According to my brother, taxation is stealing

[J]

Wait, libertarians seriously think taxation is bad? Are they even more disconnected from reality than I thought?

Hardcore libertarian ideology can be summed up as "the free market is god, the free market will provide everything, anything which gets in the way of the free market is bad!!!"

[Surlethe]

According to libertarian doctrine anything that decides how to spend your money is wrong. Hence, taxes would be wrong.

Stronger than that: anything that decides how you use anything you own is wrong. Since government exists to regulate -- i.e., put restrictions on things you own (for example, you're not allowed to use your body to kill someone) -- governments are therefore immoral and shouldn't exist.

[Stark]

So they basically start with the primacy of property rights and go from there? The free market thing I can handle, but this 'don't do anything for anyone, nobody can control you, and yet everything will be okay' attitude confuses me.

[Surlethe]

So they basically start with the primacy of property rights and go from there?

Yeah, pretty much.

The free market thing I can handle, but this 'don't do anything for anyone, nobody can control you, and yet everything will be okay' attitude confuses me.

I don't get it, either. It's based on the same basic failing as communism: a complete and utter ignorance of human nature. Interestingly, one could argue that it must fail, since when human society first evolved, there was no government structure already in place, and those societies were inherently unstable and evolved governments to remain stable.

Also, you have to give up some property rights: for family, e.g. Once you realize that property rights are not as fundamental as assumed, the entire anarchist structure comes crashing down.

[Rye]

Wait, libertarians seriously think taxation is bad? Are they even more disconnected from reality than I thought?

You seriously didn't know this? It's practically their whole platform; nobody is allowed to force anyone to do anything, the state has a monopoly on force and should be abolished in favour of total social contract, what's yours is yours, whoever gets to claim something is theirs first gets it, nobody should be able to prevent anyone from doing what they want with their own body, nobody has the right to redistribute wealth to help those that need it, etc.

They're not against charitable acts per se, they undoubtedly encourage them so that life wouldn't be so bad under libertarian anarchy, but they assume that people shouldn't be compelled to do any more than their conscience tells them to. They think that the market will accomodate for it, or people will just be so happy and conscientious, they'll run a charitable/economic model that will be much more efficient than governmental administration. Sometimes they'll say stuff like "I would rather have control over where my money went than GW Bush, wouldn't you?" and it can be aggravating arguing against that.

[Stark]

All the libertarians I've encountered must be 'soft' libertarians then: they have crazy ideas about free-market, no-regulation, tiny government etc, but I'd never heard 'no taxation' and 'oh it'll all be fine' before.

[Gerald Tarrant]

According to libertarian doctrine anything that decides how to spend your money is wrong. Hence, taxes would be wrong.

Stronger than that: anything that decides how you use anything you own is wrong. Since government exists to regulate -- i.e., put restrictions on things you own (for example, you're not allowed to use your body to kill someone) -- governments are therefore immoral and shouldn't exist.

That's a poor characterization. In particular your example of not being allowed to kill anyone is silly. Libertarians accept the following "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Liberty is freedom which doesn't infringe on the basics rights of others.

I think that you're confusing Libertarians and Anarchists. Both groups don't like the government, but Libertarians (real ones) recognize the necessity of government. A good illustration is here.

Pournelle used Rationalism to describe peoples view of human nature. Anarchists, as opposed to Libertarians, think things would be wonderful in a state of nature. Libertarians generally accept government as: the enforcer of contracts, protector of rights, as a creator of public goods (like roads).

I'd further note that there is a distinction between Libertarians and Objectivists (Ayn Rand's spawn)

A more rational basis for Libertarianism is here:

As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.

link
J.S. Mill on Liberty

[Stark]

How does that justify either zero taxation or zero regulation/social welfare? Not contributing to public monies 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'. No industry regulation 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'. No social welfare 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'. Or are you saying that (for instance) there would be no regulation, but anything that 'affects prejudicially the interests of others' would be illegal? Wouldn't codifying those decisions make a system of regulations? I'm not seeing how that quote supports these extreme ideas.

[Gerald Tarrant]

All the libertarians I've encountered must be 'soft' libertarians then: they have crazy ideas about free-market, no-regulation, tiny government etc, but I'd never heard 'no taxation' and 'oh it'll all be fine' before.

Some Libertarians are nuts and have no justification for their no-regulation stance other than dogmatism. The practical (or at least more practical) Libertarian recognises human nature rarely naturally runs to society's best interests. The practical ones who oppose regulation will oppose it because the market can more efficiently regulate through various mechanisms. A classic case is pollution, one remedy is to shut the polluters down. A libertarian/economists approach is a Pigovian Tax.

In general Libertarians subscribe to the notion that the free market is the best allocator of goods and services. However, Economists have defined several market failures, tragedy of the commons, public goods, externalities. There are others, but the above problems can be resolved as property rights problems. If a thinking Libertarian complains about the EPA it may be that some pollution tax is too high. A dogmatic Libertarian will probably not recognize externalities as something that the government should intervene in.

How does that justify either zero taxation or zero regulation/social welfare?

It doesn't justify zero taxation, the Libertarians I'm aware of recognize the necessity of of government,

Libertarians generally accept government as: the enforcer of contracts, protector of rights, as a creator of public goods (like roads).

Not contributing to public monies 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'.

I Need to think about this as it relates to things like welfare. But I'm sorry I cherry-picked quotes ops. J.S. Mills "On Liberty" is one of the corner-stones of classical-liberalism (Libertarianism). This is a more full picture

link

Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.

No industry regulation 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'.

The problem of pollution is a problem of property rights, i.e. pollution of public air, public water, public land. Pigovian taxes are the Libertarian's preferred solution. You'll get Libertarians who don't believe this sort of thing, but they tend to fall in the dogmatist camp.

Regulation of industrial safety: You'll get some arguments that OSHA is unnecessary. The justification for abolishing things like OSHA is that signees should be fully informed of the risks associated with jobs, and then it's no longer the government's problem. (When I say OSHA I'm referring to in general worforce safety organizations). That's one justification for the zero regulation meme.

No social welfare 'affects prejudicially the interests of others'. Or are you saying that (for instance) there would be no regulation, but anything that 'affects prejudicially the interests of others' would be illegal? Wouldn't codifying those decisions make a system of regulations? I'm not seeing how that quote supports these extreme ideas.

As I mention above their are Libertarians who aren't rational about their reasons. They just read The Fountainhead and were converted. The "soft" Libertarians you mention may not recognise the violation of property rights that pollution represents.

Personally I think the issue of externalities is pretty clearly on the side of intervention. Without government intervention public rights are infringed upon.

[Stark]

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand this crazy mindset I'd never encountered before. It strikes me as selfish, unworkable bullshit, I'm afraid. Frankly, basing a political theory directly on philosophy is fucking retarded - as Surlethe says, there's this little thing called 'human nature'. Things like replacing safety regulation with 'warning them a whole lot' is absolutely terrifying.

I'm still trying to get my head around people seriously trying to run a system of government based on fucking John Stuart Mill. I see that what you consider 'sensible' libertarians make exceptions for realistic concerns... so why follow this retarded idea to start with? Why not base your political theory on something workable, rather than pie-in-the-sky garbage that would - let's face it - serve the needs of the rich while crushing the poor?

[K. A. Pital]

Frankly, basing a political theory directly on philosophy is fucking retarded - as Surlethe says, there's this little thing called 'human nature'.

Indeed.

And once again I am reminded that many libertarians reject evolution in biology, but willingly embrace Social Darwinism as a modus operandi for the entire society.

Interestingly, one could argue that it must fail, since when human society first evolved, there was no government structure already in place, and those societies were inherently unstable and evolved governments to remain stable.

One could argue whether anarchist tribal societies (incidentally they were anarchocommunist, since the so loved "property rights" generally meant jack shit back then as a tribe was a huge family) were stable or not, but the real issue here is scalability. They're non-scalable, which means, there can be lots of anarchist communities theoretically, but there would be no superstructure to regulate them, not one huge "libertarian state" (that's an oxymoron). This, at least with our current level of progress, will lead to fallback into the age of natural economy in a lot of places.

Only by proving that their non-government structure of society is scalable _and_ life-capable today can libertarians prove even this small point. And to prove that they actually need to have a large anarchy. But then after the first phase of this experiment, they need to prove that the anarchist society if it's viable and stable enough, is better than one with a government.

[Darth Servo]

Suggest to your parents to threaten to enlist him in the military. If they can't shape him up then nobody can.

He is 37. Isn't that a little old to join the armed forces? Besides, mom hates the military, particularly with Georgie the wonder chimp as commander in cheif. Even if there is no age restriction, they'd probably kick him out for psychiatric reasons.

[Darth Servo]

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand this crazy mindset I'd never encountered before. It strikes me as selfish, unworkable bullshit, I'm afraid. Frankly, basing a political theory directly on philosophy is fucking retarded - as Surlethe says, there's this little thing called 'human nature'. Things like replacing safety regulation with 'warning them a whole lot' is absolutely terrifying.

These people don't understand human nature at all. My brother almost completely lacks empathy. He says the fortunes of the rich are "rightly earned" and talks about those people as if they were paragons of virtue; the standard by which all others should be judged. As opposed to the generally ruthless, rule bending assholes that they usually tend to be.

I'm still trying to get my head around people seriously trying to run a system of government based on fucking John Stuart Mill. I see that what you consider 'sensible' libertarians make exceptions for realistic concerns... so why follow this retarded idea to start with? Why not base your political theory on something workable, rather than pie-in-the-sky garbage that would - let's face it - serve the needs of the rich while crushing the poor?

At least in my brother's case, he worships the trickle down theory and as such honestly believes that serving the needs of the rich do serve the needs of the poor, no matter how many people the CEOs of the nation cruch on their way to riches. In his mind, the economy comes above all else and that will help the general population no matter how many people it hurts. My brother really cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Darth Wong]

That's a poor characterization. In particular your example of not being allowed to kill anyone is silly. Libertarians accept the following "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Liberty is freedom which doesn't infringe on the basics rights of others.

That's the problem with libertarians. Empty platitudes. "The right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is a piss-poor replacement for complex social ethics models. It doesn't address the concept of social responsibility at all, and as far as the libertarian is concerned, there is no such thing. Libertarians are just a bunch of self-absorbed assholes. "Duty" and "responsibility" are meaningless words to them.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand this crazy mindset I'd never encountered before.

Sorry about the defensiveness. It's just it seems like everyone has had an experience with the ideologues, that colours their view of Libertarians.

It strikes me as selfish, unworkable bullshit, I'm afraid.

Selfish, yes. Unworkable, no. Adam Smith noted that often selfishness can lead to socially desirable outcomes. His classic example is the butcher

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

The world is full of beneficial interactions that don't happen out of generosity or kindness or any of our gentler emotions, but because of self-interest. The phenomenon of social good happening from self-interest is nick-named the invisible hand.

Frankly, basing a political theory directly on philosophy is fucking retarded - as Surlethe says, there's this little thing called 'human nature'.

See the above Adam Smith notation. It will probably help if I list the minimum standards Libertarians have for a government.

Protection of individual rights (police and code of laws)
-Generally recognized rights are (John Locke's definitions)
-Life (and health)
-Liberty
-Property (what you own)

Roads and public works (public goods)
Contract enforcement
National Defense (as an aside many Libertarians are isolationists)

A government which cannot meet these standards to some degree is a failure. Now protecting individual rights ensures that most harmful acts by a party against a non-consenting party don't occur, or are prosecuted. As I've mentioned pollution is sometimes discussed as a violation of public property rights, which is something the government is more than justified in prosecuting.

Things like replacing safety regulation with 'warning them a whole lot' is absolutely terrifying.

The Libertarian position is not that safety precautions are bad, it's that there isn't any thing which makes the government uniquely qualified to prescribe them. Many Libertarians feel that if a signee is fully
informed of the risks associated with a particular job, that should be all the government requires of that business. I'm not the best one to defend this position, I think some standards need to be met, but OSHA (the US workplace regulatory agency) doesn't strike me as the best bureacracy.

I'm still trying to get my head around people seriously trying to run a system of government based on fucking John Stuart Mill.

The way I use JS Mill when thinking about governments is to consider whether a particular policy expands an individuals liberty or not. The Libertarian ideal is to expand as much as possible the liberty of individuals. This says absolutely nothing about implementation. This is no more impractical than a government looking at the UN universal human rights declaration (for example) and trying to live up to it. It's an ideal that people hope to reach but human nature, and government being what they are, mistakes will be made.

I see that what you consider 'sensible' libertarians make exceptions for realistic concerns... so why follow this retarded idea to start with?

It's an ideal that they hope to reach. The ideal of universal human rights is a good one too, but what about criminals? Rational folks who believe in this have no problem removing their rights to liberty. Practical considerations don't invalidate the ideal, they just mean you have to modify it to varying degrees.

Why not base your political theory on something workable, rather than pie-in-the-sky garbage that would - let's face it - serve the needs of the rich while crushing the poor?

I think the problem here is the problem of ideals in general, they require modification to fit the real world. Libertarianism is not unique in this. I think it's more wise to create social policy based on the general case and not the exceptions. Libertarianism believes in general that people acting within the above mentioned bounds of liberty, will generate socially desirable outcomes. They also believe that their outcomes will generally be preferable to the ones a government acting with the same goals will generate. Of course there are exceptioins to this: all but the most dogmatic recognize public goods as something a market will not provide. These exceptiond don't invalidate the principle that liberty is in general a desirable thing.

serve the needs of the rich while crushing the poor?

I don't have a very good answer for you on this. Partly because I'm not sure what you mean by crushing the poor. I'll mis-interpret, and you can call me an idiot for it. I'll note a few ways in which crushing the poor can happen, and why they wouldn't in a Libertarian state.

Slave wages: Libertarians consider work to be a voluntary exchange, you work- you get paid it's a contract you fulfill. If your employer coerces you to work, or coerces you to work for less he/she has violated your rights which would still be illegal in an ideal Libertarian state. If you aren't paid what you're worth find a new job, your possesion of a job is a voluntary thing, it indicates what you think you are worth.

Confiscation of property by fat cats: Private property is one of the few absolute rights Libertarians recognize, so a company unilaterally appropriating property is about as likely as it is in the US. The Kelo v City of New London Supreme Court decision link still annoys Libertarians who have constantly pushed for limitations on eminent domain, at least as it is show cased in the previous. Taking private property to give to private interests currently happens in the US. That's something Libertarians would like to close up, it protects property owners regardless of any other wealth. I'll note that in the Kelo decision the owners who were not wealthy were steam-rolled by a wealthy developer.

From wiki

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671

I'll note that here the poor were on the losing end, due to the non-absolute nature of private property.

Hurting the poor by taking away welfare, medicaid, medicare, etc. Conceded. How much charity would be done by private individuals is something I don't know. Some Libertarians don't concede this point, there may be information which speaks to this question. I don't have it, that's why some Libertarians do recognise welfare as a legitamate function of government. Most people call those folks centrists though. But A few self-identify as Libertarians.

I'm sorry for the long-winded post and feel free to add more ways the poor might get steam-rolled in a Libertarian society.

[Gerald Tarrant]

That's a poor characterization. In particular your example of not being allowed to kill anyone is silly. Libertarians accept the following "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Liberty is freedom which doesn't infringe on the basics rights of others.

That's the problem with libertarians. Empty platitudes. "The right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is a piss-poor replacement for complex social ethics models. It doesn't address the concept of social responsibility at all, and as far as the libertarian is concerned, there is no such thing. Libertarians are just a bunch of self-absorbed assholes. "Duty" and "responsibility" are meaningless words to them.

I don't know any Libertarians that treat it as a model of Ethics. I have met Jewish Libertarians, Atheist Libertarians, and Hindu Libertarians. The folks I know prefer it as a governing philosophy.

The right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is a piss-poor replacement for complex social ethics models.

Agreed. But I don't consider it any part of my ethics at all. Swinging my fist at anyone would be rude, and threatening, and in general frowned upon

The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.

I was remiss in not posting this link earlier the full text

The section in question

The above says absolutely nothing about what society should expect from an individual. I personally think hat there are as many opinions on that as there are Libertarians. I don't know any Objectivists, but I dislike the philosophy. And as a philosophy for personal relationships Libertarianism stinks, it's a Sociopath's wet dream. As a philosophy for how to govern, I think it has some worth.

[K. A. Pital]

And as a philosophy for personal relationships Libertarianism stinks, it's a Sociopath's wet dream.

There's a lot of sociopathic people who eagerly take it up, that's for sure. Why would they not? It's a philosophy that suits their worldview perfectly.

Libertarianism is a pathetic model of social relationships. It's appeal is in simplicity (you don't fuck me I don't fuck you) - and we all know that "simple" doesn't mean "correct", especially in real life which is complex.

As a philosophy for how to govern, I think it has some worth.

It's only worth, the only worth that is has, is it's political adherence to the protection of the citizen from being abused by those holding power. Note that this positive trait of libertarianism only has merit in a non-libertarian, opressive state.

But I don't consider it any part of my ethics at all. Swinging my fist at anyone would be rude, and threatening, and in general frowned upon

Ha ha. That's what libertarians think will happen if people start doing bad things to others: "the people will turn away from those who will try to rule with a fist" - and this is where they fail. There's nothing in their philosophy or system that will stop such a man sans other men. And they are pussies who would not do it. Why? Why would other men protect a bunch of people who are executed by, say, a powerful landlord who wants their land? In a libertopia, there cannot be any case for them to involve in matters that don't concern themselves.

You were right, Libertarianism is sociopathic.

[Gerald Tarrant]

For any Mod/Admin: This discussion of Libertarianism may be interesting, but it might belong in it's own seperate thread, so that everyone can get back to castigating Darth Servo's brother.

And as a philosophy for personal relationships Libertarianism stinks, it's a Sociopath's wet dream.

There's a lot of sociopathic people who eagerly take it up, that's for sure. Why would they not? It's a philosophy that suits their worldview perfectly.

Libertarianism is a pathetic model of social relationships. It's appeal is in simplicity (you don't fuck me I don't fuck you) - and we all know that "simple" doesn't mean "correct", especially in real life which is complex.

Prior to today I had never heard of Libertarianism as an ethical framework. In every discussion where it was mentioned all those discussing it assumed it was a political philosophy. I'm just going to quote from Mill again:

The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.

Whether or not an individual is punished by public opinion isn't the point. The point is that if person A does not violate the constituted rights of Person B (or anyone else), then A cannot be punished by the law even if everyone is upset at some action A took in regards to B. This is not the same as saying A has performed admirably, or should be emulated. This essentially states that some actions are not the business of the government.

As a philosophy for how to govern, I think it has some worth.

It's only worth, the only worth that is has, is it's political adherence to the protection of the citizen from being abused by those holding power. Note that this positive trait of libertarianism only has merit in a non-libertarian, opressive state.

This is kind of far from the OP. This discussion -whether Libertarian theory creates good results-is worth having, maybe this can be split or we can start a new thread to address that (i.e. do Libertarian Economic theories resemble reality?) The philosophy however has some very real current consequences. I previously posted on the Kelo Vs New London case. I'll quote again from Justice O'Connor

Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich —would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut could have benefited from some laws to clarify Eminent Domain, solidifying property rights (which Libertarians love to protect).

But I don't consider it any part of my ethics at all. Swinging my fist at anyone would be rude, and threatening, and in general frowned upon

Ha ha. That's what libertarians think will happen if people start doing bad things to others: "the people will turn away from those who will try to rule with a fist" - and this is where they fail. There's nothing in their philosophy or system that will stop such a man sans other men. And they are pussies who would not do it. Why? Why would other men protect a bunch of people who are executed by, say, a powerful landlord who wants their land? In a libertopia, there cannot be any case for them to involve in matters that don't concern themselves.

You have confused Libertarianism with Anarchy. Libertarians recognize the governments role in defending established rights. Libertopia is not 0 government. Libertopia is a smaller government that must defend rights. Libertarians in general recognize the government's duty to protect the life, property and liberty of its citizens.

It will probably help if I list the minimum standards Libertarians have for a government.

Protection of individual rights (police and code of laws)
-Generally recognized rights are (John Locke's definitions)
-Life (and health)
-Liberty
-Property (what you own)

Please note that your hypothetical fat-cat has run afoul of the laws that even a minimalist Libertarian government would have.

[Imperial Overlord]

Prior to today I had never heard of Libertarianism as an ethical framework. In every discussion where it was mentioned all those discussing it assumed it was a political philosophy. I'm just going to quote from Mill again:

The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.

Whether or not an individual is punished by public opinion isn't the point. The point is that if person A does not violate the constituted rights of Person B (or anyone else), then A cannot be punished by the law even if everyone is upset at some action A took in regards to B. This is not the same as saying A has performed admirably, or should be emulated. This essentially states that some actions are not the business of the government.

Allowing such disreputable actions to be legal and unpunished is an ethical position. It is a position that such actions don't require a strict censure, but are merely distasteful but beyond the place of the law to punish. Libertarianism almost completely ignores even the concept of the "public good" an important tenant in almost every other ethical system. By its very nature it is a radical ethical break with most ethical systems and not in a good way.

[Tolya]

To me, he just sounds like a guy who is too fucking lazy to get a job and start living on his own. To justify his own inadequacy he invented this kind of lame-ass excuse which he enforces on himself as the ultimate truth.

I can't consider this guy a true libertarian, he just uses some of their theories to justify his own personal problems.

No use reasoning with him, because at the very bottom of his approach is the denial of his own laziness. If he can't get through that dont expect him to follow any laws of logic apart from those which suit his needs. And voila, a wall of ignorance is built. "If it doesn't prove me right I dont want to hear about it". Creationists and fundies employ this kind of behaviour.

[K. A. Pital]

Libertarians recognize the governments role in defending established rights. Libertopia is not 0 government. Libertopia is a smaller government that must defend rights. Libertarians in general recognize the government's duty to protect the life, property and liberty of its citizens.

Pardon me, but what good is "recognising" the government's obligation to defend people's rights without giving it the power to do so?

You have to tax people to run the police. Its not some sort of ethical maxim or some sort of anti-libertarian "idea", it's a fucking fact. A social contract. To protect people's rights, they have to pay to the protector. That's the idea.

Minarchism wants to have it's cake and eat it too - disempower the protector of law and justice (government), but have a very lawful and just society. Well, it doesn't work that way, sorry.

Oh, and minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are both branches of libertarianism - with the latter being quite active today.

[Velthuijsen]

Minarchism wants to have it's cake and eat it too - disempower the protector of law and justice (government), but have a very lawful and just society. Well, it doesn't work that way, sorry.

Minarchism is the red headed stepchild of the libertarian movement due to it not wanting to get rid of the government (at the very least as monopolist) and then on top of that not ruling out taxation as a means of getting funds for things like protection and public works. At least for the strains of minarchism I've seen. This to the point that there is an ongoing debate if it should be considered a libertarian form.

[Lonestar]

He is 37. Isn't that a little old to join the armed forces? Besides, mom hates the military, particularly with Georgie the wonder chimp as commander in cheif. Even if there is no age restriction, they'd probably kick him out for psychiatric reasons.

Army age restriction is 42, IIRC.


Why does mom "hate" the military?

[General Zod]

Suggest to your parents to threaten to enlist him in the military. If they can't shape him up then nobody can.

He is 37. Isn't that a little old to join the armed forces? Besides, mom hates the military, particularly with Georgie the wonder chimp as commander in cheif. Even if there is no age restriction, they'd probably kick him out for psychiatric reasons.

37? Well, shit. Here I thought you were talking about someone in their 20s or late teens. This just makes it a good deal worse.

[Darth Wong]

That's a poor characterization. In particular your example of not being allowed to kill anyone is silly. Libertarians accept the following "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Liberty is freedom which doesn't infringe on the basics rights of others.

That's the problem with libertarians. Empty platitudes. "The right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is a piss-poor replacement for complex social ethics models. It doesn't address the concept of social responsibility at all, and as far as the libertarian is concerned, there is no such thing. Libertarians are just a bunch of self-absorbed assholes. "Duty" and "responsibility" are meaningless words to them.

I don't know any Libertarians that treat it as a model of Ethics. I have met Jewish Libertarians, Atheist Libertarians, and Hindu Libertarians. The folks I know prefer it as a governing philosophy.

No, they treat it as a model of ethics. Otherwise they would have no case for saying that it's "wrong" for government to violate its principles.