Metaphor

This is not meant to be a thread to discuss individual libertarian ideas, but rather a place to consider them in their totality. Given that libertarians are extremely overrepresented on this board, I'm sure there will be plenty of defenders for the these ideas.

My position, I think, is old-school left - mixed capitalism with social safety nets and socialised schools, transport and medicine (ie almost every Western nation except the US). Various libertarian proposals that I have gleaned from discussions here, and from other websites, include the following (obviously not all self-described libertarians will be consistent with each other, and sometimes not with themselves, either, but each of these positions has been endorsed by at least one person and usually several) : - (please note, my language might seem inflammatory, but I don't think I've substantively misrepresented any positions)

The abolition of all welfare and social safety nets. Libertarian websites tend to soft-pedal this by asking visitors if they think social security should be 'privatized', as if this actually means anything other than 'do you think social security should be abolished'. That means if you are sick, lazy, retarded or otherwise unable to hold a job, don't expect not to starve and die.

The abolition of almost all organs of government (including police), except for courts which must enforce contracts. Police forces would be 'privatised', with competing corporations automagically cooperating with each other. Any and all individuals who do not pay or cannot afford private police have no enforceable rights ie no rights. I can envision no outcome other than gang warfare.

The 'emancipation' of adults to be 'free agents' (as if such a thing could exist) whilst according children a curious assortment of rights and responsibilities or no rights. Libertarians seem divided on this - should children be free to leave school at ten and attempt to earn a living? Or are they actually their parents' property until some convenient age?

The abolition of government schooling. Now, this would either mean some children get no schooling (because parents can't or won't pay), or, if sending your children to school is made compulsory somehow, those who can't or won't pay will go to jail (paid for, again, automagically) and the children are left to whatever charity will take them, or to their own devices. Hell, why not, workhouses kept plenty of orphans housed and fed in the 19th century.

The abolition of any and all oversight into the 'free' market. No FDA to make sure big pharma are actually not faking data (and who could enforce anything anyway?) No antidiscrimination laws of any kind. No regulation of titles like 'doctor' or 'solicitor' or anything. Everyone will have to micromanage every single one of the thousands of interactions they have in the course of a week.

The destruction of all morality. Morally outrageous acts like child abuse will be solved by the mighty sword of social stigma.

The abolition of the military. Now, the left has long had an animosity with the vast amounts spent on military operations over the years, but even the left generally accepts the need for a defence force and the concept of just war. The only just war for libertarians is fighting the 'i'll do whatever the fuck I want' fight.

These are some, certainly not all, libertarian ideas I have seen seriously argued here and elsewhere. Currently, the only plausible future society I can think of that would be worse is living under Sharia law. But like Sharia law, I can barely comprehend how normal, thinking human beings could think a society like this would be desirable.

Thlayli

That's too many things to think about. Most people can manage their single pet issues just fine, they don't want to think about all the other issues and/or the possible repercussions of what's being proposed.

Think things through? That's un-American!

RareBird

Count me in on the old school left team. Libertarainism is ignorant of the FACT that people are not all on the same intellectual page but are in fact far from it. We are imperfect animals all at varying stages of maturity with almost no civil interaction (including the internet). Civilization would cease to be civilization without checks and balnces. I for one don't need to deconstruct it to find out the hard way what's already obvious--greed and crime will BE the rule and cooperation will be the exception.

apocalypsecow

Kind of odd that you say it's not meant to be a thread discussing individual libertarian ideas, but then you go and list a whole bunch of ideas for "consideration.

I self-identify as libertarianish (vote independent) but I'll try and see if I can apply these to the "Real world". Because, of course, the "real world" is neither a Leftopia or a Rightopia anymore than it's a Libertopia. It's a combination of lots of competing ideas. Anyone (not saying you) who thinks that a hard-left or hard-right (or hard libertarian) world is tenable is, well, kinda nuts

Kind of an oversimplification. "Charities will step in to fill the gap" is the common libertarian response, and I think it's got a ring of truth, but consider this: If you're simply "lazy" (your words, btw) then I don't think it's the government's responsibility to take care of you. Being sick or otherwise medically disabled, well, I think that's a fair enough role for the government to take. It seems to me that if I'm "lazy" to begin with, and I get a check every month for doing nothing, then I'm not going to go out and get a job.

Surely you're not arguing that lazy people deserve government handouts?

I don't agree with this general line of thinking, and I don't know many reasonable people who actually do. What most libertarians, I suspect, mean when they say a "privatized" police force, is that the government puts out a contract to a security company to enforce rules and regulations that are on the books. It's not as simple as "hire your own bodyguard or have no rights".

That being said, I think a police force is a job for a limited government.

I see nothing wrong with the current situation. What I do see wrong is the "legal age" work laws, which are enforced in a very blanket, regular sense, than in a sense that actually takes into account the job a child does, how often he does it, and how it affects his schooling. A 15 or 14 year-old sacker at a grocery store is not in as much danger as an 11 year-old working in a factory, and yet both jobs are equally illegal.

Free, public education is necessary to a free society, but I think the free-market issue of competition leading to a better product/service needs to be taken into account. How do we solve that problem and encourage higher standards/better performance in our public schools without privatizing them?

Of course I think your criticism begs the question of why a parent would necessarily be priced out of paying for their child to go to school? Colleges are more or less free-market institutions, at a variety of price points, just like, say, cigarettes or beer (perhaps not the most appropriate analogy), but there are options for the less-fortunate to get a good education (or a nicotine or alcohol buzz, if you will). Think about scholarships (especially private scholarships) that pay out in the millions to underprivileged kids.

The general libertarian argument, as I understand it, is not "no oversight", but "no government oversight". To basically rip off an argument from another source, think about this: There's no government oversight of electronics devices (beyond FCC regs that they not interfere with communications), no "holy shit that might catch on fire! is it safe?" type-regs. There is, however, Underwriter's Laboratories, a private organization that puts their seal of approval on pretty much all electronics devices made and sold in America. Most stores won't even sell devices without the UL seal of approval, and they've got an impeccable track record for safety and integrity.

Now think about this: Let's assume that your platonic libertarian is chill with the FDA remaining in existence. It provides an important service, certainly. It does protect the public. But it also takes anywhere from 1-15 years for a drug to get approved. What if I get, say, terminal cancer? I've got a year or so to live. And some big pharma company shortly thereafter comes out with an announcement that they've got a miracle cancer cure-all. Could it be bogus? Yeah, maybe, but without FDA approval, I, as a person, can't do to my body what I want to in an effort to maybe save my own life.

Again, an oversimplification. Not: "the destruction of all morality", but "the destruction of government-enforced morality."

Not that I'm particularly for child abuse, or "spanking" as it's called these days, or particularly against the government being involved (to a certain point) in these matters, but it's important to get your opponents' points right.

"Provide for the common defence." That's a line from...some...document somewhere...It seems to pretty much make the case that a military is a necessary role of government.

ZeusTKP

OK... so you put together the craziest allegedly libertarian ideas that you've read on the board and called it "libertopia"...

So who is the target audience?

kais

With which ones do you disagree?

Majestyk

Odd. This is the basic premise, which compels me to keep small groups of those animals from accumulating the power to dictate the behavior of the rest.

ZeusTKP

No military, for starters. That's one of the most legitimate functions a government can have. Without it, you have anarchy.

unrealist42

What's wrong with anarchy?

kais

I believe I asked you with which ones, not which which one "for starters," you disagree. As a reminder, here's the full list:

1. The abolition of all welfare and social safety nets.
2. The abolition of almost all organs of government (including police), except for courts which must enforce contracts.
3. The 'emancipation' of adults to be 'free agents' (as if such a thing could exist) whilst according children a curious assortment of rights and responsibilities or no rights.
4. The abolition of government schooling.
5. The abolition of any and all oversight into the 'free' market.
6. The destruction of all morality. Morally outrageous acts like child abuse will be solved by the mighty sword of social stigma.
7. The abolition of the military.