[nucklepunche]

One thing libertarians (myself included when I was one) ignore is positive liberty, they focus so much on their anti-government ideology but they forget the importance of having a wide variety of choices available to us.

In my humble opinion since health care is what stands between us and death it ought to be considered a right. Sure we are taking some money from some people to pay for this for instance, but in the end people can't make choices if they are dead.

People should not be expected to get trapped into a cycle of wage slavery, while I do not think people have the right to choose not to work, I do think we have to limit the power employers have over employees since people must work to survive.

For instance corporations should be banned from controlling their employees' behavior outside of work or their personal lives as conditions of a job. Finally people should be able to expect decent wages as a condition of survival and exercising their choices in the marketplace.

I guess in a nutshell there are two ways to view liberty, one is a minimum of government and the other is a maximum of choice for the greatest number possible. I suppose this is what separates right-libertarians and left-libertarians like myself. I am skeptical of government and corporations, but realize we need an uneasy balance between both.

The best form of government is participatory democracy at the most local possible level like Switzerland, as opposed to top down representative democracy like the USA.

[Rainbow Crow]

Ideally I think we would acknowledge a divide between health problems that people bring upon themselves and health problems they don't bring upon themselves, not paying for conditions related to the former.

[emmitt]

I'm not convinced that the differences between leftist and rightist libertarians are that significant. A single modification of right-libertarianism would suffice to make most of your proposals completely unnecessary (and I suppose they might even make you more libertarian or at least more anti-statist):

Couldn't you just enforce stricter abandonment rules? They would lead to the creation of more worker co-ops and to the destruction of the land monopoly. Weakened property rights might more helpful than free health care since you wouldn't have to rely on the state.

[Nunt]

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/t ... z2VkoYqtEz

[Rothbardian]

Libertarians are not anti government.

[Someone5]

One thing libertarians (myself included when I was one) ignore is positive liberty, they focus so much on their anti-government ideology but they forget the importance of having a wide variety of choices available to us.

In my humble opinion since health care is what stands between us and death it ought to be considered a right. Sure we are taking some money from some people to pay for this for instance, but in the end people can't make choices if they are dead.

People should not be expected to get trapped into a cycle of wage slavery, while I do not think people have the right to choose not to work, I do think we have to limit the power employers have over employees since people must work to survive.

If you're forced to work for one master or another, you won't actually be free.

[Poelmo]

One thing libertarians (myself included when I was one) ignore is positive liberty, they focus so much on their anti-government ideology but they forget the importance of having a wide variety of choices available to us.

In my humble opinion since health care is what stands between us and death it ought to be considered a right. Sure we are taking some money from some people to pay for this for instance, but in the end people can't make choices if they are dead.

It's a matter of degree really. Liberals (both the European and American varieties) are willing to give up some positive freedoms for basic freedoms, libertarians are willing to give up a lot more positive freedoms. Perhaps a big difference is that liberals believe that some basic freedoms maybe worth less than some positive freedoms when expressed in money but more valuable when it comes to peace of mind and power structures in the long run, while libertarians seem obsessed with creating a system that has very little rules and allows champions (every libertarian believes he is one: none of them expect to be living in Libertopia's sprawling slums) to do pretty much everything they goddamn please.

Libertarians are not anti government.

Minarchists aren't, anarcho-capitalists are.

[Phred]

Minarchists aren't, anarcho-capitalists are.

As defined by this forum description, Anarcho-Capitalists are not Libertarians. They are, in fact, Anarchists. However, when it comes to policy, there is less difference between the two political philosophies than between Libertarianism and any other I can think of.


Phred

[Kman]

Minarchists aren't, anarcho-capitalists are.

Yes they are always highly critical of government action, they just dont consider it practical to let the army and police be run by the free market. When I was a minarchist I still hated government action in society, despite my reservations back then of having the private sector run the army and police.

[Eran]

Perhaps a big difference is that liberals believe that some basic freedoms maybe worth less than some positive freedoms when expressed in money but more valuable when it comes to peace of mind and power structures in the long run, while libertarians seem obsessed with creating a system that has very little rules and allows champions (every libertarian believes he is one: none of them expect to be living in Libertopia's sprawling slums) to do pretty much everything they goddamn please.

With their own property. Do pretty much everything they goddamn please with their own property. Legitimate property, of course. Yes.

Libertarians are "obsessed" with eliminating legitimised aggression, almost invariably, in today's world, perpetrated by, or under the protection of, government.

Most libertarians would further dispute the liberal presumption that government aggression is either a legitimate or an effective way of enhancing positive freedoms. In fact, the vast majority of the liberal agenda has nothing to do with increasing positive liberties and everything to do with using government force to compel unwilling people to comply with the priorities and the agenda of the liberals.

To explain the point most easily, let us, as a mental exercise, imagine a Friedmanite (after Milton Friedman) government. This is a minarchist government (engaged in the protection of property rights from both domestic and foreign threats) which also engages in redistribution of property through a negative income tax or similar mechanism.

Beyond those two functions, however, the Friedmanite government does nothing. No regulations. No public provision of any services (other than property right protection).

I would argue that such government, very far, obviously, from the liberal ideal, is clearly and obviously more conducive to positive (not to mention negative) liberties than any larger government.



Less obvious (but also true) is that even the property right protection and property redistribution functions are, in practice, more harmful than helpful to positive property rights.

I would, however, like to take this discussion one step at a time. Let's first all agree that no function beyond those of the Friedmanite government described above is conducive to positive liberty.

[Poelmo]

With their own property. Do pretty much everything they goddamn please with their own property. Legitimate property, of course. Yes.

Yes, "legitimate" property like inherited trust funds, children, indentured servants (debt slaves) and the handicapped, orphans, etc... that rely on the rich so that the rich have complete control over them... And "legitimate" property like the world's ecosystems, landmasses, oceans, airspace and the economic rent extracted from the production of the masses.

It's telling how so many libertarians are unwilling to "reset" wealth at the start of a libertarian system. They bitch about how everything was so unfair in the old world but they have no intention of parting with the wealth they amassed in this old world because naturally they never abused the unfair systems of the old world (even when they acknowledge no one really has a valid claim to real estate), only other people did that, in fact they would all be far richer if it wasn't for the old world. That's bordering on clinical narcissism/megalomania.

[Eran]

Yes, "legitimate" property like inherited trust funds, children, indentured servants (debt slaves) and the handicapped, orphans, etc...

Trust funds - sure. Though those account for the wealth of very few people indeed, even amongst the wealthiest.

Children? Indentured servants? The handicapped? Orphans? Where have you seen libertarians view people as "legitimate property"? The number one libertarian principle, above all others, from which all others, in fact, derive, is self-ownership.

Libertarians, in fact, are the only people who reject any form of claim of one person over another.

It's telling how so many libertarians are unwilling to "reset" wealth at the start of a libertarian system.

How many? I for one would gladly swap the world we live in today with a libertarian system in which, initially, resources were equally distributed.

I wouldn't expect the equal distribution to last, of course.

They bitch about how everything was so unfair in the old world but they have no intention of parting with the wealth they amassed in this old world because naturally they never abused the unfair systems of the old world (even when they acknowledge no one really has a valid claim to real estate), only other people did that, in fact they would all be far richer if it wasn't for the old world. That's bordering on clinical narcissism/megalomania.

Except that libertarians don't tend to be wealthier than the average educated person. Conversely, wealthy people don't tend to be more libertarian than population average. In other words, contrary to the spirit of your post, libertarianism isn't correlated with wealth.

[SueDeNîmes]

The difference between positive and negative liberties is largely a matter of semantic framing - often no more than the difference between passive and active verb forms. If you start with the default assumption of humans as lone homesteaders, then any kind of resource pooling sounds like an intervention needing justification. But that assumption reverses the historic and biological reality. We're social animals with big brains, language and innate moral sentiments due the survival advantages of resource pooling. Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selishness and wingnuttery to most folks.

[AFAIK]

Ideally I think we would acknowledge a divide between health problems that people bring upon themselves and health problems they don't bring upon themselves, not paying for conditions related to the former.

In the UK cigarette smokers currently pay enough tax to fund their health care needs many times over. Finite resources- such as organs fit for transplant- should be rationed.

[Eran]

But that assumption reverses the historic and biological reality. We're social animals with big brains, language and innate moral sentiments due the survival advantages of resource pooling. Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selishness and wingnuttery to most folks.

Most folks don't understand libertarianism. That is why it sounds off to them. Libertarians rejoice, encourage and celebrate cooperation. Most libertarians would like to see more, not less, charitable and mutual, as well as self-help.

But just as most of us now acknowledge that the tribal moral sensibilities that allowed, even encouraged violence initiation against non-members is obsolete, so libertarians recognize that forced cooperation is both less efficient and less moral than mutual-interest-based voluntary cooperation.

Finite resources- such as organs fit for transplant- should be rationed.

There are no finite resources. Shortages are invariably the result of government interference. The case of organs for transplant is obvious - government prohibits sales of organs. At a price of zero, is there any wonder that supply doesn't meet demand?

[AFAIK]

I believe Iran [not Iraq] allows people to sell organs legally. I don't envision infinite supply though. I could sell both my kidneys and then rely on dialysis for the rest of my life or I could save them for myself and those I love enough to take a 1 in 3000 risk of dying.

Edit- Iran/ Iraq

[SueDeNîmes]

But that assumption reverses the historic and biological reality. We're social animals with big brains, language and innate moral sentiments due the survival advantages of resource pooling. Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selfishness and wingnuttery to most folks.

Most folks don't understand libertarianism. That is why it sounds off to them.

No, my initial reservations were the common ones and (more than) confirmed by the Libertarian literature.

Libertarians rejoice, encourage and celebrate cooperation. Most libertarians would like to see more, not less, charitable and mutual, as well as self-help.

But just as most of us now acknowledge that the tribal moral sensibilities that allowed, even encouraged violence initiation against non-members is obsolete, so libertarians recognize that forced cooperation is both less efficient and less moral than mutual-interest-based voluntary cooperation.

..where "forced," "cooperation" and "voluntary" are redefined in the same fishy framing to mean what sounds to most folks like their opposites. By this circularity Libertarians end up proposing a "voluntary" society most of us would resist to the last bullet.

[Eran]

I don't envision infinite supply though.

Selling organs from living person is just one, and not the most promising avenue. What if, in exchange for a stable stipend during your life, you agree to sell your organs upon you death? Wouldn't that greatly increase the percentage of after-death donors?

No, my initial reservations were the common ones and (more than) confirmed by the Libertarian literature.

Care to share any examples of that?

..where "forced," "cooperation" and "voluntary" are redefined in the same fishy framing to mean what sounds to most folks like their opposites.

No, they aren't "redefined". We libertarians use precisely the meaning of "forced", "cooperation" and "voluntary" that virtually everybody uses in their everyday life.

Consider your relationship with a neighbourhood club, a political action group, a bridge club, your bank, your supermarket, your friends.

In each and every one of those cases, you voluntarily cooperate with others to promote neighbourhood joint interests, common political goals, enjoyable mutual activities, etc.

In each and every one of those cases, you can decide whether to join or not, and you can leave at any point. Joining might commit you to payment of dues, but you know exactly how much those are (in advance).

Libertarians aren't inventing any new meanings. They merely extend the meanings already in use in countless interactions with non-government bodies to also include interaction with one's government.

[SueDeNîmes]

Care to share any examples of that?

Look no further than the clear and concise précis of the lit' with which you address non-Libertarian objections on this very forum. How convincing do non-Libertarians find these reassurances involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and historical revisionism ?

No, they aren't "redefined". We libertarians use precisely the meaning of "forced", "cooperation" and "voluntary" that virtually everybody uses in their everyday life.

Consider your relationship with a neighbourhood club, a political action group, a bridge club, your bank, your supermarket, your friends.

In each and every one of those cases, you voluntarily cooperate with others to promote neighbourhood joint interests, common political goals, enjoyable mutual activities, etc.

In each and every one of those cases, you can decide whether to join or not, and you can leave at any point. Joining might commit you to payment of dues, but you know exactly how much those are (in advance).

Libertarians aren't inventing any new meanings. They merely extend the meanings already in use in countless interactions with non-government bodies to also include interaction with one's government.

No, they also extend these meanings to countless interactions with non-government bodies such as employers, landlords, money lenders etc where disparities of property and bargaining power would circumscribe the weaker parties' liberty (ie most folks' liberty) compared to interactions with democratic rules. Thus proposals of less liberty for most, to which they're understandably resistant, are redefined as more liberty and cooperation.

[Eran]

Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selishness and wingnuttery to most folks.

No, my initial reservations were the common ones and (more than) confirmed by the Libertarian literature.

Look no further than the clear and concise précis of the lit' with which you address non-Libertarian objections on this very forum.

I am flattered that you consider my random ramblings to be "Libertarian literature". But even accepting that, where in what I wrote, do you find any evidence for "selfishness"?

No, they also extend these meanings to countless interactions with non-government bodies such as employers, landlords, money lenders etc where disparities of property and bargaining power would circumscribe the weaker parties' liberty (ie most folks' liberty) compared to interactions with democratic rules.

So when I consistently refer to voluntary cooperation as "voluntary", I am considered to have redefined the term "voluntary" when I also apply it to the contract you signed with a landlord or an employer?

Conversely, when we can all agree that breaking down my neighbour's door and grabbing his stuff is an act of aggression, I redefine "aggression" by applying the same standard when government agents do exactly the same thing?

I can accept that libertarians use some terms in some contexts in an unconventional way. But that is because the conventional usage is inconsistent, while the libertarian usage is strictly consistent.