Libetarianism (In Brief)

[cordeos]

My main problem with libertarianism is that it assumes that people are basically good and wont screw everyone else over to get ahead if given the freedom to do it. If you look at the history of business and the world in general it is in large part a history of exploitation. The feudal systems, colonialism, and more recently corporations all are examples of the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and weak and this is supposed to magically go away if we became a more libertarian style government?

 

[Nutcase]

My main problem with libertarianism is that it assumes that people are basically good and wont screw everyone else over to get ahead if given the freedom to do it.

No, libertarianism doesn't assume people are good, evil, or anywhere in between. In fact, if I knew everyone around me was evil and had zero empathy for each other, I'd push for minimal government even harder. Think about it - if you have a government steered by ruthless opportunists, would you rather they had a lot of power and lots of uniformed thugs doing their bidding, or very little?

Even in the Evil World, the long-term costs of conflict and the gains of co-operation are too high to ignore. History shows that the more libertarian values a state adopts, the stronger and more prosperous it will eventually be. Other factions still locked in the conflict mindset can eventually not threaten the libertarian faction anymore, and will either have to follow suit or be marginalized as backwards shitholes and fight each other for scraps.

If you look at the history of business and the world in general it is in large part a history of exploitation. The feudal systems, colonialism, and more recently corporations all are examples of the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and weak and this is supposed to magically go away if we became a more libertarian style government?

Feudal systems and colonialism are both examples of the government oppressing (domestic and foreign) people with use of force. This has nothing to do with libertarian thought.
Many libertarians think corporations are not a true free market entity due to the special legal protections granted to their officers and owners, and should be removed that status. Thus, owners/stockholders of a company would be held liable for what the company does, not just up to but beyond the value of their stock.

 

[Nutcase]

But if the leader creates a form of public healthcare, it is no longer libertarianism.

I'm going on what the video says here so if your libertarianism is slightly different you may not believe this. You have the right to choose a leader and you choose a leader if you agree with his policies, that is natural. If you want healthcare you choose a leader that claims he/she will establish healthcare.
Maybe 'public' is where I've gone wrong. 'Community' may be a better word for it. After all groups of like minded people tend to congregate.
Of course this does raise the issue of what to do with the people who didn't vote for that leader. Do they get to partake in the benefits? Should it only be if their leader promises to establish healthcare too? I'm not sure for this bit.

So let's say you have a bunch of people, paying some amount of money, and receiving health care in return.
That's an insurance company.

Furthermore, suppose they are willing to pay additional money, and use that pooled money to offer some healthcare to people who lack insurance.
That's voluntary charity.

All fine and well so far. What these people can not do in a strongly libertarian system is to approach other people who want nothing to do with this company or this charity, and force them to pay as well.

If you want, there's nothing preventing you from e.g. being a socialist inside a strongly libertarian system. Just gather a bunch of other socialists, and make a contract whereby each of you pays something (such as a share of your earnings) to the collective. Then decide collectively what you are going to do with it.

 

[Pocket Apocalypse]

Many libertarians think corporations are not a true free market entity due to the special legal protections granted to their officers and owners, and should be removed that status. Thus, owners/stockholders of a company would be held liable for what the company does, not just up to but beyond the value of their stock.

I haven't heard any libertarians express that point of view before (though I don't by any means claim to be an expert on libertarianism or libertarians), but I'm quite glad to hear the opinion expressed. The problem, though, is exactly how to enforce any attempt to limit what a corporation (construed as a group of people mutually tied by voluntary contractual agreements to a set of resources of some kind or other) can do without violating libertarian principles.

 

[Miss_M]

I found that animation pretty simplistic and patronising. As far as I'm concerned libertarianism is the opposite of determinism. It's a theory that depends on the existance of free will and the ability to make your own moral choices. It's about internal choices, and the belief that free will is necessary for the existance of moral culpability.

 

[Del-Toro]

I always thought libertarianism was a rather right wing position because it's completely anti socialist and completely removes the state from the equation, where as left wing politics like socialism tends to heavily involve and strengthen the state. That's certainly the case economically speaking and it also allows for max personal freedom because the state can't restrict anything, and restrictions or prejudices are up to the individual.

 

[Del-Toro]

But if the leader creates a form of public healthcare, it is no longer libertarianism.

I'm going on what the video says here so if your libertarianism is slightly different you may not believe this. You have the right to choose a leader and you choose a leader if you agree with his policies, that is natural. If you want healthcare you choose a leader that claims he/she will establish healthcare.
Maybe 'public' is where I've gone wrong. 'Community' may be a better word for it. After all groups of like minded people tend to congregate.
Of course this does raise the issue of what to do with the people who didn't vote for that leader. Do they get to partake in the benefits? Should it only be if their leader promises to establish healthcare too? I'm not sure for this bit.

So let's say you have a bunch of people, paying some amount of money, and receiving health care in return.
That's an insurance company.

Furthermore, suppose they are willing to pay additional money, and use that pooled money to offer some healthcare to people who lack insurance.
That's voluntary charity.

All fine and well so far. What these people can not do in a strongly libertarian system is to approach other people who want nothing to do with this company or this charity, and force them to pay as well.

If you want, there's nothing preventing you from e.g. being a socialist inside a strongly libertarian system. Just gather a bunch of other socialists, and make a contract whereby each of you pays something (such as a share of your earnings) to the collective. Then decide collectively what you are going to do with it.

The key difference is that in a socialist system of healthcare if you find yourself unable to pay you won't be cut off, and socialist systems tend to cover all the life saving stuff so you won't be hung out to dry if a surgery is too "experimental" or "high risk" or all those other lame excuses private companies use.

Besides, not everyone can afford health insurance and not everyone can afford to pay a toll everytime they go onto a different street. And don't even dare to say "private charity" because between the trains of thought that produced libertarianism and objectivism the only difference is the paint job and objectivists tend to look upon people who give with a large degree of animosity. If memory serves the point of libertarianism is to have moral authority to collect as much physical property as possible or in other words to horde as much as they can without having to give anything. Sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.

 

[woodwalker]

Thank you, sir. I am a hard-core Libertarian, but have had a hard time trying to get out of certain stale-mates in political discussions. Now I have a good one: That part about you having control over your life, and one one else can say that they have more of a right to your life than you do.

 

[cordeos]

No, libertarianism doesn't assume people are good, evil, or anywhere in between. In fact, if I knew everyone around me was evil and had zero empathy for each other, I'd push for minimal government even harder. Think about it - if you have a government steered by ruthless opportunists, would you rather they had a lot of power and lots of uniformed thugs doing their bidding, or very little?

how far are you willing to go with limited government? removal of labor laws so we can get rid of that pesky minimum wage, weekend and child labor laws?

get rid of gun control laws? get rid of law enforcement agencies that protect us from the people who shouldn't have guns? fire departments? roads and transportation? environmental protection? public schools?

where do you draw the line between big government and government that is working to create a more fair and livable playing field.

 

[Nutcase]

The key difference is that in a socialist system of healthcare if you find yourself unable to pay you won't be cut off, and socialist systems tend to cover all the life saving stuff so you won't be hung out to dry if a surgery is too "experimental" or "high risk" or all those other lame excuses private companies use.

Besides, not everyone can afford health insurance and not everyone can afford to pay a toll everytime they go onto a different street. And don't even dare to say "private charity" because between the trains of thought that produced libertarianism and objectivism the only difference is the paint job

No offense, but you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Objectivism is not the same as libertarism. Wikipedia's article on libertarism explains all you need to know.

And like I said, you are free to set up your own collectivist healthcare system in a libertarian society if you like. If other people think it's a good idea - and no doubt many will - they'll join you.

If memory serves the point of libertarianism is to have moral authority to collect as much physical property as possible or in other words to horde as much as they can without having to give anything. Sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It makes no moral judgment. All it requires of you is to respect the rights of others and not tread on them. What you get in return is freedom. Whether you choose to exercise your freedom by meditating in a monastery, making money as a plumber, or living in a self-sufficient socialist commune is entirely up to you.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Very nice in theory. Shame we're all assholes.

 

[OniSuika]

We just finished covering Libertarianism in Ideologies at college.

Really interesting video, although technically, this is only Classical Libertarianism, verging on Anarcho-Liberarianism. Most libertarianism in the world today is Neo-Libertarianism, which respects the same value, but believes that those who are capable should provide for those who are not. Hence we have taxes to support funding and such. It also, unlike Classical Libertarianism, believes that those who cannot hold the rights to freedom, life and property, should have their rights taken away (As we know it, that's be imprisonment, the death penalty, or fines).

That's Libertarianism to the extent that we've learnt anyway. Which was from a political as opposed to philosophic standpoint, but the definitions from the two standpoints don't appear any different.

 

[lostclause]

So let's say you have a bunch of people, paying some amount of money, and receiving health care in return.
That's an insurance company.

Furthermore, suppose they are willing to pay additional money, and use that pooled money to offer some healthcare to people who lack insurance.
That's voluntary charity.

All fine and well so far. What these people can not do in a strongly libertarian system is to approach other people who want nothing to do with this company or this charity, and force them to pay as well.

If you want, there's nothing preventing you from e.g. being a socialist inside a strongly libertarian system. Just gather a bunch of other socialists, and make a contract whereby each of you pays something (such as a share of your earnings) to the collective. Then decide collectively what you are going to do with it.

My point was more how can you establish something widespread in such a system? Taking your socialists for example, say they formed a collective. What if one (a descendent for arguments sake) decide they don't want to be part of it? Now take that on a national scale, where you've got a socialist country and a non-socialist minority. What happens to the minority? Should they pay towards the collective, should they not and recieve no benefit? If so how would you mark them as non-socialist? Should they form their own country? It creates a few problems when a minority group don't subscribe to the majority opinion.

 

[Nutcase]

If you want, there's nothing preventing you from e.g. being a socialist inside a strongly libertarian system. Just gather a bunch of other socialists, and make a contract whereby each of you pays something (such as a share of your earnings) to the collective. Then decide collectively what you are going to do with it.

My point was more how can you establish something widespread in such a system?

Convince people that it's such a good idea that they go along with it.

Taking your socialists for example, say they formed a collective. What if one (a descendent for arguments sake) decide they don't want to be part of it?

These people are just as free as any other person, they have just decided to contractually pool their property. The collective itself is effectively a company (Socialism Co.?). If someone doesn't want to be a part of it, then they won't join it. Children are not legally qualified to enter contracts and their parents cannot contract them to slavery either. So if they want to be a part of the collective in the legal sense, they have to join after turning adult.

Now take that on a national scale, where you've got a socialist country and a non-socialist minority. What happens to the minority? Should they pay towards the collective, should they not and recieve no benefit? If so how would you mark them as non-socialist? Should they form their own country? It creates a few problems when a minority group don't subscribe to the majority opinion.

I don't really understand the question you are posing here.

 

[lostclause]

Convince people that it's such a good idea that they go along with it.

My point was really what if some people don't want to? (see below as well).
Umm, the kid thing wasn't really my point either.

Now take that on a national scale, where you've got a socialist country and a non-socialist minority. What happens to the minority? Should they pay towards the collective, should they not and recieve no benefit? If so how would you mark them as non-socialist? Should they form their own country? It creates a few problems when a minority group don't subscribe to the majority opinion.

I don't really understand the question you are posing here.

A pity, this was really the heart of the matter. I'll try express it better. Maybe I screwed up with the socialism example. Let's go back to healthcare as the example. Say a popular leader establishes nationwide health care (one of many policies). It is a given that his supporters will enjoy this benefit but what about other people, do they benefit? Should it be all the leaders that promise healthcare? Should it be given to everyone regardless, even if they didn't support the leader? Should it be withheld unless you support that leader (tantamount to bribery)?
Also if something unwanted comes along who should have to shoulder the burden? Let's say the same leader introduces taxes to pay for this system. Obviously his supporters will have to pay. Should the supporters a leader who promises healthcare without taxes (unrealistic but for the sake of argument) still enjoy the benefits without paying?
The problem with leadership in libertarianism seems to be a lack of right to govern a whole nation. Anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a problem because what are their rights? Should they take the good and avoid the bad? Should they get neither? What about other leaders and their policies? These are all problems that I'm not sure how a libartarianist would get around. I'm just posing questions hoping that someone will enlighten me as to how this system is supposed to work.
EDIT: Sorry I've messed the quotes up. The stuff in bold is mine. Fixed now.