theyeti

What I was referring to was the tendancy for armies to be paid by their generals, and not by the state. What this meant was that their loyalty resided with whomever was paying them (like Caesar) and not with the Roman Republic. The result was civil war and an eventual autocratic state. In a strictly libertarian society, where the police and military are in private hands -- paid for not by taxes levied by the state, but by corporations or wealthy individuals -- the same thing has the potential for happening.

Protected against property or violent crime. What else? If the only way you get police protection is to pay X dollars per year, and if there is no consideration for the fact that you have little or no income (like there is with taxes, but in a libertarian society there would be no reason to consider this at all since the police would opperate for profit), then poor people would be left without protection, period. Someone could murder one or steal what little they had and get away with it. There is a fundamental need IMO for equal protection under the law, and this can only be met with state run and state financed law enforcement and legal systems.

99, the Constitution is meaningless unless it's enforced. It does not have some sort of magical quality that compels everyone to follow it, regardless of their own self-interests. The reason why it works is because the voters, who have the real power in a democracy, are in charge of determining their own enforcers. We decide, ultimately, who runs the courts, the police, and the military. The military doesn't try to take over the country in the name of some ambitious jefe because it's paid for and controled by you and me. When McArthur got too ambitious and made inappropriate comments towards China, the democratically elected Truman dismissed him. Take that away, and whomever's paying and controling the army and/or police can do whatever they please. It happens everywhere in the world all the time, especially in S. America and Africa. It happened in ancient Rome too.
Okay, fine. This does make you somewhat different than hardcore libertarian ideolouges, who refuse to pay any taxes unless voluntary (yeah, right). What I'm trying to impress here is the fact that privitization of the police and military is a BAD thing. If private companies wish to hire their own "police", then that's fine, but they should not be given the power of arrest that state police agencies have. And it's important not only that the state police agencies stop abuse from private agencies, but that they also protect the public as well, because private agencies will only protect the highest bidder.

As for whether or not 1% taxation on GDP could provide enough for the most basic goverment functions (police, courts, prisons, military, a few agencies to run it all), I somewhat doubt it. And of course I don't agree that those are the only things we should spend money on. But that's a different tact than I've been arguing.

Right, it was a blunder to allow changes that ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Come on. There is nothing magical about the Constitution and the forefathers were not gods. The Constituion is ammendable because we have rule by the people, not by a document. The document ultimately expresses what we the people have chosen for our system of laws, and it exacts certain restrictions. It's no different than statutory or common law, except that it happens to trump the other two. Where the forefathers did have insight was in enshrining many rights into that document, and making them difficult to change. Not impossible mind you. The Republicans try to add at least one ammendment that would weaken our civil liberties nearly every session of Congress.

Who gives a shit what the founders wanted? I don't. They don't rule over us, we rule over us. If increasing the role of government has the support of the people, then so be it. It should be that way. The founders did not enshrine any libertarian concepts into the Constitution, except the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights. Now it may be your opinion that we should scale back the size of government, but you'd need to convince the majority of voters that this is a good idea on its merits alone.

Been over this. The Constitution per se means diddly squat when it comes to the military. Unless the control of the military is completely in the hands of the civilian goverment, and unless the civilian government is completely in the hands of the voting public, it won't work. If the Constitution could magically compel people to do good, we could just put all of our laws into it and not worry. But as it is the government (that evil overlord state!) owns all of the military's toys, owns all of its bases, pays all of its salaries, and determines who stays and who goes. The government has all the power, thankfully. If a general gets upitty, Bush will dismiss him. Sure, the entire army could decide en masse to stage a coup, but its heirarchical structure makes this unlikely. Any one individual has little power, except for the guy that the voters put in as Commander in Chief, and he's limited by what he can do by Congress, who's in charge of the money. And both groups are limited by the courts, and so on. It's that whole Separation of Powers thingy that protects us from tyrants, and only because that's enshrined in the Constitution are we protected. Not the document itself, but the government that it directs us to build.

Incidentally, the same principle that I mentioned earlier applies to the government's control over anything else. When the goverment directs something at least in part, the voters have a say so. (But there are few cases where it's mandatory for the voters to be in control as it is with the military and police.) You could take this to its extreme whereby the government controls everything, a al socialism or communism, but this would limit the individual's ability to persue his self-interests, which would limit our happiness. Libertarianism is at the other extreme, where the govenment has no control over anything, such that people's individual self-interests are all that gets persued. This also limits people's happiness, because those who get ahead will use their power to unfairly exploit those who get held back. I see no reason to believe that only the government can be tyrannical. The private sector can (and has been) every bit as tyrannical as any government. All the libertarian program is about is replacing one with the other. The problem is other people conflicting with your self-interests, and it doesn't matter if it's a government or a corporation. The good thing about the former is that it can be controled by the voters and represents the majority's needs, yet the good thing about the latter is that it's forced to compete in the market place. Each one has advantages and disadvantages. IMO, the ideal point lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes that socialism and libertarianism represent. The goverment should directly control those things that it needs to, like the police, but should have a hand in other areas where it can promote the welfare of the people. The free market should provide for most of people's comsumer needs, yet it should be regulated so that private industry doesn't exploit workers, consumers, or the environment. Competition should allowed to run the market, but it shouldn't be so extreme that all of the rewards acrue to those at the top. And so on. Just my political philosophy.

theyeti

(edited to correct corrupted formatting from bad UBB import - 99%)

Crow

Theyeti, I want to respond to this antiquated and misinformed stereotypical view of Libertarianism that has been a frequent theme in your posts in this thread. This view of the role of government is not Libertarianism, but rather anarchy. I would encourage you to read http://www.libertarian.org and http://www.lp.org to learn about what mainstream Libertarians believe.

For the most part, mainstream Libertarians believe that government should be limited to three roles: 1) securing and protecting the rights of citizens; 2) reducing transaction costs; 3) providing for national defense.

The police and criminal courts are required to satisfy #1. Civil courts, currency mints, some level of participation in educational institutions, roads for equal access to interstate commerce, copyright and patent protection are necessary to satisfy #2. Some level of military defense force is needed to satisfy #3.

This is not far off from what mainstream Libertarians believe. What would be different is that the "regulation" of the free-market would be such that it protects the rights of workers to organize in to unions if they wish or abstain if they wish. But in turn it would protect the corporation's right to obtain a supplier of workers where ever it chooses. Workers should not be a slave to the company just as the company should not be a slave to the worker. Consumers would be protected from fraudulent corporate behavior, but suppliers should be able to set prices in accordance to supply and demand. Protection of the environment would require that producers of pollution internalize the cost of that externality rather than forcing others to bear that cost.

The one area where libertarians would vehemently disagree is in your last statement. Rewards should accrue to those who earn it through bearing the risk of the endeavor. To do otherwise is a disincentive for growth and a disincentive for innovation.

BTW, your statement, "The founders did not enshrine any libertarian concepts into the Constitution, except the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights" is equivalent to saying that the founders did not enshrine the concept of separation of church and state into the Constitution except in the First Amendment.

(edited to fix corrupted formatting due to bad UBB import -99%)

Autonemesis

You keep using quotes as if you don't really think anyone will take these "certifications" and "seals of approval" seriously as "consumer friendly" measures to ensure "quality" products. Your prose makes it seem like you think this is some sort of "game." It's hard to take you "seriously" because of this "choice" of "yours".

(corrected corrupted formatting - 99%)

theyeti

My "view" of libertarianism is neither antiquated, misinformed, nor stereotypical. This is what a very large number of people who call themselves libertarians believe, and if you're not aware of that, then you're unfortunately like so many other libertarians who simply define it as what they believe. It reminds me so much of the ID movement. It's whatever we say it is, but none of us agree on anything, and if you address someone else's claims and not mine, then you're misrepresenting us. Fucking please. I have been addressing at various times what is called anarcho-capitalism, which is the more extreme and ideological form of libertarianism expoused by many popular figures in the movement, including Rand, who if you'll notice, has been a very prominent part of this thread.

Yes, I've read their stuff before. In case you're not aware, no one gets to speak for all libertarians. There is a huge diversity of libertarian belief, so please spare me your righteous indignation. The LP, for example, is a political party, and its platform does not always represent the "mainstream" libertarian movement. The more radical (or reactionary) ideas presented by many libertarians are often watered-down by the LP.

Except for many libertarians advocate returning to the gold standard, and letting banks print their own currency. Many advocate privatizing the roads. And some even advocate privatizing the police and even the military, etc. If you're not aware of that, then you're not aware of the diversity of libertarian thought. Why do you think I've been having these discussions with 99%? Does he have a "antiquated, misinformed, and stereotypical" view of libertarianism?

It's quite far off from what most libertarians believe. Libertarians do not believe that the government has any "right" to regulate the market at all. If you believe that it does, you may as well call yourself a Republican.

This is a cryptic statement. Why don't you list precisely which libertarian concepts -- meaning restrictions on government to carry out certain duties -- were enshrined in the Constitution that were not civil liberties. Does the Constitution say that taxation is theft? That the government can't levy import duties? That it can't conscript an army? That it can't regulate industry? That property rights are absolute and that the government can never take your property? That there's a finite size that the government can never grow beyond? That we should have open borders? Precisely which libertarian ideal does the Constitution ennumerate, other than the specious libertarian argument that if it's not in the Constitution, the government shouldn't do it?

theyeti

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Friar Bellows

Gurdur, dictionary.com may be freely and easily accessible but I wouldn't derive any general conclusions about dictionaries from it. On my desk is the premier Australian dictionary (the Macquarie Dictionary) and the first entry for "statism" is:

"The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty."

And the first entry for "statist" is:

"A supporter of statism".

Gurdur

Which still leaves us without any idea of what you actually mean.

Do you mean full concentration ? Partial ? Japanese model ? German model ?

IOW, you're willing to suddenly mention "statists" and "statist superstitions", but when I ask you what you mean, you just don't want to share.

No probs, mate; this is now too boring and unproductive to continue. Bye !

Crow

If your "view� is as previously espoused, i.e. Libertarians believe that government should have "no control over anything", then you are deluding yourself.

You remind me perfectly of a fundy attempting to pigeon-hole all non-theists with his own definition of strong atheism while ignoring the fact that most non-theists are not strong atheist, and does so to exemplify only with the most radical views of the group. In your previous posts you did not specify that you disagree with anarcho-capitalists, but rather Libertarians in general. You seem to understand that there is a spectrum of beliefs, however you seem to prefer to wipe us all clean with your inquisitors hammer. How wonderful it must be for you that all of your group associations are in perfect agreement with your views...no need for tolerating variation at all on your animal farm.

True, but an argument can be made that this is the case for all groups, even those with an elected spokesperson. In the end each person can only speak for themselves.

But really, how is your statement cogent to the argument that these organizations represent the mainstream of Libertarian beliefs?

Off you go again assuming facts without evidence, especially given that you do not place yourself with in the group you are defining. Perhaps you can point us to where you learned what the mainstream views of Libertarianism are so that we can see how you drew your conclusion that the mainstream Libertarian views are not represented by the LP.

Besides, you confirm here that the radical (or reactionary) ideas are watered-down by the LP. Does this not leave the "mainstream" views intact, or do you equate the radical (or reactionary) Libertarians with the mainstream? Be prepared to back up your affirmative statement with some evidence.

Odd that you should accuse me of not being aware of the diversity, when it is your arguments that attempt to ignore that diversity and place us all with the anarcho-capitalists. Why do you provide such hypocritical arguments?

I may disagree with some of what 99% and other anarcho-capitalists state, however both minarchists and anarchists believe that existing governments are far, far too intrusive. That is the commonality that allows us to over look our differences and seek change in the same direction.

LOL...painting with the broad brush again yeti. Republican views on regulation are very similar to the minarchist view, but there the similarity ends between Libertarians and Republicans. The Republican record on individual freedom over the past two decades is ample evidence of that.

I apologize for not making it simple enough for you to understand.

Luckily, someone has already done that...go pick up The Constitution of Liberty by economics Nobel Prize winner, Friedrich Hayek.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Thomas Ash

I'm very interested that you say this. I can see that many libertarians, except hardline anarcho-capitalists (my no means a minority among libertarians) would accept 1 and 3. But I don't quite see what your justification for 2 is, if you hold to any sort of libertarian ideology. The point of 2 is not just to protect rights (which minarchists tend to see as a justifiable role for the state) but more or less exclusively to improve the standard of living through government action. The only difference between what you and a leftist like myself think, is that you want these types of government action to improve people's lives, and I want a few other types of government action as well. Your types of government action (issuing of currency, building infrastructure, etc.) are geared to help primarily those who do better in the economy (though they will help everyone to some extent of course.) The additional types of government action leftists like myself want (free public education for those who want it, a minimal safety net in health coverage and lost income for those who lose work, etc.) also help the less well off. But I don't really see how you can't justify government action which helps the less well off if you can already justify the types of government action you mentioned.

Well, we have a decent social democratic safety net here in Europe, yet our economies are reasonably vibrant. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of free markets (because in practice they create the greatest prosperity, and because economic freedom is an important type of freedom.) But I don't see why it should be a holy principle that those who do badly in the market should be left to sink rather than swim. If you think this, do you think that people shouldn't give to charity, or to beggars on the street, because they deserve to be in the position they're in? (I'm sure you don't, and I'm not accusing you of being a grinch, but I think this is the logical conclusion from your argument.) For more on this, see an essay on my website I wrote called
A Basic Argument For The Left.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

Friar Bellows

No, no, it still leaves you without any idea, not the rather presumptuous "us". Case in point: RED DAVE didn't seem to have any problem understanding it. Frankly, Gurdur, I don't see how I could have been more clear without going into a full analysis -- which was not my intention. My intention was simply to offer up an interesting thesis (or metaphor if you like) on libertarianism in the hope that it might generate some interesting discussion. Unfortunately, it didn't, except for RED DAVE's interesting link.

managalar

I found Kip�s post to be an excellent and thorough analysis�.but, I hate it when people whine about �their� money being �taken away.� * Its bad spin, yes many people disagree on how public funds should be spent, but because we don�t recognize the benefits of certain government expenditures does not mean the money was �pissed away foolishly�.
Yes, stealth bombers cost a lot of money, but its money that�s already earmarked for defense spending anyway, we can thank people who vote for those who promise tons of military spending. The idea behind stealth is simple, beat the defenses with technology, not overwhelm it with numbers. I would bet money if the technology was not available, they would just make a ton of conventional non-stealthy bombers. The idea you should attack is the one where we seem to insist on being armed to the teeth.
As far as the space program goes, not nearly enough money is �pissed� into our efforts to study our universe. I am somewhat biased as a student of Physics�. the space program is expensive, but it is important. NASA has funded a lot of pure scientific research, it has helped advance our technological & engineering capabilities, and it has inspired so many students throughout the world, such that NASA�s whole benefit is incalculable. Just because it doesn�t mean anything to you to look up and see a speck of light, the space station, moving across the sky, does not mean that your money has been taken and used frivolously (�pissed away�).
The use of public money to fund scientific effort is tremendously important. In a Libertarian society, the individual has the �right� to essentially simplify the government into terms they can understand. Every Libertarian I�ve talked to doesn�t like �their� money being �wasted� or �pissed� away, and they think they would be sooo much better off, holding onto it. They wouldn�t be so �foolish� as to waste their money $20,000 toilet seats, as the urban legend goes. Or they wouldn�t be so �foolish� as to dump money into a space station built by non-space-faring technology (aka mega expensive). I get way more than half of my paycheck, and the part of my paycheck that I don�t get, buys so much (like the picture in the link).

What privatized commercial organization could get investors to go in on something as �unprofitable� as
<a href="http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/11/images/g/formats/full_jpg.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2002/11/images/g/formats/full_jpg.jpg</a> ?
I don�t think most people know enough to care, and I�d love to be shown otherwise. This all too frequently comes down to one delusion, that the individual is more important than the whole. Many of you have already noted this, but from this idea, branch off many tangents. I�ve seen it come down to �no it isn�t � yes it is � no it isn�t �yes it is� debate about what it more important, and its ridiculous. Everything that makes life worth living is a direct result of groups of people working together, and every �liberty� we have is a testament to the effectiveness and efficiency of our service to each other. The Libertarians I�ve talked to basically want life as it is now, they just don�t want to pay for it, and the parts they don�t �need�.


*(special note on precedent: use of colorful metaphors are not ad hominem attacks, ex. �pissing� �whining� ect. �other precedents, like �excessive� use of �quotes�, is just �fun�)