Libertarianism - What's the appeal?

[Superman]

As I've acknowledged twice in this thread, yes, we're all beneficiaries of the government. I pay my taxes, and I support the idea of government power within the bounds of the government's constitutional limitations.

Does that include denying women the right to vote?

[K. A. Pital]

Funny that people often bring up American founding fathers as staunch fighters for human freedom. Slave owners fighting for independence from the British Empire? Fine, I can count that as national liberation (as, the nation's right for self-determination), but human freedom? Their vision of human freedom is a product of an outdated social sturucture.

That's like saying the British Empire's political conduct is very good, since they had democracy in the metropole whilst opressing and exploiting colonial countries.

Listing problems with Medicare does not mean privatization of healthcare - the dead horse which all libertarians like to beat - is a good solution; there are national healthcare systems which show themselves vastly superior to the US one. Perhaps reforming Medicare into a true NHS is the solution? For a person with a sense of logic, yes. But, not for a libertarian.

Libertarian train of thought is destruction of government agencies without a clear replacement for them (often the planned replacement is many times worse than a government could ever devise). Destruction for the sake of what?

[Superman]

there are national healthcare systems which show themselves vastly superior to the US one. Perhaps reforming Medicare into a true NHS is the solution? For a person with a sense of logic, yes. But, not for a libertarian.

I seriously doubt you will ever hear a libertarian, or even a republican, admit that a better health care system exists. If you listen to the usual commentators, they usually refuse to admit that a problem exists at all.

Rogue, I "attacked" a strain of Libertarians, like Kent Hovind, and asked where the appeal of this philosophy lies. Maybe my perception of the Libertarian party is just a case of the loudest whackos gaining the most attention and "representing" the entire party. If that's true, I'll make sure and direct my criticisms at the official party platforms.

I just read some of the information on that link. Some things sound good, but a lot of it makes me wonder what the hell they're thinking. For example, how would issues like legal contractual obligations ever be enforced? Everyone just keeps their word? Who the hell is going to fix highways when they start to break down? Who will tell greedy factories to stop polluting the atmosphere? The idea of zero government intervention is a bit extreme, isn't it?

[Rogue 9]

Well, I woke up to go to work and just as I became fully awake, my boss called and said order volume is down enough that they don't need me today. After posting this, I'm going back to sleep.

And when're you going to provide a how? Simply slash Medicare spending and expect the system to somehow provide the care to just the same? Because that amounts to just saying "fuck 'em" to the beneficiaries. The only way to clean up the per capita cost is a fully socialized system which will eliminate excessive administrative costs and allow the government to negotiate prices for pharmaceuticals and fees.

What's so special about a fully socialized system that suddenly makes its administrative costs magically cheaper? Prices could be negotiated right now; they just aren't. And that hurts the beneficiaries, too; it makes their copayments higher.

Note that I'm not saying that a socialized system is a priori a bad idea; I'm simply pointing out the waste in Medicare.

Secondly, how do you devine the government's constitutional limitations? Originalism? I just wrote a large term paper on Rakove's Original Meanings and several Nineteenth Century SCOTUS cases for my Constitutional Law course, so don't give me a throwaway line. I want to know how exactly your vision will work where the status quo has not.

There's no divination involved. The powers of Congress are clearly laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution, except as amended. If Congress needs more powers for whatever reason, the amendment process is right there and should be used. Currently, Congress has no legal authority to exercise powers not granted to it. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have power to do some of the things it does, but ignoring the law of the land to do them rather than working to change it is a dangerous precedent to set.

Incidentally, I forgot farm subsidies when I was making my list of things to cut, which is rather stupid of me since the family owns a farm (that doesn't get subsidized). Also corporate tax breaks and other forms of "corporate welfare."

If the libertarians say that libertarnism encourages small government, then they've already lost the debate, at least if they're honest. It is entirely possible to have a very large government which serves its people better. It's entirely possible that in order to serve its citizens, governments must "shove themselves in the face" of their citizens.

Entirely possible, yes, but not bloody likely.

Libertarians go with the a priori assumption that government must not interfere with the lives of private citizens except as little as possible, but what does "as little as possible" mean? It's code for I don't want to pay for what I don't use.

So you're starting with the a priori assumption that more government is better. How the fuck does that follow? More government for the sake of having more government is an open window for tyranny; if government power is to be expanded a clear case should be made as to why it's necessary, and then the government's limitations should be expressly amended to prevent it from expanding more than intended.

It means for the individual, as little as possible to hurt himself, which may hurt others and society at large. So sorry Archaic and Rogue and people who don't realize that what benefits the individual can harm the group. This is a logical implication of highly praising individual benefit over group benefit, so if you're too stupid to reject libertarianism on those grounds then you're just not understanding the implications of libertarianism. The core tenet of libertarianism is praise of the individual over the group, no matter what shade it is.

What the fuck is the group if not a very large collection of individuals? If you hurt all the individuals in a group, the group might function better, but what good is that if the individuals making it up are worse off? A government's function should be the individual good of its citizens; a government that exists as an end unto itself is pointless and I would even hazard to say harmful.

The usual libertarian rebuttal is to say no such rift between individual benefit and group benefit exists, but come the fuck on. You hear people all the time saying they don't want to pay for shit they don't use, but that's as narrow minded as the idea car users shouldn't pay for public transit or healthy people shouldn't pay for sick people.

How does that have anything to do with anything? I'm saying government should be as small as possible while still doing what it has to do; if the bounds of what it has to do includes national healthcare then so be it so long as the law is changed so that such is permitted.

So? Your boo-hoo story doesn't cut it. As Albert Einstein once said, everything that you think of as your self-identity is a product of the hard work and sacrifice of generations before you. Without their groundwork, you would be born, live, and die like an animal. Even if you disregard past generations, you are lucky as hell to be born in an affluent society. Human society is an organic thing, you are a part of it, and when you say that you deserve to keep the fruit of your labour for yourself, you are acting as though you actually earned it all on your own.

Doesn't cut what? I never intended it to be an argument in favor of my position; IP attacked my knowledge of the subject based on the assumption that I'm halfway through college and living with my parents, which I'm just not. I never would have brought it up if my personal situation hadn't been dragged into the thread in the first place.

As for the rest, yes, I acknowledge that. It seems the point of disagreement is how much one owes. I hasten to add that if I end up owing much more than I'm paying now, I'll quickly be in debt, because I'm flat broke as it is.

Ah yes, "constitutional limitations": the favoured catch-phrase of the libertarian. What better way to limit a government than to constrict its scope of influence to that which was explicitly laid out in a >200 year old document written by slave-owning primitives wearing powdered wigs?

You do realize that's nothing but a slightly long-winded ad hominem, right? The Constitution is wrong because of the men who wrote it?

Regardless, it's the law of the land. If it needs to be changed, then there is a mechanism for doing so. Allowing government to simply break the law rather than being bothered to change it simply because of a perceived need is a dangerous precedent to set, as I've said. And having been set for a couple generations now, we now have an administration in the White House fully following that precedent of government ignoring the law. We can plainly see the results.

Does that include denying women the right to vote?

Might I point out that the government's constitutional limitations include a clear statement that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of gender?

Rogue, I "attacked" a strain of Libertarians, like Kent Hovind, and asked where the appeal of this philosophy lies. Maybe my perception of the Libertarian party is just a case of the loudest whackos gaining the most attention and "representing" the entire party. If that's true, I'll make sure and direct my criticisms at the official party platforms.

I just read some of the information on that link. Some things sound good, but a lot of it makes me wonder what the hell they're thinking. For example, how would issues like legal contractual obligations ever be enforced? Everyone just keeps their word? Who the hell is going to fix highways when they start to break down? Who will tell greedy factories to stop polluting the atmosphere? The idea of zero government intervention is a bit extreme, isn't it?

Yes, it is. As I mentioned earlier, the LP is fucking nuts. They're just not evangelical. There is, as you can see from reading the rest of the platform, room for plenty of nuttery without that.

[brianeyci]

If the libertarians say that libertarnism encourages small government, then they've already lost the debate, at least if they're honest. It is entirely possible to have a very large government which serves its people better. It's entirely possible that in order to serve its citizens, governments must "shove themselves in the face" of their citizens.

Entirely possible, yes, but not bloody likely.

Says who, says you? What about the governments Stas mentioned with the government encompassing half the GDP?

Libertarians go with the a priori assumption that government must not interfere with the lives of private citizens except as little as possible, but what does "as little as possible" mean? It's code for I don't want to pay for what I don't use.

So you're starting with the a priori assumption that more government is better. How the fuck does that follow? More government for the sake of having more government is an open window for tyranny; if government power is to be expanded a clear case should be made as to why it's necessary, and then the government's limitations should be expressly amended to prevent it from expanding more than intended.

Wrong. I'm attacking the libertarian premise that less interference is better for the sake of less interference. That doesn't translate into an automatic love of very large governments for the sake of large governments. What rational people know is government is a situational process, dependent on its citizens and culture. It's entirely possible that large governments are better because of examples like Japan, Canada, European countries and so on. The burden of proof is on libertarians, or if you don't call yourself libertarian then you who make these claims. I like how you shit out the large government = tyranny bullshit right away in true libertarian form.

What the fuck is the group if not a very large collection of individuals? If you hurt all the individuals in a group, the group might function better, but what good is that if the individuals making it up are worse off? A government's function should be the individual good of its citizens; a government that exists as an end unto itself is pointless and I would even hazard to say harmful.

Libertarians like shitting out the hurt all individuals strawman. But what about the hurt many individuals or most individuals, but helping a minority of other individuals? The American libertarian response is to deny the collective exists. If you do so then you're a fucking moron.

The usual libertarian rebuttal is to say no such rift between individual benefit and group benefit exists, but come the fuck on. You hear people all the time saying they don't want to pay for shit they don't use, but that's as narrow minded as the idea car users shouldn't pay for public transit or healthy people shouldn't pay for sick people.

How does that have anything to do with anything? I'm saying government should be as small as possible while still doing what it has to do; if the bounds of what it has to do includes national healthcare then so be it so long as the law is changed so that such is permitted.

What the fuck does "as small as possible" mean dumbfuck? For most libertarians that's code for "I don't want to pay for what I don't use." What part of that do you have difficulty understanding is stupid?

[brianeyci]

Rogue and other libertarians or libertarian leaning people don't understand what libertarianism implies. Or they do, and they don't fucking care. Their excuse is "as much as necessary" and when pressed about healthcare, education and other communal costs they just claim it's necessary and proclaim their victory as a devastating rebuttal. What they don't understand is human fucking nature. An individual will not think that paying taxes for something they don't use is absolutely necessary. Nobody likes to pay taxes, even if they admit it's necessary. The individual has a very narrow scope: his own personal benefit. To the individual, "as much as necessary" is what helps him the most. A consequence of extreme praise of individualism over collectivism is personal over public benefit and they either don't understand that's the consequence of libertarian beliefs or they don't fucking care since they're selfish pricks.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ah yes, "constitutional limitations": the favoured catch-phrase of the libertarian. What better way to limit a government than to constrict its scope of influence to that which was explicitly laid out in a >200 year old document written by slave-owning primitives wearing powdered wigs?

Its a fucking joke; Madison and Jefferson said they were much better off a couple decades later because they had experience working with the constitution; they hadn't a fucking clue what it really allowed them to do at the time it was written, which flushes originalism down the fucking toilet.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's so special about a fully socialized system that suddenly makes its administrative costs magically cheaper? Prices could be negotiated right now; they just aren't. And that hurts the beneficiaries, too; it makes their copayments higher.

Because practical experience shows us no other way to cut out for-profit interests that oppose that and get it done.

Note that I'm not saying that a socialized system is a priori a bad idea; I'm simply pointing out the waste in Medicare.

You are aware that the Canadian system is cheaper per capita than Medicare/Medicaid combined, but serves 100% of the population, right?

There's no divination involved. The powers of Congress are clearly laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution, except as amended. If Congress needs more powers for whatever reason, the amendment process is right there and should be used. Currently, Congress has no legal authority to exercise powers not granted to it. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have power to do some of the things it does, but ignoring the law of the land to do them rather than working to change it is a dangerous precedent to set.

As you once put it, there's only one authority here which matters, and that is the Supreme Court of the United States. Are you the Supreme Court of the United States? U.S. constitutional law includes both the actual text of the constitution and its subsequent amendments and the case law decided by SCOTUS since it was ratified; that case law allows the constitution to be flexible. It also grants individual citizens blanket Bill of Rights protections; before the 20th century - your state could seize your property at will without compensation; the Bill of Rights protected you only from the federal or general government, not the states. Anyway, since the New Deal, a component of constitutional case law is rational basis analysis, and as such, almost none of the current laws violate the Constitution of the Unitied States.

I mean, quibbling over the original intent is truly quixotic as we live in a republic where neither the voters, the party, nor even the civil service or politicians determine policy. Its bought and paid for by undemocratic think tanks and institutes, which just get to choose amongst those policies.

[Darth Wong]

What's so special about a fully socialized system that suddenly makes its administrative costs magically cheaper? Prices could be negotiated right now; they just aren't. And that hurts the beneficiaries, too; it makes their copayments higher.

Ever heard of OBSERVATION, fucktard? The US system is the most expensive in the world. That's fact, not speculation or political doctrine.

So? Your boo-hoo story doesn't cut it. As Albert Einstein once said, everything that you think of as your self-identity is a product of the hard work and sacrifice of generations before you. Without their groundwork, you would be born, live, and die like an animal. Even if you disregard past generations, you are lucky as hell to be born in an affluent society. Human society is an organic thing, you are a part of it, and when you say that you deserve to keep the fruit of your labour for yourself, you are acting as though you actually earned it all on your own.

Doesn't cut what? I never intended it to be an argument in favor of my position; IP attacked my knowledge of the subject based on the assumption that I'm halfway through college and living with my parents, which I'm just not. I never would have brought it up if my personal situation hadn't been dragged into the thread in the first place.

I don't give a shit about your personal situation, fucktard. I'm talking about your "I have the right to keep the fruits of my labour for myself" bullshit.

As for the rest, yes, I acknowledge that. It seems the point of disagreement is how much one owes. I hasten to add that if I end up owing much more than I'm paying now, I'll quickly be in debt, because I'm flat broke as it is.

As Einstein pointed out, you owe virtually everything. Whatever you do get from society is a boon, which most people in our society take for granted.

Ah yes, "constitutional limitations": the favoured catch-phrase of the libertarian. What better way to limit a government than to constrict its scope of influence to that which was explicitly laid out in a >200 year old document written by slave-owning primitives wearing powdered wigs?

You do realize that's nothing but a slightly long-winded ad hominem, right? The Constitution is wrong because of the men who wrote it?

The Constitution never makes a logical argument for its own validity in the first place, you fucking idiot. It's based entirely on the authority of its writers. So when I attack its authors, it's not an ad-hominem fallacy because you can't "attack the man not the argument" when there is no argument. Clearly, you are an even bigger moron than I thought. Oops, I forgot: you're a libertarian. Goes with the territory.

Regardless, it's the law of the land. If it needs to be changed, then there is a mechanism for doing so. Allowing government to simply break the law rather than being bothered to change it simply because of a perceived need is a dangerous precedent to set, as I've said. And having been set for a couple generations now, we now have an administration in the White House fully following that precedent of government ignoring the law. We can plainly see the results.

IP handled this already, but even if he didn't, you're comparing apples and oranges. The government regulates all kinds of things the Founding Fathers never dreamed of and couldn't have imagined. That's not the same thing as ignoring human-rights amendments.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a clown; the Framers of the Constitution themselves sitting in Congress still passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Until case law made it so in the 20th century, your Bill of Rights protections did not protect you from everyday law enforcement, which is when the common citizen would most likely need it! This pretty much eliminates the credibility of any "wandering from originalism is why the war on terror is curbing our civil liberties". Those liberties didn't meaningfully exist for the common citizen until the 20th century, and were routinely violated or denied during the 18th and 19th centuries - in the aforementioned case, by the hallowed Framers themselves.

I mean Miranda rights were a creation of a 1966 SCOTUS case; they're only 41 years old!

[K. A. Pital]

I mean Miranda rights were a creation of a 1966 SCOTUS case; they're only 41 years old!

The American right-wing still dislikes the XX century civil rights movement. Since, you know, it's un-American. Better to drool over XVIII century folk, of course. "Originalism" is an attempt to conceal the real emergence of civil rights - which are connected to XX century society and it's legal system, not the XVIII century society.

Sometimes I think this "originalism" should be brought to a direct end line - Athenian democracy or Spartamerica, whatever rocks their boat. After all, a bunch of "citizens" sitting in the parliament all day while 30,000 slaves till the fields and devising "civil rights" for themselves is a fine example of what libertarianism really is.

[Illuminatus Primus]

America only became a half-way decent place to live very recently, and in some places and circumstances, it still isn't. But this sensible point inevitably implies progressive and reformist politics, where pretending everything was perfect and angelic on Day 1 of the American Story makes progressivism betraying some sort of divine tradition. Nevermind it took two tries and a lot of bullshit before they could get the United States to even function adequately as a fully-fledged state: the Confederation couldn't even make binding foriegn policy agreements because it depended on the states to comply without ANY instrument of coercion. Shit, the WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION has more meaningful clout over its members than the Confederation did over its component states. The first try was SHIT AWFUL, and even the second was deeply fucked up over slavery that we had to fight a bloody civil war to settle the issue. A perfect set of founders making a perfect country wouldn't take two tries and still cause a civil war about 50-60 years on.

[Darth Wong]

Why are Americans so fond of worshipping things? If it's not the Bible, it's your Constitution, or your Founding Fathers, or some kind of absolutist political doctrine like "the free market is always superior". It's as if you careen from one philosophical obsession to another.

[Starglider]

Why are Americans so fond of worshipping things? If it's not the Bible, it's your Constitution, or your Founding Fathers, or some kind of absolutist political doctrine like "the free market is always superior". It's as if you careen from one philosophical obsession to another.

Mental laziness? Scared to take responsibility for coming up with their own justifications for their behaviour?

[Terralthra]

The Constitution never makes a logical argument for its own validity in the first place, you fucking idiot. It's based entirely on the authority of its writers. So when I attack its authors, it's not an ad-hominem fallacy because you can't "attack the man not the argument" when there is no argument.

In a very real sense, it draws its validity from the fact that it was ratified. It had to be ratified by constitutional conventions in 9/13 Colonies, by its own strictures. It seems to me that the only argument the US Constitution makes for its validity is an argument from popularity: "If enough people agree to me, I'm valid," which isn't really fallacious for a social contract. If it was a logical argument, sure. Not that the ad hominem fallacy actually applies to a social contract either.

What a clown; the Framers of the Constitution themselves sitting in Congress still passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Until case law made it so in the 20th century, your Bill of Rights protections did not protect you from everyday law enforcement, which is when the common citizen would most likely need it! This pretty much eliminates the credibility of any "wandering from originalism is why the war on terror is curbing our civil liberties". Those liberties didn't meaningfully exist for the common citizen until the 20th century, and were routinely violated or denied during the 18th and 19th centuries - in the aforementioned case, by the hallowed Framers themselves.

I mean Miranda rights were a creation of a 1966 SCOTUS case; they're only 41 years old!

The only Alien and Sedition act to last more than 4 years was the Alien Enemies Act. It authorizes Presidents to deport resident aliens whose home country is at war with the United States. The other ones were repealed or allowed to expire in 1802, and everyone convicted under them given a pardon by Thomas Jefferson.

The Miranda Rights have been around much longer than 41 years. Miranda v. Arizona mandated that the police explicitly remind an arrestee of their rights when they were taken into custody (if the police intend to question them. If the police aren't going to question them while they are under arrest, no Miranda warning need be given). The rights involved in the Miranda warning are upheld in various rulings going back much further. cf. Weeks v. United States, Ex parte Milligan, Brown v. Mississippi, and numerous others. 5th Amendment case law goes back to the 1800s, at least. They don't go back to the founding, but neither do a lot of things.

I don't think any rational person really thinks we should go back to the Framer's original ideas, but that doesn't invalidate the Constitution as a social contract to be interpreted in light of the issues and attitudes of the day. Now if Rogue 9 actually thinks originalism is a valid approach, I invite him to go fuck a dog.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, starting from the top.

Brian, about the nations Stas mentioned, I don't have evidence on hand concerning government waste in those countries, so I won't make any assertions on it. It's worth noting, though, that Japan's government has a lot more resources free to do what it does because it doesn't maintain a standing military.

I don't say that large government is automatically tyranny, but it much more easily allows for it. Germany's government actively engages in the suppression of (admittedly unsavory) speech and symbols seen as akin to the NSDAP, and Japan's actively suppresses knowledge of the details of that country's involvement in the Second World War. This is, in my estimation, gross abuse of government power.

Yes, "the collective" exists, but it's simply a collection of individuals. You can hurt portions of it to help others (simply smaller sub-collectives of individuals), but how do you define which sub-groups should be hurt, which should be helped, and why?

As for what "as small as possible" means, it means exactly that. The government should be as powerful as necessary to accomplish its function, and no more powerful than that. If it doesn't need additional powers, why grant them?

Okay, IP. Yes, Medicare is per capita the most expensive healthcare system in the world. I completely fail to see where there's any disagreement on that fact; actually, it's my point. It's the most expensive there is, and for what it does that simply shouldn't be the case. Something's wrong with that.

As for constitutional law, no, I'm not SCOTUS. (Well played, by the way.) I'm still convinced that the Commerce Clause is stretched to the breaking point with the laws that are tenously justified by it, but that's got little to do with the topic at hand. (I'll also note that the Air Force is, by a literal reading, unconstitutional. ) I'll concede the point for now.

Mike, if I owe society everything, then precisely to whom am I to write the check? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals; which ones do I owe? And if I owe all of them, I run into the problem of owing each less than a penny. As a practical matter, this is an impossibility, so what the fuck am I supposed to do about it?

And for the last bit, yes, government regulates things the Founders could not have dreamed of. The Founders knew there would be things they could not presently conceive; that's why they provided the amendment mechanism. What I'm advocating is that it be used, not that government suddenly step back into the role it held on September 17, 1787. That would be disastrous.

[Sikon]

I have read various different publications and websites with different political leanings, having aimed to understand those ranging from libertarians to communists. Reading everyone's views is not at all a matter of agreeing with them. Rather, frequently, one can understand a view while simultaneously concluding that it is unintelligently simplistic and wrong for various particular reasons. But understanding can be useful. In contrast, frequently members of one ideological tribe just focus on the most extreme, most ludicrous members of their opposite ideological group.

On this thread's topic of understanding libertarians, I'll show some quotes from the libertarian party website's statements of their platform. That's not because of personally agreeing with what's quoted (not beyond limited segments of the total) but because it gives the reader some overall understanding ... not agreement with their views but knowledge of their views:

I.1 Freedom and Responsibility [...]

Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life. Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services. Enforce laws against fraud and misrepresentation. [...]

I.2 Freedom of Communication

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:
a) Obscenity [...]
b) Reception and storage equipment [...]
c) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media [...]
e) Commercial speech or advertising. We oppose speech codes at all schools that are primarily tax funded. [...]

I.3 Freedom of Religion [...]

Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others. [...]

I.4 Property Rights [...]

The right to property and its physical resources, which is the fundamental cornerstone of a free and prosperous society, has been severely compromised by government at all levels. Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership. [...]

I.5 The Right to Privacy

The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. Correspondence, bank and other financial transactions and records, doctors' and lawyers' communications, employment records, and the like should not be open to review by government without the consent of all parties involved in those actions. [...]

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms [...]

The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms. [...]

I.7 Conscription [...]

Any form of coerced national service program is a type of involuntary servitude. Examples include conscription into the military and compulsory youth labor programs. [...]

I.8 Reproductive Rights [...]

We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. [...]

I.9 Sexuality and Gender [...]

Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. [...]

II.1 Government Debt [...]

Eliminate the national debt using an incremental approach, being careful to avoid social disruption. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the US Constitution that restricts Congress from spending any more than it collected in revenue the previous year. Eliminate earmarks, pork-barrel spending, and other forms of political corruption. Congress should sell assets and reduce spending on non-essential functions to pay off the national debt as quickly as possible. [...]

II.2 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies & Subsidies [...]

Subsidies, government-granted monopolies, and other forms of corporate welfare today exist as privileges granted by government to those with political access. These destroy the level playing field that free markets depend on, create a corrupt relationship between government authority and special interests, and are unconstitutional. Furthermore, the loans by government-sponsored entities, even when not guaranteed by the government, constitute another form of subsidy. [...]

II.3 Public Services [...]

Federal, state and local governments have created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy. From the US Postal Service to municipal garbage collection and water works, government is forcing citizens to use monopoly services. These are services that the private sector is already capable of providing in a manner that gives the public better service at a competitive price. [...]

III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime [...]

Immediately reform the justice system's mandatory sentencing policies to ensure that violent offenders are not released from jail to make room for non-violent offenders. Repeal criminal laws which work against the protection of the rights and freedom of American citizens, residents or visitors, particularly laws which create a crime where no victim exists. [...]

III.2 The War on Drugs [...]

The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. [...]
Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others’ rights. [...]

IV.1 Immigration [...]

Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers. [...]

Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security.

From here.

Of the above, ending the war on drugs is one of the more popular parts of the libertarian platform, especially as some consider such to have historically had similar tendencies to make illegal activities profitable and support organized crime as when the U.S. briefly tried the prohibition on alcohol in the early 20th century.

(Personally I wouldn't go so far as to have no government restrictions on any drugs, but many reductions from today's extreme drug war would be logical; for example, there's little sense in sending marijuana users to prison for that alone, much like cigarette users aren't sent to prison).

Particularly when some Americans live in areas where their local police department is viewed as usually just showing up many minutes after crimes are already completed, not trusting the police for protection, many worry about self-defense and the sentiment expressed in the saying that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

In general, libertarians appeal to some democrats with their views on the drug prohibition, government censorship of profanity in the media, avoiding marriage laws being based on gender or sexual orientation, and some other topics.

Meanwhile, libertarians appeal to some republicans with their views on being fiscal conservative (the nominal view of typical republican voters despite the actions of elected republicans being a vastly different topic), supporting the ability to have guns for self-defense, and some other topics.

Like other third parties, they appeal to some of those who don't feel either a democrat or a republican.

However, the views of libertarians tend to go beyond workable measures for personal and economic freedom, going too far.

For example, while libertarians tend to recognize need for the government to provide national defense and law enforcement, various other beneficial aspects of the government would be eliminated by a strict implementation of libertarian views, ranging from assisting those in medical need to supporting nuclear power, pure scientific research, or the space program.

Personally, although symphasizing with some aspects of the libertarian party platform, I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians tend towards an absolute rights-based view of reality that can be too simplistic, when viewed from a more pragmatic and utilitarian perspective. For example, while some public services in the U.S. today aren't implemented well, various public services are needed. As another example, a strict libertarian would even abolish the minimum wage, but there's not actual net benefit in that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It comes from a combination of two things.

One, it comes of long-standing masturbatory self-love all the way from those Founders (Madison declared that the outcome of the Philadelphia Convention would reflect on the republican concept of government forever) and even before (the colonials' long-winded sanctimoniousness about their rights and traditions as Englishmen) on to the present day about America's unique character and freedom and superiority. We were founded by Puritans who were trying too hard to purify English Christianity of its non-Englishness even for the English to stomach and by soldiers-of-fortune who wants to make a quick buck (this cultural motif certainly hasn't gone away) and loved to boast about their sexual prowess and manliness (enter John Smith and his bullshit about nubile Indian maidens pressing him for sexual favors). So a kind of fundamental American culture of bragging about how awesome we are and being so holy or so free or so smart that we're unique set in from the beginning.

The second is recent American political opportunism caused by moneyed corporate interests eagerly seeking to avoid scrutiny of their global and domestic bad deeds and American foreign military adventurism (wartime being a long standing root of stupid nationalism and silencing internal criticism).

From these too things you get the "we're so much better than everyone else" and "no one outside can criticize us"; the echo chamber just amplifies the shrill chauvinism until it becomes deafening. Everyone is raised in the echo chamber here, so it almost always becomes unquestioned wisdom and worshiped as such.

[brianeyci]

Okay, starting from the top.

Brian, about the nations Stas mentioned, I don't have evidence on hand concerning government waste in those countries, so I won't make any assertions on it. It's worth noting, though, that Japan's government has a lot more resources free to do what it does because it doesn't maintain a standing military.

So you concede that assuming that large governments are more tyrannical or more inefficient is wrong?

I don't say that large government is automatically tyranny, but it much more easily allows for it. Germany's government actively engages in the suppression of (admittedly unsavory) speech and symbols seen as akin to the NSDAP, and Japan's actively suppresses knowledge of the details of that country's involvement in the Second World War. This is, in my estimation, gross abuse of government power.

Japan's refusal to admit to wrongdoing has nothing to do with the size of government and everything to do with their culture being all about face and appearances. Even if Japan's government was smaller they would still do the same thing.

Germany crushing "unsavory" pro-Nazi groups has nothing to do with the size of government and everything to do with their history with Nazism. Even if their government was smaller they would still crush anything and everything with Hitler.

In other words you think that government interference is a gross abuse because you think interference is wrong and willfully ignore my point that different cultures and citizenry require different kinds of governance. Are you deliberately being stupid?

I wonder why you use the word "interference" and not another like intervention. You deliberately lace government involvement with an unsavory act.

Yes, "the collective" exists, but it's simply a collection of individuals. You can hurt portions of it to help others (simply smaller sub-collectives of individuals), but how do you define which sub-groups should be hurt, which should be helped, and why?

It's called human rights and humanism. Human beings have certain inalienable rights by virtue of being human beings. Which by the way, shows that libertarianism is not an ethical system, at least not a proper one. If you have to borrow from other ethical systems for key concepts like education and healthcare, then your ethical system is likely bullshit. Most ethical systems borrow from others, but libertarianism uses other ethical systems as a crutch to keep its crippled self from toppling over. Why consider it an ethical system at all, or even a proper form of government?

As for what "as small as possible" means, it means exactly that. The government should be as powerful as necessary to accomplish its function, and no more powerful than that. If it doesn't need additional powers, why grant them?

In other words it means fucking nothing. Libertarianism promotes the individual over the collective, individual choice. Individuals choose what benefit themselves the most. Therefore, "as small as possible" is actually libertarian euphemism. for I don't want to pay for sick grandmothers or pay for sick kids. What fucking part of that don't you understand? It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand the logical implications of praising individualism over the collective good, not merely praising it but putting it on a pedastel and prostrating to it.

[Rogue 9]

Brian, the one time I've used the word "interference" in this thread was in the context of comparing Libertarians to Christian Dominionists; it's very hard to deny that what a Dominionist wants (namely for the government to enforce his religion) is aptly described with the word interference. Aside from that, the only one to use it in this thread is you. I have not framed all government involvement as interference, and I'm not about to start doing so.

Human beings have certain inalienable rights by virtue of being human beings.

That is, in a nutshell, the libertarian position. I don't know how you see otherwise; the entire structure is built around the idea of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. What did you think it was?

As for the German and Japanese governments, no, if they were smaller they wouldn't do the same things, because they wouldn't have the authority to do them.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't say that large government is automatically tyranny, but it much more easily allows for it. Germany's government actively engages in the suppression of (admittedly unsavory) speech and symbols seen as akin to the NSDAP, and Japan's actively suppresses knowledge of the details of that country's involvement in the Second World War. This is, in my estimation, gross abuse of government power.

Supression of NSDAP symbols is a gross abuse of government power? Should we also give equal time to holocaust deniers and creationists? And stop this "large government more easily allowing for tyranny" bullshit. Pinochet and the Chicago boys have proven easily that extreme anti-government ideologues can run a no less dictatorial government than any proponents of big government. Pinochet's military coup was the installation of a free-market, government-reducing tyranny run by a small government.

Yes, "the collective" exists, but it's simply a collection of individuals.

The collective is not only a collection of individuals. It also includes mechanisms of social interaction, which are education, government, et cetera. Those mechanisms have a value for each of society's members and thus for the entire society. They cannot exist independent of a collective, and neither can a collective maintain itself independent of them.

As for what "as small as possible" means, it means exactly that. The government should be as powerful as necessary to accomplish its function, and no more powerful than that. If it doesn't need additional powers, why grant them?

No. That's not "as small as possible". That's "the government should be fulfillig it's functions". All. Nothing libertarian even close here. What are the functions of the government? If society bestows, through elections, new functions on the government, should we think those are already "too much"? There is no "full list of government functions and how much funds a government needs to fulfill each in per 100,000 population" - that's bullshit, it's all situation- and need-dependent. Also, people-dependent. So, shove that bullshit where it belongs.

Mike, if I owe society everything, then precisely to whom am I to write the check? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals; which ones do I owe?

The government that has been produced by the society, through social contract, as a mechanism which acts on behalf of the society regarding matters of financial support of society's regulation. That's called "tax" and that's why it's, well, reasonable. The government supports memory about past generations (historical record) - in libertopia there's little reason to keep any such thing beyond what is commercially viable - and cares about future generations with future planning, including social, economic, scientific and technological planning, all of which requires, surprise, your contribution.

Most reasonable people understand that, but some prefer the "kill tax collectors, I have mine HUR HUR HUR" approach and "taxes are theft!" bullshit.

[Ma Deuce]

It's worth noting, though, that Japan's government has a lot more resources free to do what it does because it doesn't maintain a standing military.

It's more worth noting that Japan's public debt is also proportionally three times higher than the US or other Western countries (about 180% of it's GDP), and it's government spending deficit is actually higher in absolute terms (16% of their GDP, or about $650 billion a year), this despite having some of the highest income tax rates in the world. Of course they are in a better position to finance their debt given their $90 billion trade surplus.

[K. A. Pital]

Maintaining a 500-billion per year military for a state which can't be assaulted by any other state in the world... yes, how did I not notice. That must be one of the needed functions of a libertarian government - support extreme American militarism, foreign invasions and occupations.

Gee, I really wonder, perhaps the US can get some additional funds to install a real NHS if it cuts down the military? But wait! That's the sacred cow. I mean, we outspent the Soviet Union - a country clearly more poor initially - by forcing it to spend on defense like mad - and need to maintain that gigantic and extremely powerful military for the sake of... what?

Do you know that the militaristic lobby itself can become so powerful through this massive defense spending, that way that it can greatly assist leaders like Bush in organizing wars? Or that is not the kind of spending libertarians oppose?

[Darth Wong]

Mike, if I owe society everything, then precisely to whom am I to write the check? Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals; which ones do I owe? And if I owe all of them, I run into the problem of owing each less than a penny. As a practical matter, this is an impossibility, so what the fuck am I supposed to do about it?

Pay your taxes and stop whining about how it's "unjust". You can complain about how efficiently or effectively the government uses its money, but arguing that you have some kind of innate ownership on "the fruits of your labours" is nothing more than egocentric tripe. The root problem here is that you think compensation for work is some kind of cosmic justice. It isn't; it is merely an incentive to work, the same way that meat is an incentive for the killer whales to perform at Sea World. If the infrastructure required for this entire system requires money from participants in order to operate, so be it. They can't claim some kind of innate cosmic right.

And for the last bit, yes, government regulates things the Founders could not have dreamed of. The Founders knew there would be things they could not presently conceive; that's why they provided the amendment mechanism. What I'm advocating is that it be used, not that government suddenly step back into the role it held on September 17, 1787. That would be disastrous.

Why is a Constitutional amendment even necessary in order to expand the scope of government? Was a Constitutional amendment necessary in order to create the motor vehicle licensing agencies, or the EPA?

[Ma Deuce]

Maintaining a 500-billion per year military for a state which can't be assaulted by any other state in the world... yes, how did I not notice. That must be one of the needed functions of a libertarian government - support extreme American militarism, foreign invasions and occupations.

I don't know if all, or even the majority of Libertarians share this view, but the US Libertarian party platform proposes slashing the defence budget by at least half, bringing all US troops home, and eliminating the US nuclear arsenal entirely: They support missile defence however, arguing though it should be developed privately on a "rewards" system granted by the government. Generally though I find that Libertarians take a dim view of foreign adventurism (did you know, for example that the website Antiwar.com is actually run and largely contributed to by libertarians?).