RED DAVE

I'm still waiting for a Libertarian to post a clear summary of Libertarian principles for purposes of discussion and debate. Instead, there are snips and snaps and individual points.

Let me provoke: are you Libertarians capable of such a summary, or are we just dealing with an attitude that provides a bilious response with no real ideas behind it?

RED DAVE

Dr. Retard

I'm not exactly a libertarian, I guess, but here are the principles, so far as I can tell:

People have the right to do anything they want, so long they don't aggress on other people. That means it is unacceptable to force people to stop engaging in non-aggressive activity.

What counts as aggression on other people? Killing them, maiming them, taking their possessions, interfering with their trade, that sort of thing. Violation of 'negative rights'. Of course, it's not aggression if they consent to it. It's also not aggression if it's punishment for past aggression.

These principles lead to 'first-use' private property rights like so: Resources are initially unowned. Consequently, anyone has the right to start using these unowned resources -- there's no aggression involved. But once a person starts using a resources, everyone else has to back off and respect this person's use -- if you charge in and interfere, then that counts as aggression. So if a person has acquired a resource non-aggressively, (s)he must be allowed to use it however (s)he wants (so long as (s)he doesn't aggress on others).

All or almost all state action counts as aggression: the draft enslaves citizens, drug laws forbid non-aggressive activity, economic regulation interferes with peaceful trade, taxation takes citizens' possessions, etc. A state that respected rights would have to leave citizens be: let them use drugs, trade with each other, keep their possessions. Anarcho-capitalists hold that it would have to let citizens punish criminals, and set up organizations for administering such punishment. Anything more would count as aggression, and so would violate rights.

I think that's all. Notice that there is no libertarian principle that determines how much punishment is due to aggressors.

Now, bear in mind that most folks who call themselves libertarians probably don't ground their politics in these 'first principles' philosophical arguments. These principles apply only to libertarianism as an ethical theory of acceptable use of force. Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Eric Mack, Jan Narveson, and other philosophers employ this kind of argument. Libertarianism, more broadly, is just a political position that promotes the classical liberties of personal freedom (religious liberty, free speech, freedom to personal vices, etc.) and of free trade (no tariffs, no price-fixing, no government regulatory bodies, etc.). This broad kind of libertarianism admits of many different kinds of support, and doesn't tie its wagon to 'dig in your heels' principles like those above.

Marvin

Aw comeon Dave, libertarianism is the religion known as meism. They can only agree on more for me.

Martin Buber

99Percent

There is plenty of good stuff, including fundamental principles for debate that I posted. Me thinks you are just being plain lazy.

theyeti, I owe you a couple of replies. I am working on them

99Percent

Incorrect.

RED DAVE

From 99Percent:

No, I'm not lazy. All I asked for is a codified set of principles. If you can't do that, either because your belief system has none (which I suspect) or you yourself able to produce one, please don't call me lazy.

RED DAVE

99Percent

You can start by reading this.

We can start by this point if you like:

Gurdur

Methinks you owe me answers on my questions on the nature of objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity.
Shall I pose the questions yet again

Plus methinks you owe some apologies

99Percent

Ugh, here you go again trying to derail the this thread by being confrontational. I owe you nothing. Your post about "objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity" did not ask a clear question. And if there was any implied questions I responded that I am in no authority to dictate answers to you, you will have to find these answers yourself. I responded your implied fault of mine to Kuu "abuse" by responding to Kuu's post directly. Read it yourself

RED DAVE

In reply to 99Percent:

Let's take this point by point.

1) Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis.

What is the basis for this assertion? It is (a) ahistorical, and (b) basically derived from a historically derived social construct.

(a) The concept of the individual has not always existed historically and does not necessarily exist in the Western manner in many places in the world to tOday. Conceive, if you can, of an individual in tribal society: an individual who exists in and of him/herself or for him/herself. Such a person does not exist. if they tried to exist: function for themself and not for the interest of the tribe, they would be cast out or killed. This is because they endanger the very survival of the tribe (and their own survival).

(The above paragraph is not a homily on the dangers of being in a group. It merely serves to illustrate that individualism has not always existed historically.)

(b) The concept of the individual began to flourish with the rise of capitalism: with the existence of sufficent surplus such that a class of people (capitalists), could exist who were not the beneficiaries of inherited wealth (primarily in land) such as the aristocrats, nor were they crushed by the necessity of work (peasants and proletarians). This class cast the values of its own existence (individualism) as universals in its philosophy. It fundamentally ignored the freedom and individuality of those "below" it on the social scale, and in fact, existed on the fruit of exploitation, including a large measure of slavery, which it created in its modern form without any government to help it.

2) Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions.

Have you never participated in any kind of collective decision making? While it may be true that individuals make choices inside those collectives, the actions of the collectives (whether they be small, medium or large-scale, even governments) cannot be reduced to the sum of individual decisions.

Just as a nonpolitical aside, if you know anything about 12-Step groups, one of the most extraordinary things about them is that as group members people in these groups are able to do something (stay clean and sober, and with relatively little strain) that very few individuals can do outside the group at all.

3) Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility.

You can't get away with the use of words like "dignity," rights and "responsibility," without some further elaboration. The rights and responsibilites of one group are the expoitation and misery of another. Please elaborate. The use of the word "entails" is very tricky here.

4) The progressive extension of dignity to more people -- to women, to people of different religions and different races -- is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.[/QUOTE]

You're not really going to take credit for that, are you? I'll let the term "progressive extension of dignity" slide by, but, the fact is, that if you mean the extension of freedom, the capitalist class that Libertarians so adore has been one of the great enemies of world freedom from the past 150 years or so. All the great advances in freedom during that period: the expansion of sufferage, the winning of the rights of labor, progress in the rights of women, freedom for minorities, sexual freedom, elimination of war, took place in popular struggles against the capitalist class.

Let me give an example in living memory, involving racism, capitalism and LIbertarians.

Racism in the United States, the product and legacy of capitalist slavery, was overcome through popular struggles. The forces of capitalism, whether corporate or governmental, have fought to preserve racism in its static form, whether slavery, segregation or racism in its modern form. They belatedly joined the fight when the social fabric could no longer stand the strain.

This was abundantly clear during the Civil Rights struggle, of which I was a part. And I might add, those Libertarians who were already around, such as the Ayn Rand Objectivists, were totally opposed to the extension of Civil Rights. In other words, they were racist to the core. I myself heard Rand defend the right of employers to engage in racial discrimination. This was during a speech she gave at NYU in the early Sixties.

RED DAVE