According to my brother, taxation is stealing

[Jew]

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.

A lot of libertarians base their beliefs on an ethical framework, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. And we can make a distinction between the ethical framework and the political system. E.g., Ayn Rand's Objectivism is an ethical framework, and libertarianism is a system of government. It just so happens that the only form of government acceptable under Objectivism is libertarianism. Not all libertarians are Objectivists, but most libertarians do have an ethical model to justify libertarianism.

I suppose someone could still be a libertarian while rejecting all supporting ethical frameworks, but it would be sort of silly, wouldn't it? I mean, good governments should be grounded in some sort of ethics or philosophy. Even our modern liberal democracies are based on some fundamental principles: e.g., the human rights of life, liberty, and property; the principle of self-governance; the rule of law.

The problems with libertarianism don't stem from the fact that it's based on a system of ethics. The problems mostly come from the fact that libertarians are crackpots who can't recognize the need to temper their ideals to match a non-ideal world populated by non-ideal people. The world needs pragmatists.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I suppose someone could still be a libertarian while rejecting all supporting ethical frameworks, but it would be sort of silly, wouldn't it? I mean, good governments should be grounded in some sort of ethics or philosophy. Even our modern liberal democracies are based on some fundamental principles: e.g., the human rights of life, liberty, and property; the principle of self-governance; the rule of law.

Should be based on ethics? I don't honestly see how it couldn't be. This semantic quibbling over "political" versus "ethical" frameworks smells like a Meaningless Distinction Fallacy in this context. What kind of government dosen't enforce the stewardship of it's nations ethical mandate? If you remove from a government everything that has the capacity to affect, if not exclusively determine matters of ethical authority, then what exactly remains that makes this body a bonafide fully-fledged "government"?

[K. A. Pital]

The problems mostly come from the fact that libertarians are crackpots who can't recognize the need to temper their ideals to match a non-ideal world populated by non-ideal people.

Why would they even need to do that? In their world, people are ideal already - not in the future, not under special circumstances - no, they already are good enough for a libertopia. Just letting them be as they are will produce a perfect state - that's what the most hardcore libertarian will say, that's what the core of their bullshit is. Humans will form a perfect utopia on their own, NOW - all that stands in the way, is the evil "big government".

Why people don't see this as bullshit straightaway? Well, because it's appealing to think that you're a victim. A victim of the government, which stands in the way of you living in a utopia - where nothing is required from you but simply being "free" and "owning yourself". Victim psychology and all that.

[Jew]

Humans will form a perfect utopia on their own, NOW - all that stands in the way, is the evil "big government".

I don't think libertarians would agree with that assessment. Libertarians recognize the need for a government. Otherwise we would have anarchy, and that would lead to crimes and the violation of people's rights. Libertarianism requires a government to enforce justice; to investigate, prosecute and punish criminals; and to provide courts to handle contract disputes. If there isn't a government to provide those services, the result is anarchy, not libertarianism.

The real trick is funding that government, given that hardcore libertarians view compulsory taxes to be a violation of the human right to property. Even if a government could be adequately funded by voluntary contributions, it would then be beholden to big money, which is unacceptable. A lot of government services (like roads and parks) could be funded by user fees. Other things, like a criminal justice system, are problematic to fund via user fees. Another source of funding is needed. In theory, one source of funding is a voluntary contract tax (which is what Ayn Rand suggested), but whether it would work in reality is an unanswered question. You can read more here: Amber Pawlik, and Edward W. Younkins

[K. A. Pital]

Libertarians recognize the need for a government.

Minarchists do. And in a minimal form.

It's still debated whether minarchism is "libertarianism" at all, frankly, and the hardcore libertarians are all anarchocapitalists, as taxation is to them coercion, all government is coercion and therefore only anarchism is utopia.

Pathetic, I know. But for pete's sake, minarchism itself was created by an anarchocapitalist.

whether it would work in reality is an unanswered question

No, it will not As if existing examples of anarchy don't tell. None of the anarchic states formed a "libertarian" government on voluntary taxes - quite the opposite, they turned into neofeodal, barbaric and opressive shitholes ruled by warlords. Libertarian ideas don't call the people, eh.

Libertarianism at it's core is anarchocapitalism, and there is no way going round it. Anarchic faction was the faction that gave birth to libertarianism, pested it, cultivated blind hatred against governments (a hate so blind that it made "libertarians" focus only on bashing governments and forgetting about massive abuse by the corporations).

Minarchists are more tolerant, but neither are they so batshit insane.

[Jew]

Libertarians recognize the need for a government.

Minarchists do. And in a minimal form.

Then I guess we are using the terms differently. Libertarianism, as I was using the word, is perfectly compatible with having a government--as long as that government does not violate the rights of its citizens. In that sense, minarchism can be defined as a form of libertarianism.

You seem to be using libertarianism as something closer to anarchy. Anarchy is pretty crappy, and invariably devolves into civil war, brutal warlords, and petty dictatorships. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

[K. A. Pital]

In that sense, minarchism can be defined as a form of libertarianism.

Indeed, and the only tolerant form of it. Taxes and redistribution are seen as a fundamental rights violation in a libertarian system - this is why minarchists are frowned upon by the radical libertarian wing.

One can argue that libertarianism is about rights of citizens and then cite such forms as socialist libertarianism, etc. - but all these things are only taking legal principles of protecting people... without taking the economic ideas of libertarianism.

The ideas that redistribution is vile for the society - and that individual good always trumps the public good - or that two random individuals in the society have absolutely equal moral consideration in all situations - are all bullshit.

Libertarianism in it's minarchist form of course doesn't make the biggest mistake it's anarchist brothers make - the claim that people will cling to the law and respect each other without the power which enforces the law. But all other silly ideas of libertarianism are still there.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

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.

Ahh, it sounds like his plan for making it rich is to win the lottery. But aren't lottery winnings taxed in the USA? That would explain his rant against taxation. Yes, it's all coming together now. . .

[Darth Wong]

This clown is 37 years old? Holy shit. Whenever I feel like I haven't accomplished enough in life at 37, I can always look at this idiot and feel better about myself.

[His Divine Shadow]

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.

Most of the descriptions of libertarian so far doesn't mean libertarian as I understand it, they more fit the description of anarco-capitalists.

Most people who consider themselves libertarians just want lower taxes, increased personal freedoms such as legalized drugs and whatnot. The nutballs however are in charge of the Libertarian Party of america so I guess it colors views. The most extreme libertarians tend to be the miniarchist ones, who want a really tiny tiny government. Every libertarian wants a government, they all just tend to disagree where the cut off point should be. When they no longer want a government then they become anarchists or something else.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Most of the descriptions of libertarian so far doesn't mean libertarian as I understand it, they more fit the description of anarco-capitalists.

Most people who consider themselves libertarians just want lower taxes, increased personal freedoms such as legalized drugs and whatnot. The nutballs however are in charge of the Libertarian Party of america so I guess it colors views. The most extreme libertarians tend to be the miniarchist ones, who want a really tiny tiny government. Every libertarian wants a government, they all just tend to disagree where the cut off point should be. When they no longer want a government then they become anarchists or something else.

But all stripes of libertarian tend to share the same mindset that if the government stops regulating something, then society will regulate itself.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well they probably would be "regulated" or work somehow, but nearly as efficiently? Hardly. Roads and infrastructure for instance.

OTOH several drugs could be unbanned and legally regulated in a fashion similar to tobacco and alcohol, some need no regulation at all, like pot, let people grow it all they want. Libertarianism like every other ideology is best applied moderatly. Not completely, dogmatically and fundamentally applied.

The mixed market most western countries have is a mixture of capitalism/socialism, a free market operating inside a legal framework and a government providing basic healthcare and welfare for the people is clearly better than any totally capitalist/anarchist/socialist/communist implementation.

[K. A. Pital]

When they no longer want a government then they become anarchists or something else.

Why really? Anarchocapitalism is a form of libertarianism. Anarchists can be socialist, capitalist, or don't give a shit, but libertarianism is a very specific relative of anarchism.

It's the kind of anarchism that seeks logical base under itself rather than "kill government dogs!" irrational hate. It seeks that - and finds in libertarianism - "people can do on their own just fine". No more, not less.

That's why they're symbiotic.

[His Divine Shadow]

Because that definition is already filled with the anarco-capitalists and the anarachists. Even crack-pot versions of libertarianism(miniarchism mostly) mandates a government and the rule of law to some degree. It's sort of the pivotal difference between libertarianism and the other ideologies mentioned.

But okay you wish to point out their similarities, so noted.

[Jew]

When they no longer want a government then they become anarchists or something else.

Why really? Anarchocapitalism is a form of libertarianism. Anarchists can be socialist, capitalist, or don't give a shit, but libertarianism is a very specific relative of anarchism.

Exactly. Libertarianism comes in two basic forms:

• Minarchism
• Anarcho-capitalism

In my experience most libertarians are minarchists, but it seems Stas Bush has met more anarcho-capitalists. The libertarians who come from the Objectivist ranks (that is, anyone who follows Ayn Rand) are generally minarchists. Rand herself wrote an essay criticizing anarcho-capitalism.

[Velthuijsen]

The most extreme libertarians tend to be the miniarchist ones, who want a really tiny tiny government. Every libertarian wants a government, they all just tend to disagree where the cut off point should be. When they no longer want a government then they become anarchists or something else.

It's the other way. At least from what I've learned during conversations on the subject.
The only group wanting a government are the minarchists. All the other forms of libertarianism advocate anarchy (derived from the Greek an-arkhos meaning no ruler) but not anarchy of the chaos variety.
And even the pure minarchists (the original people formulating minarchy) have the ultimate goal of trying to get rid of the government. Their approach is just different. The reasoning they follow is that if you manage to remove one part of the government and then look at what is left over you will find another part that can be remove until you have no government left.
Other strains of minarchism have appeared over time that state that some parts of the government just can't be removed and that if for those parts to function you need to levy taxes so be it.

[His Divine Shadow]

In my experience the miniarchists are the crazies of libertarianism. The anarco-capitalists are people who simply fell off the libertarian scale into anarchist territory. While the vast majority of libertarians are mostly normal people with a few libertarian leanings(legal drugs, no government interference in marriage, no moral censoring of TV etcera)

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, the anarcho-capitalists are more consistent. They're more extreme, but they're more logically consistent. They've taken the underlying premise of libertarianism and applied it consistently, in much the same way that rabid fundies like Fred Phelps may be sociopaths but they're actually more consistent in their Bible reading than the "moderates". Or the rabid anti-abortionists who won't let a 10 year old rape victim get an abortion because life begins at conception. They're rabid assholes but at least they're consistent; the fucktards who say that life begins at conception but make an exception for rape victims may seem more reasonable but they're massively full of shit.

It reminds me of Ayn Rand herself, who builds an argument for an ethics system based entirely upon self-interest and then suddenly says that it should be "enlightened". Enlightened by what, Ms Rand, since you claim that self-interest is the only valid basis of morality? It's pretty sad when an ethics system admits up-front that it doesn't really work as an ethics system unless its followers temper its teachings with something more reasonable.

[Jew]

Even crack-pot versions of libertarianism (miniarchism mostly) mandates a government and the rule of law to some degree. It's sort of the pivotal difference between libertarianism and the other ideologies mentioned.

Well, anarcho-capitalism isn't total absence of government either. It includes a system of governments competing in the free market. Basically you get to choose your government the way you choose your insurance company. If you get poor service, you switch to a different provider. The problem that Ayn Rand points out is jurisdiction: if I subscribe to government A and you subcribe to government B, how do we resolve a dispute? If I steal your TV, who do you file a police report with?

[His Divine Shadow]

I believe the appropriate answer is you hire mercenaries to take your TV back

[His Divine Shadow]

Also, the world is anarco-capitalist then. Almost. Because in the western world we can without much trouble move elsewhere.

[Jew]

I believe the appropriate answer is you hire mercenaries to take your TV back

Well yeah, but I could do that today, U.S. federal government notwithstanding.

Also, the world is anarco-capitalist then. Almost. Because in the western world we can without much trouble move elsewhere.

No, because anarcho-capitalism doesn't recognize governmental geographic boundaries. If you have to move to change governments, it isn't anarcho-capitalism. If you can't start a new government and compete for citizens, it isn't anarcho-capitalism. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[His Divine Shadow]

Well att any rate I had the definition of anarcho-capitalism wrong, I went and looked at anarcho-capitalism more closely. I thought it was just anarchism combined with capitalism. As in no government at all. This sounds exceptionally weird though, choosing a government as one would choose an insurance.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Jew is correct. Basically anarchocapitalism is a warlordism-style system where you can flock to any banner you want, and to resolve disputes between nonaligned powers you will have to most likely use force in real life.

There are no clear "governments", merely private contractors.

Which sets us right there with the counts, lords and dukes of old with their military-dominated domains when people first paid and contracted military leaders to protect them, beginning the evil thing thing that is known today as "the government".

Anarchocapitalism seeks to undo centuries of progress, replacing it with a false promise of freedom and good life - in a real warlordism, most likely a general citizen would have neither.

[wilfulton]

For sake of simplicity in arguing, I like to put it this way:

You can either give the government 25% a year, or bandits come every 4 years and take everything.

It just so happens to come out even.