Is Libertarianism a Solution for America’s Problems?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Neither of which makes rights inherent

Human ability to reach peaceful agreements is inherent. Rights are nothing more than a reflection of peaceful agreements.

You just don't have the background to discuss this topic. Rights are a foreign concept to someone like you.

Let's just agree to disagree. You don't agree that people should have property rights. You believe that by group consensus, property owned by one person can be taken and redistributed by force (theft). That is never going to be acceptable to me.

 

[Curried Goats]

Human ability to reach peaceful agreements is inherent. Rights are nothing more than a reflection of peaceful agreements.

Rights are not always peaceful. At the start of this country white men had a right to own Africans as property and they enforced that right violently.

You just don't have the background to discuss this topic. Rights are a foreign concept to someone like you.

I wouldn't pat myself on the back right after you make the claim that rights are the reflections of peaceful agreements as if they can't be pacts of depravity and violence.

Let's just agree to disagree. You don't agree that people should have property rights. You believe that by group consensus, property owned by one person can be taken and redistributed by force (theft). That is never going to be acceptable to me.

You're too stupid to see that your entire philosophy rests on it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Rights are not always peaceful. At the start of this country white men had a right to own Africans as property and they enforced that right violently.

I wouldn't pat myself on the back right after you make the claim that rights are the reflections of peaceful agreements as if they can't be pacts of depravity and violence.

You're too stupid to see that your entire philosophy rests on it.

Are you saying that I support slavery? That my philosophy requires it?

Kiss my ass.

 

[dblack]

Why can't both be the solution?

Because the fact that partisan sickos want to kill people isn't a solution. It's one of our biggest problems.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the fact that partisan sickos want to kill people isn't a solution. It's one of our biggest problems.

Nobody wants to kill people. We just want to kill the creatures running the useless, yet completely tyrannical FedGov.

 

[Blues Man]

We have the duopoly because of things like government schools, government social programs and government regulation.

it is impossible to run a country of 350 million people without some regulation. And the duopoly preceded government schools, social programs and regulations

And the open border policy of the Libertarian party would basically be the end of the US as a Sovereign country

 

[fncceo]

It's the open borders I don't like.

Open borders isn't a principle of Libertarianism. The right to migrate is a corollary of the right to pursue your individual happiness. However, you can only exercise that right when it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. In a Libertarian society, the state has no obligation to those who come here other than to respect their rights. They are entitled to no benefits, the will receive no assistance from the state.

 

[fncceo]

Rights are nothing more than a reflection of peaceful agreements.

I think people who don't understand "natural rights" are those unfamiliar with the origin of the term. It is a well-established legal principle that some things are mala in se (wrong or evil in themselves) and other things are mala prohibitum (wrong because the state says so).

To say that someone has a "natural right" it means that to perform an act that would deprive them of that right would be mallum in se (a naturally evil act). To deprive someone of their life, their freedom, or their liberty without due process is considered, by nearly every society on Earth, to be mallum in se (evil in it's nature).

 

[Catsnmeters]

Open borders isn't a principle of Libertarianism. The right to migrate is a corollary of the right to pursue your individual happiness. However, you can only exercise that right when it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. In a Libertarian society, the state has no obligation to those who come here other than to respect their rights. They are entitled to no benefits, the will receive no assistance from the state.

Sounds like a fancy way to justify open borders.

If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, yah know.

 

[EMH]

Most people see Libertarianism as a fringe ideology. Liberals see it as laissez-fair Capitalism gone amok. Conservatives see it as hedonistic and just one step away from godless anarchy.

But, what are the principles of Libertarianism that people seem to object to:

Individualism: Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. In principle, there are no groups that are responsible for actions or who have needs or rights beyond those of the individual. Libertarianism eschews identity politics.

Individual rights: Each individual has a right to be secure in their life, their liberty, and their property. These rights are granted by nature, not by government and the burden of explanation lies with anyone who proposed to interfere with those right.

Spontaneous Order: A certain amount of order in society if necessary for individuals to survive and prosper. Without order, anarchy leads to a state where the powerful will oppress the weak. However, order doesn’t have to be imposed from a central authority. Language, law, money, and markets all developed spontaneously, without the need for a central authority. Individual humans do not need to be led to achieve social cohesion. Social cohesion will assert when individuals are free to choose.

Rule of Law: As I stated before, Libertarians aren’t anarchists. In a Libertarian society, a person is free to pursue their own lives SO LONG as they respect the equal rights of others. Laws need to respect that principle, not be either arbitrary in nature, or used to create social conditioning.

Limited Government: To quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Limiting both the size and scope of government into any area that doesn’t protect the rights of ALL citizens to liberty and for individuals to be secure in their life, their liberty, or their property should be un-Constitutional.

Free Markets: The most effective way to eliminate corruption in the marketplace is to remove the power that a government has to regulate that market. “When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators”. Preventing an individual from pursuing a business is just as evil as using a taxpayer’s money to shore up a failing business. Wealth can be spontaneously created by giving free reign to innovation and production. Only government can limit the creation of that wealth or use their power to divert that wealth towards others that didn’t participate in its production, but only were able to ingratiate themselves with the government.

Production is a Virtue: People who produce need to be secure to keep the fruits of their labor. No on has a right to the production of others. Thomas Paine wrote, “There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes.” And Jefferson wrote, “We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

Harmony of Interests: In a free society, the interests of most people don’t conflict. People will strive to achieve what they cannot obtain by other means. When we all seek to prosper by our own means, we mutually prosper. Adam Smith writes, “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 own necessities but of their advantages.”

Peace: War does nothing to enhance the rights of the individual. War requires the sacrifice of the individual to enhance the interests of The State. Foreign interventionism, Imperialism by Force, or the idea of imposing a peace beyond our borders doesn’t belong in a Libertarian society.


So, which of those principles do people find so offensive? Which ones wouldn’t be beneficial to our society as a whole, and to the individuals who make up our society?

In other words, 180 degrees from the ideology of rupert murdoch.

 

[fncceo]

Sounds like a fancy way to justify open borders.

If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, yah know.

The problems with open immigration that most people bring up ... at least publicly .. are:

1. The drain on public resources
2. Increased lawlessness
3. Competition for jobs

Libertarianism removes the first problem by removing any and all public assistance to immigrants (or the rest of the population).

It addresses the second issue by creating an environment where people on public assistance or making profit from the sales of illicit drugs (by far the two largest segments of law-breakers come from these populations) are forced to be gainfully employed or risk poverty or eventual starvation. Like immigrants of the 19th Century, it's either prosper or die.

Competition for jobs is, in itself, a good thing. It encourages people to pursue valuable skills and qualifications. It also encourages skilled migration. If America is flooded with an influx of immigrant Python coders, Particle Physicists, or Heart Surgeons, that is a good thing for our society. The native population of any Libertarian society will always have a leg up by possessing documented qualifications. Immigrants who possess no qualification will, as they do now, pursue less desirable jobs and, as they have in past generations, raise their children to be educated, productive members of society.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The problems with open immigration that most people bring up ... at least publicly .. are:

1. The drain on public resources
2. Increased lawlessness
3. Competition for jobs

Libertarianism removes the first problem by removing any and all public assistance to immigrants (or the rest of the population).

It addresses the second issue by creating an environment where people on public assistance or making profit from the sales of illicit drugs (by far the two largest segments of law-breakers come from these populations) are forced to be gainfully employed or risk poverty or eventual starvation. Like immigrants of the 19th Century, it's either prosper or die.

Competition for jobs is, in itself, a good thing. It encourages people to pursue valuable skills and qualifications. It also encourages skilled migration. If America is flooded with an influx of immigrant Python coders, Particle Physicists, or Heart Surgeons, that is a good thing for our society. The native population of any Libertarian society will always have a leg up by possessing documented qualifications. Immigrants who possess no qualification will, as they do now, pursue less desirable jobs and, as they have in past generations, raise their children to be educated, productive members of society.

Open borders are not the answer and expecting libertarian policies to negate all the negative aspects seems a bit naive and speculative.

Illegals displace American citizens in the job market. Increase crime. Drain recourses...one way or another and encourage exploitation.

 

[fncceo]

Open borders are not the answer and expecting libertarian policies to negate all the negative aspects seems a bit naive and speculative.

Illegals displace American citizens in the job market. Increase crime. Drain recourses...one way or another and encourage exploitation.

Our country has always benefited from immigration in our history (unless your name is Running Bear, you're an immigrant or a descendant of one).

Until only the last couple of decades, most of the world were experiencing what was referred to as "Brain Drain". Their best and brightest were leaving Europe and Asia and headed for America.

Illegal immigration, especially that which is subsidized by The State, is a different matter. It doesn't incentivize skilled immigration. No skilled person is going to move to another country when their legal status is not tenable and they can only get employment off the books in low-skilled jobs. No economy benefits from that sort of immigration.

A Libertarian immigration policy would encourage only skilled immigrants, the kind that enhance a country, and disincentivize the low-skilled migrant workers we have today. Without a state-sponsored support system that allows illegal immigrants access to schools, medical facilities, or any sort of social benefits, the appeal of immigration would diminish.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Our country has always benefited from immigration in our history (unless your name is Running Bear, you're an immigrant or a descendant of one).

I support legal immigration.

Until only the last couple of decades, most of the world were experiencing what was referred to as "Brain Drain". Their best and brightest were leaving Europe and Asia and headed for America.

The cost and availability of school in America probably contributed to that. But hey it's cool to subsidize college football.

Illegal immigration, especially that which is subsidized by The State, is a different matter. It doesn't incentivize skilled immigration. No skilled person is going to move to another country when their legal status is not tenable and they can only get employment off the books in low-skilled jobs. No economy benefits from that sort of immigration.

I agree with most of that. However, states can subsidize whoever they see fit when it comes to legal or illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, and correct me if I am wrong, I think the only constitutional provision is that states can not make illegals legal American citizens. Outside of that, the 10th amendment gives states the right to subsidize whoever they want.

Merit based immigration is bad optics and the filtering process would be expensive and probably become a bureaucratic money grab for citizenship.

A Libertarian immigration policy would encourage only skilled immigrants, the kind that enhance a country, and disincentivize the low-skilled migrant workers we have today.

How would you accomplish this? Do you think libertarians will keep farmers, food processing plants, and the construction industry, among others, from hiring illegals?

I think we should not hire any illegals and let capitalism settle it all out.

Without a state-sponsored support system that allows illegal immigrants access to schools, medical facilities, or any sort of social benefits, the appeal of immigration would diminish.

Again, states can do what they want. Of course you could dictate with-holding federal funds (if a libertarian controlled government had any) as a punishment, but I think retaliatory actions like that are unamerican.

 

[fncceo]

However, states can subsidize whoever they see fit when it comes to legal or illegal immigration.

A Libertarian state could not.

Merit based immigration is bad optics and the filtering process would be expensive and probably become a bureaucratic money grab for citizenship.

I don't propose merit-based immigration. I propose a system where The Market will encourage skill-based immigration and disincentivize non-skilled immigration. In a system where the government cannot (under law) provide social benefits, there will be a greater number of un-skilled citizens and legal immigrants interested in the jobs currently being filled by undocumented workers. Many of those jobs today cannot be filled by citizens because there is no incentive for a citizen, who gets social benefits equivalent or better than what an un-skilled job will pay without getting out of bed.

Of course you could dictate with-holding federal funds (if a libertarian controlled government had any) as a punishment, but I think retaliatory actions like that are unamerican.

In a Libertarian state, there would be no punitive or retaliatory motivations for withholding social funding. The state would be Constitutionally disallowed from provideing taxpayer funds for such benefits.

Private institutions would be free to distribute what funds they felt a desire to distribute. But, that would be a matter for the people who voluntarily contribute to those institutions.

 

[sparky]

Depending on the metric , America could be seen as being libertopia on it's inception, evolving out of it due to excessive governance ~S~

 

[fncceo]

Depending on the metric , America could be seen as being libertopia on it's inception, evolving out of it due to excessive governance ~S~

I believe that was the intent of many of our founders. Where they failed was to allow the institution of slavery to continue. Slavery (in any form) is the exact opposite of Libertarian ideals. Ironically, the only way open to removing slavery, when all political methods had been exhausted, was the Civil War that greatly expanded forever the power of the Federal Government.

I cannot wonder what would have happened had the Free States formed the basis of The United States and Slave States could only apply for membership to that Union when they had abolished slavery and instituted civil rights.

Of course, there were other compromises to Libertarian ideal when the US Constitution was written. Removing suffrage based on gender or race was one of them. But, not nearly as devastating as slavery.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you saying that I support slavery? That my philosophy requires it?

Kiss my ass.

No you dipshit, that's why I separated your post when I responded to it. Rights aren't just peaceful agreements as evidence by early Americans right to own people as property.

What your philosophy requires is group consensus and force.

 

[Curried Goats]

I think people who don't understand "natural rights" are those unfamiliar with the origin of the term. It is a well-established legal principle that some things are mala in se (wrong or evil in themselves) and other things are mala prohibitum (wrong because the state says so).

Bootney Lee Farnsworth certainly doesnt. I tried to explain to him earlier the libertarian philosophy is tied up with metaphyical notions of moral rights and wrongs.

To say that someone has a "natural right" it means that to perform an act that would deprive them of that right would be mallum in se (a naturally evil act). To deprive someone of their life, their freedom, or their liberty without due process is considered, by nearly every society on Earth, to be mallum in se (evil in it's nature).

Exactly. You dipshit libertarians have a philosophy based on a belief that denying you the right to own property is morally wrong. Of course you can't explain that rationally so you say stupid shit like what I claim is wrong in and of itself (because I say so). What a wonderfully stupid philosophy.

 

[bripat9643]

No you dipshit, that's why I separated your post when I responded to it. Rights aren't just peaceful agreements as evidence by early Americans right to own people as property.

What your philosophy requires is group consensus and force.

Of course you have failed to provide any coherent definition of rights and simply ignored my definition of the term.