together, unless you talk about the possibility of rebellion or major social disruption as a result of an absence of welfare. As soon as you accept the possibility of using force against someone is not the time that you accept using force against someone for every whim that strikes your fancy.
Well I suppose that's the difference between us. You believe that you need the State to have private property and I do not.
I know you don't see yourself or your minarchist views as hypocritical, but I do. I am certain that a well-versed Liberal could make an argument that social programs protect private property as well (however ridiculous they may sound).
Also, I believe society can exist without a government taxing me for a military or police force, but you do not. You say that "the fact that society can exist without welfar and the fact that they have to argue for it is a sign that is isn't necessary".
Yet I view your opinions on how sociey MUST exist (i.e through taxation for military, police force, etc) with the same skepticism. YOU may believe that it's necessary, but that doesn't make it true. Just as a Liberal believes welfare is necessary, yet you hold their opinions in contempt.
"Well I suppose that's the difference between us. You believe that you need the State to have private property and I do not."
Did I ever say what I believed? I didn't agree or disagree with the minarchist point of view, I'm merely telling you why your arguments aren't effective against the minarchist point of view.
"Also, I believe society can exist without a government taxing me for a military or police force, but you do not"
Once again, you're presuming what I believe, which is something that I haven't stated, but at any rate, what you are arguing is somewhat irrelevant to your original question. Once you get into the actual debate over whether or not a government is necessary the whole discussion changes from what your initial questions were.
"Yet I view your opinions on how sociey MUST exist (i.e through taxation for military, police force, etc) with the same skepticism. YOU may believe that it's necessary, but that doesn't make it true. Just as a Liberal believes welfare is necessary, yet you hold their opinions in contempt."
I still know of no liberal who argues that welfare is necessary to the perpetuation of society, and once again we were merely talking about the consistency of certain points of view, not the actual matter of truth. The belief that water always runs uphill is not contradictory, but it is still false.
Ok, what are you then?
I'm an intellectual anarchist and a minarchist.
The question is not whether or not anarchism is possible, no fundemental flaws have been found in anarchism in the same way as have been found in communism, radical socialism, and utopianism. With this said this does not mean that anarchism could work in our day. We know monarchism can work, we have hundreds of examples of relatively healthy monarchies, but this does not mean that the United States could convert to a monarchy right now, because that would broke massive rebellion on both a social, ideological, and military level. The fruition of any system in practice depends upon the conditions surrounding its birth. Right now nowhere on earth that could have a positive system of anarchy would accept it, and therefore it is impossible to bring about.
Realistically the only system which would go from statism to anarchism would be a minarchist society. For this reason I support minarchism and the spread of anarchist ideals, until the day that it is realistic to move from minarchism to anarchism.
This is why if you're going to be a statist you might as well just be a statist all the way.
That's what I typically tell people since I went straight from Stalinism to anarchism.
Wow, from start to finish, that's an unusual political path. How did all that come about?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Realistically the only system which would go from statism to anarchism would be a minarchist society. For this reason I support minarchism and the spread of anarchist ideals, until the day that it is realistic to move from minarchism to anarchism. The United States has a relatively liberal history, and the Constitution to prove it. Where I live, I might as well not mess around talking about minarchism, because it's just as unlikely as complete anarchism. 'Roll-back' is worth talking about in America, where there's actually something to roll-back to. Although one does have to wonder about the natural tendency always being to roll-forward, and how to realistically prevent that. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." - Sir Humphrey Appleby | Post Points: 35
I find the 'we became more statist even though we were sort of libertarian and therefore the natural progression is to become more statist' argument to be rather weak, because it uses history to establish causality. My understanding of why we became more statist in our philosophy of government is that 'scientific management of society and economy' sort of came into vogue, and then took off. The same thing happened with the steam-engine, but I don't think we could therefore argue that every time we develop a technology it will turn into the steam-engine, in the same way I don't think every change in our philosophy of government must lead to more statism.
OldBenjaminNOMORE:Libertarians believe in the least possible government necessary. I have a few questions... 1.) There is a common Liberal argument, of which I agree with, that goes something like this: If you can justify taxes for the military, the law system, or the police, than I can surely justify taxes for x, y, or z (aka welfare, etc.) - Is this a valid point to you? To me, it is.
There's a way to justify anything and everything. But any justification hinges upon one or more premises, which (from the standpoint of pure logic) can't be proven or disproven, only accepted or rejected.
OldBenjaminNOMORE:2.) Our country, more or less, once held a position of libertarianism (go way back), but here we are, with a disturbingly large government in size and scope. I firmly believe that if you give government an ounce, it takes two. How do expect to have a small government and not allow it to grow to its current size and scope? Do you think that is the job of the people? I would argue that the majority of the people are plain simplemined, and care for nothing but pop culture, sex, drugs, partying, etc. How do you expect a government not to monopolize its control over a populace when the populace is bred into a system who are inherently simple? This is why I have been leaning away from Libertarianism. No matter how well intentioned they may be, I feel as though their efforts are for nothing, for the people are, as I stated above, inherently simpeminded, and prone to being controlled and manipulated. Has the history of our species not proven this? Tell me what you think, and THANKS!
A long time ago, I tried working out a way for a constitution that couldn't be reinterpreted completely differently in the future. I ended up concluding that such a constitution is impossible, as people are free to reinterpret words however they want (at least theoretically). Plus the amendment process would allow a constitution to be completely rewritten through amendments.
I have to disagree with you that a majority of people are "plain simpleminded". If that were the case, I don't see how we as a species could've gotten to where we are today. But I do think a majority of people are ignorant and/or misinformed about the nature of government.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
To address point no. 2.
Yes this is a flawed reason why democracy sucks. It can be remedied by an improved education system that leans more towards teaching about the government/economy/etc (which is why this education system must not be run by the government in the first place). Usually the parents will have to home school or have a school system which is not ran by the government (privatize).
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
"The United States has a relatively liberal history, and the Constitution to prove it. Where I live, I might as well not mess around talking about minarchism, because it's just as unlikely as complete anarchism."
Talk to someone about minarchism or any sort of radical libertarianism and you'll probably get a lot of shrugs and skeptical looks. Talk about outright anarchism and people will laugh at you.
That's what I typically tell people since I went straight from Stalinism to anarchism. Wow, from start to finish, that's an unusual political path. How did all that come about?
The things that I did and had done to me (mostly by authorities) made me cynical at a young age. They teach you in early school such hollow mantras as "treat others the way you wish to be treated" and "keep your hands to yourself". At the same time they are on standby to destroy you the moment you stray from the zombie program. Meanwhile, my special treatment sent a subliminal message, which I think is intentional, that some people are selected to be shephards and some to be sheep. I don't recall reading any political articles before LvMI. So, what does that tell you about the school system? I've had questions in the back in the back of mind for a long time.