NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a lot of people who appear to believe that it is truly right and "just" to not have government-provided welfare, healthcare, and education, and then accuse me (when I disagree with them) of being an "authoritarian" and a "communist". Let me take a moment to tell you why, despite my beliefs in private property, capitalism, etc., I nevertheless support giving money and aiding the poor:

Let's say a country has 300 million inhabitants. Now, about 5% of the population will be poor and unemployed with no means of subsistence -- that makes about 6 million people. Let's say half of those are working adults, 3 million.

Now, this country has a very good economy and manages to create 500,000 new jobs every month. About 1/2 of those require qualifications, and without your free education, most poor people won't have those qualifications. So that leaves 250,000 jobs.

Now we have 2.75 million people unemployed. Some of them will take illegal or unsanctioned jobs, leaving about two million working adults (not to mention children, elderly, etc.) with no means of subsistence, no food, and no-one to properly take care of them if they fall sick. What do you expect them to do -- starve?

They can't rely on charity. Most people aren't generous, no matter what Jesus/Mohammed/God/Buddha/Brahma tells them. And, without welfare, healthcare, education, etc., they can't exactly rely on the government, either.

Yes, I am oversimplifying. Yes, life really is a lot more complex than that. But you do see that people will starve, right? What do you propose to do about them?


Ok, I've finished my rant for the day. Comment, please.

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
Unofficial NationStates Idealist Anarcho-Socialist Ranter for September 22, 2005

Well... the persistance of unemployment has more to do with the ability of the economy to sustain full employment moreso than the actual jobs created each month.

It seems though that the crux of your argument is that charity is ok but won't be sufficient.

That may or may not be true, but you have to develop that aspect further.

Also even if it isn't enough, aren't you still, at the end of the day, unjustly taking money from people to hand it out to others? You have to respond to that as well.

Yes, because, economically-speaking, everybody knows that opening the floodgates of immigration and eliminating all social welfare and the minimum wage will raise citizens' quality-of-life.

Increased amount of employees.
Employee demand therefore goes down.
Eliminated minimum wage.
Eliminated social welfare.

It's as if "logic" and "reason" are naughty words to them.

Hence, they are "Liberetarded."

Well... the persistance of unemployment has more to do with the ability of the economy to sustain full employment moreso than the actual jobs created each month.

It seems though that the crux of your argument is that charity is ok but won't be sufficient.

That may or may not be true, but you have to develop that aspect further.

Also even if it isn't enough, aren't you still, at the end of the day, unjustly taking money from people to hand it out to others? You have to respond to that as well.
People anyway have to pay that money out in tax. While I support low taxes, I think we should spend them more on making life better for our own citizens, not ones living in another country (cf. Iraq vs. Katrina). Although assisting other countries is a good thing, but we shouldn't devote most of our attention to it.

Margaret Thatcher provided the citizens of my country with all the reasons they need. Also, the Industrial Revolution, with extremely lax laws, was horrible for the workers involved.

No, I'm sorry. Far-right capitalism was not good for this country's citizens in the end. Classical liberalism sounds good - freedom of the individual - but since anarcho-capitalism (very similar really) takes it too far, the individual becomes oppressed by sources other than the state - companies.

That may be true Czardas,

But the argument is that any use of funding, and therefore any taxing for, purposes other than national defense and law and order are unnecessary and unjust.

Now I'm not taking up this position, hence I'm not arguing it at length, but simply presenting the issue in summary as I think others would (*cough* Melkor *cough* Vittos Ordination *cough* Alien Born).

That may be true Czardas,

But the argument is that any use of funding, and therefore any taxing for, purposes other than national defense and law and order are unnecessary and unjust.
Yes, because taxpayers never use the free education, healthcare, and public transport systems that the government provides and maintains for them, and most citizens value attacking foreign countries more than their own well-being and happiness.

You would have made good points if you hadnt just taken libertarianism to a silly extreme and then said that it was too extreme. I, and other libertarians I know, support government funded health insurance for the poor, government funded spaces in private schools for the poor and a subsistence "wage" while a person is moving between jobs - it simply makes no economic sense to have workers dying or being unable to do their jobs properly, and it makes no moral sense either. Most libertarians arent complete "kill the poor" anarcho-capitalist wackos, unlike what some people may like to think.

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious that this is the case, not to mention the fact in a liberatarian country you are only likely to succeed if your parents succeeded, since there would be no chance for those born poor to get a decent education, so there is no meritocracy whatsoever.

People anyway have to pay that money out in tax. While I support low taxes, I think we should spend them more on making life better for our own citizens, not ones living in another country (cf. Iraq vs. Katrina). Although assisting other countries is a good thing, but we shouldn't devote most of our attention to it.

I don't want to derail this into a discussion about Iraq, but there's no way that the war in Iraq is about making life better for Iraqis. Saddam was the same bastard back when he was friends with the West, and there are plenty of people worse off than the Iraqis. Still, it's tax money that isn't going towards helping the American people, ot at least 99.99 % of them.

Anyway, the reason I'm not a libertarian is that I don't think the concept of "economic freedom" makes sense in the way that personal freedom does. You can have personal freedoms that do not infringe on anyone else's, apart from maybe those that believe they have the right to live in a world with no gay people etc. However, allowing individual economic freedom inevitably leads to the concentration of power into a small number of people, and this restricts the economic freedom of many others. I believe that economic freedom is maximised by intervening in order to create minimum standards of living, and welfare is one example of this.

You would have made good points if you hadnt just taken libertarianism to a silly extreme and then said that it was too extreme. I, and other libertarians I know, support government funded health insurance for the poor, government funded spaces in private schools for the poor and a subsistence "wage" while a person is moving between jobs - it simply makes no economic sense to have workers dying or being unable to do their jobs properly, and it makes no moral sense either. Most libertarians arent complete "kill the poor" anarcho-capitalist wackos, unlike what some people may like to think.
That certainly isn't how the Libertarian Party portrays you:

http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

End Welfare

None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth.
Actually, per-capita, we come in dead last as the least generous nation on earth. Simply because we're a large nation do conservatives and libertarians say, "WE GIVE MORE TO CHARITY, TOTAL, THAN ANYONE ELSE." It's because we're a gigantic fucking country. The average yearly donation is (surprise, surprise) just enough to get a tax write-off and not any higher.

You would have made good points if you hadnt just taken libertarianism to a silly extreme and then said that it was too extreme. I, and other libertarians I know, support government funded health insurance for the poor, government funded spaces in private schools for the poor and a subsistence "wage" while a person is moving between jobs - it simply makes no economic sense to have workers dying or being unable to do their jobs properly, and it makes no moral sense either. Most libertarians arent complete "kill the poor" anarcho-capitalist wackos, unlike what some people may like to think.
Did I say "all libertarians"? I'm referring to anarcho-capitalism, which is what some people have styled "libertarian". Read the title. Libertarian is in quotes. I don't believe these people are really libertarian.

I don't want to derail this into a discussion about Iraq, but there's no way that the war in Iraq is about making life better for Iraqis. Saddam was the same bastard back when he was friends with the West, and there are plenty of people worse off than the Iraqis. Still, it's tax money that isn't going towards helping the American people, ot at least 99.99 % of them.

Anyway, the reason I'm not a libertarian is that I don't think the concept of "economic freedom" makes sense in the way that personal freedom does. You can have personal freedoms that do not infringe on anyone else's, apart from maybe those that believe they have the right to live in a world with no gay people etc. However, allowing individual economic freedom inevitably leads to the concentration of power into a small number of people, and this restricts the economic freedom of many others. I believe that economic freedom is maximised by intervening in order to create minimum standards of living, and welfare is one example of this.I agree with you. I support some privatization and capitalism, but leaving people at the mercy of big business will merely create a corporate dictatorship.

Corporate dictatorships occur when the government subsidizes business. Leave companies or corporations to sink or swim and you'll find that they're much more susceptible to market swings. Subsidies and bureaucracy prop up businesses that would have failed otherwise and prevent smaller business from entering the market.

Regardless, you're not pointing out anything I haven't heard before. Here's the crux of your argument: we need welfare and socialized medicine. That's not a strong case and you know it. You shouldn't look at society, identify a problem, and assume the problem itself justifies whatever means necessary to solve the problem.

You're not going to have much success convincing anarchocapitalists with bullshit "we need it" arguments, even if you pull more meaningless statistics out of your ass.

Libertarians don't disagree that helping poor people is good. Libertarians object to the MEANS - involuntary and coercive taxation - to achieve your otherwise good goals. If the means don't matter, then I could find a number of solutions to eradicate this society of its ills.

For example, you don't like poverty? Yeah, poverty's a problem. We need to end poverty in this world. I have a good solution as long as the means are irrelevant to the ends: kill all the poor people. Cool, huh? Problem solved.

Obviously that's a ridiculous solution, but now you understand how anarchocapitalists and libertarians see the situation. The ends do not justify the means. You are too busy wrapping yourself up in pragmatic justifications for why we "need" welfare that you've completely lost sight of the fact that you have to violate economic liberty to do so.

If you want to win a debate against an anarchocapitalist, you're going to have to argue why economic liberty either 1) doesn't apply here or 2) doesn't exist. And if you think it doesn't exist, you're not a capitalist.

Corporate dictatorships occur when the government subsidizes business. Leave companies or corporations to sink or swim and you'll find that they're much more susceptible to market swings. Subsidies and bureaucracy prop up businesses that would have failed otherwise and prevent smaller business from entering the market.

Regardless, you're not pointing out anything I haven't heard before. Here's the crux of your argument: we need welfare and socialized medicine. That's not a strong case and you know it. You shouldn't look at society, identify a problem, and assume the problem itself justifies whatever means necessary to solve the problem.

You're not going to have much success convincing anarchocapitalists with bullshit "we need it" arguments, even if you pull more meaningless statistics out of your ass.

Libertarians don't disagree that helping poor people is good. Libertarians object to the MEANS - involuntary and coercive taxation - to achieve your otherwise good goals. If the means don't matter, then I could find a number of solutions to eradicate this society of its ills.

For example, you don't like poverty? Yeah, poverty's a problem. We need to end poverty in this world. I have a good solution as long as the means are irrelevant to the ends: kill all the poor people. Cool, huh? Problem solved.

Obviously that's a ridiculous solution, but now you understand how anarchocapitalists and libertarians see the situation. The ends do not justify the means. You are too busy wrapping yourself up in pragmatic justifications for why we "need" welfare that you've completely lost sight of the fact that you have to violate economic liberty to do so.

If you want to win a debate against an anarchocapitalist, you're going to have to argue why economic liberty either 1) doesn't apply here or 2) doesn't exist. And if you think it doesn't exist, you're not a capitalist. What the hell is this God-given right to economic liberty? We have freedom of liberty as long as it doesn't hurt others, and we're supposed to have freedom of opportunity as well. If you don't make laws to regulate businesses to a certain level, then people born into poor families will NOT have an equal opportunity. Neither extreme works. It's about finding the balance.

I'm so glad we have the NHS in this country. Jewel of Britannia.

Corporate dictatorships occur when the government subsidizes business. Leave companies or corporations to sink or swim and you'll find that they're much more susceptible to market swings. Subsidies and bureaucracy prop up businesses that would have failed otherwise and prevent smaller business from entering the market.

Regardless, you're not pointing out anything I haven't heard before. Here's the crux of your argument: we need welfare and socialized medicine. That's not a strong case and you know it. You shouldn't look at society, identify a problem, and assume the problem itself justifies whatever means necessary to solve the problem.

You're not going to have much success convincing anarchocapitalists with bullshit "we need it" arguments, even if you pull more meaningless statistics out of your ass.

Libertarians don't disagree that helping poor people is good. Libertarians object to the MEANS - involuntary and coercive taxation - to achieve your otherwise good goals. If the means don't matter, then I could find a number of solutions to eradicate this society of its ills.

For example, you don't like poverty? Yeah, poverty's a problem. We need to end poverty in this world. I have a good solution as long as the means are irrelevant to the ends: kill all the poor people. Cool, huh? Problem solved.

Obviously that's a ridiculous solution, but now you understand how anarchocapitalists and libertarians see the situation. The ends do not justify the means. You are too busy wrapping yourself up in pragmatic justifications for why we "need" welfare that you've completely lost sight of the fact that you have to violate economic liberty to do so.

If you want to win a debate against an anarchocapitalist, you're going to have to argue why economic liberty either 1) doesn't apply here or 2) doesn't exist. And if you think it doesn't exist, you're not a capitalist.
This was exactly who I was waiting for: someone who really strongly disagrees with me. *does ritual debate dance*

Ok. We can't help the poor through tax. How else do we help them then? Answer me that. How many people are going to be generous enough to give money to charity if there hasn't been a massive natural disaster? Not all too many. What else is left? Killing all the poor?

What the hell is this God-given right to economic liberty? We have freedom of liberty as long as it doesn't hurt others, and we're supposed to have freedom of opportunity as well. If you don't make laws to regulate businesses to a certain level, then people born into poor families will NOT have an equal opportunity. Neither extreme works. It's about finding the balance.

I'm so glad we have the NHS in this country. Jewel of Britannia.

I didn't say it was god given. Thanks for the strawman.

We don't have liberty as long as it doesn't "hurt" others. What does "hurt" mean? That's too vague and subjective to mean anything substantive in a debate. We have liberty as long as we don't violate the natural rights of others.

Also, I like how you define equal opportunity. You make a number of assumptions, one being that we have to start from the same line in the race of life. A libertarian would define equal opportunity as simply the right to pursue your own good in the world without infringing on the natural rights of others. You don't have to be of the same station or possess the same abilities as other people in this life as long as there's no coercive force preventing you from doing so.

And as a minor point, I've never understood being proud of a bloated social program.

Corporate dictatorships occur when the government subsidizes business. Leave companies or corporations to sink or swim and you'll find that they're much more susceptible to market swings. Subsidies and bureaucracy prop up businesses that would have failed otherwise and prevent smaller business from entering the market.

Regardless, you're not pointing out anything I haven't heard before. Here's the crux of your argument: we need welfare and socialized medicine. That's not a strong case and you know it. You shouldn't look at society, identify a problem, and assume the problem itself justifies whatever means necessary to solve the problem.

You're not going to have much success convincing anarchocapitalists with bullshit "we need it" arguments, even if you pull more meaningless statistics out of your ass.

Libertarians don't disagree that helping poor people is good. Libertarians object to the MEANS - involuntary and coercive taxation - to achieve your otherwise good goals. If the means don't matter, then I could find a number of solutions to eradicate this society of its ills.

For example, you don't like poverty? Yeah, poverty's a problem. We need to end poverty in this world. I have a good solution as long as the means are irrelevant to the ends: kill all the poor people. Cool, huh? Problem solved.

Obviously that's a ridiculous solution, but now you understand how anarchocapitalists and libertarians see the situation. The ends do not justify the means. You are too busy wrapping yourself up in pragmatic justifications for why we "need" welfare that you've completely lost sight of the fact that you have to violate economic liberty to do so.

If you want to win a debate against an anarchocapitalist, you're going to have to argue why economic liberty either 1) doesn't apply here or 2) doesn't exist. And if you think it doesn't exist, you're not a capitalist.

Governments don't just prop up businesses, or covertly support them for ideological reasons. They do because when enough money concentrates in one place it provides politcal power that begins to outweigh democratic power. If you put economics aside, laissez faire policies work against democracy, and that's where you get a corporate police state, or just a state where corporations are priotised over most of the population.

I don't agree with your point 2 in the last paragraph. "Capitalist" is a very broad term, and just refers to the means of production being in private hands. As long as the state doesn't own all business, capitalism can include anything from libertarianism to welfare-heavy states.

I think economic liberty exists, but anarcho-capitalists get it wrong by assuming that only governments can ever infringe it. If someone is very poor they have limited economic freedom.

I didn't say it was god given. Thanks for the strawman.

We don't have liberty as long as it doesn't "hurt" others. What does "hurt" mean? That's too vague and subjective to mean anything substantive in a debate. We have liberty as long as we don't violate the natural rights of others.

Also, I like how you define equal opportunity. You make a number of assumptions, one being that we have to start from the same line in the race of life. A libertarian would define equal opportunity as simply the right to pursue your own good in the world without infringing on the natural rights of others. You don't have to be of the same station or possess the same abilities as other people in this life as long as there's no coercive force preventing you from doing so.
Yeah, that's fine. But what about the people who can't get ahead in life because of the other people who are forging their own way ahead? Such as businessmen who underpay their employees, or government officials who cut education funding to pay the debts and get reelected?

This was exactly who I was waiting for: someone who really strongly disagrees with me. *does ritual debate dance*

Ok. We can't help the poor through tax. How else do we help them then? Answer me that. How many people are going to be generous enough to give money to charity if there hasn't been a massive natural disaster? Not all too many. What else is left? Killing all the poor?

:)

You can't kill all the poor because that's a violation of liberty.

You can't tax because that's a violation of liberty.

You can ask people to buy bonds or donate to the government and charities. Hell, so many people out there speak of the benevolent force that is the federal government and how we libertarians are just so goddamn selfish for not wanting to pay taxes, so I expect those individuals to do the ethical and consistent thing and give money to charities and the government voluntarily.

You know, we pay out the ass in taxes as it is, yet we still have the money to donate to charities. I expect that if taxes were abolished, we'd still find the money to donate. I also expect all the socialist-minded individuals to pay up.

Now, assuming that doesn't happen, and it's very unlikely that it won't happen, I don't know what else to tell you. I start from what I know I can't do and build practical solutions (within ethical means) from there. Private charities aren't invulnerable, but neither is the government.

Governments don't just prop up businesses, or covertly support them for ideological reasons. They do because when enough money concentrates in one place it provides politcal power that begins to outweigh democratic power. If you put economics aside, laissez faire policies work against democracy, and that's where you get a corporate police state, or just a state where corporations are priotised over most of the population.

I don't agree with your point 2 in the last paragraph. "Capitalist" is a very broad term, and just refers to the means of production being in private hands. As long as the state doesn't own all business, capitalism can include anything from libertarianism to welfare-heavy states.

I think economic liberty exists, but anarcho-capitalists get it wrong by assuming that only governments can ever infringe it. If someone is very poor they have limited economic freedom.Yes. The very corporations that economic freedom protects can limit the economic freedom of the poor.

:)

You can't kill all the poor because that's a violation of liberty.

You can't tax because that's a violation of liberty.

You can ask people to buy bonds or donate to the government and charities. Hell, so many people out there speak of the benevolent force that is the federal government and how we libertarians are just so goddamn selfish for not wanting to pay taxes, so I expect those individuals to do the ethical and consistent thing and give money to charities and the government voluntarily.

You know, we pay out the ass in taxes as it is, yet we still have the money to donate to charities. I expect that if taxes were abolished, we'd still find the money to donate. I also expect all the socialist-minded individuals to pay up.

Now, assuming that doesn't happen, and it's very unlikely that it won't happen, I don't know what else to tell you. I start from what I know I can't do and build practical solutions (within ethical means) from there. Private charities aren't invulnerable, but neither is the government.
Most people don't donate to charity. I know I don't. Many poor people don't have the money, and most rich people want to keep theirs.

That leaves the middle class, and a lot of them either want to become rich or are struggling to stay where they are while the alternative income tax tries to force them below the poverty line. Just how many people are actually going to donate? Not too many when it comes to that.

Governments don't just prop up businesses, or covertly support them for ideological reasons. They do because when enough money concentrates in one place it provides politcal power that begins to outweigh democratic power. If you put economics aside, laissez faire policies work against democracy, and that's where you get a corporate police state, or just a state where corporations are priotised over most of the population.

I don't agree with your point 2 in the last paragraph. "Capitalist" is a very broad term, and just refers to the means of production being in private hands. As long as the state doesn't own all business, capitalism can include anything from libertarianism to welfare-heavy states.

I think economic liberty exists, but anarcho-capitalists get it wrong by assuming that only governments can ever infringe it. If someone is very poor they have limited economic freedom.

Your first paragraph is funny. Your first sentence says the government doesn't prop up businesses for ideological reasons. (That's odd because I never claimed that that was the reason.) You then say the government supports businesses because "political power [of companies, I assume]... begins to outweigh democratic power." How is that not ideological? Democratic power is just shorthand for "the right of some people to tell other people what to do, even if the 'other' people have a right to do it." And no, the federal government does subsidize businesses to make sure they don't fail. That's the whole point. If you want to stop big business and allow individuals to break into the market, you should support the end to all government subsidies of business. I say that as a capitalist and a libertarian.

You're right about the definition of capitalism, kind of. You mentioned private hands, but you forgot about the "free market" part. When the government interferes in the "free market," it stops being "capitalist" and moves closer to "market socialism."

And you misunderstand what economic liberty means. Economic liberty doesn't mean you have a lot of options or that you've been successful or that you can be successful. Economic liberty doesn't guarantee anything other than the right to do as you please without infringing on the liberty of others. Anybody can infringe on economic liberty since the government is an artificial collection of individuals. When the government intrudes, it's really just a bunch of individuals intruding. Technically I can initiate force against your economic liberty when I steal your property. The government is the worst offender, however, because it operates under the threat of force.

Your first paragraph is funny. Your first sentence says the government doesn't prop up businesses for ideological reasons. (That's odd because I never claimed that that was the reason.) You then say the government supports businesses because "political power [of companies, I assume]... begins to outweigh democratic power." How is that not ideological? Democratic power is just shorthand for "the right of some people to tell other people what to do, even if the 'other' people have a right to do it." And no, the federal government does subsidize businesses to make sure they don't fail. That's the whole point. If you want to stop big business and allow individuals to break into the market, you should support the end to all government subsidies of business. I say that as a capitalist and a libertarian.

You're right about the definition of capitalism, kind of. You mentioned private hands, but you forgot about the "free market" part. When the government interferes in the "free market," it stops being "capitalist" and moves closer to "market socialism."

And you misunderstand what economic liberty means. Economic liberty doesn't mean you have a lot of options or that you've been successful or that you can be successful. Economic liberty doesn't guarantee anything other than the right to do as you please without infringing on the liberty of others. I always thought that was personal and civil freedom, not economic freedom. Economic freedom is the freedom to own property and the right to succeed or fail in the world on your own merits as opposed to authoritarian measures like affirmative action.

Most people don't donate to charity. I know I don't. Many poor people don't have the money, and most rich people want to keep theirs.

That leaves the middle class, and a lot of them either want to become rich or are struggling to stay where they are while the alternative income tax tries to force them below the poverty line. Just how many people are actually going to donate? Not too many when it comes to that.

Everybody I know gives to charity. I do find it funny that the people who advocate the hardest for social safety nets are often the people who don't donate to charity. This is all irrelevant, though. Fallacy of small sample.

Also, you haven't provided any statistics. This is a good time for statistics, by the way, because you're arguing something a posteriori. Rich people give quite a bit to charities, as do the middle class. Regardless, if they didn't hand over a dime, that wouldn't justify stealing their dimes.

I always thought that was personal and civil freedom, not economic freedom. Economic freedom is the freedom to own property and the right to succeed or fail in the world on your own merits as opposed to authoritarian measures like affirmative action.

Liberty is liberty is liberty. I don't like to divide liberty along civil, political, social or economic lines. I say economic liberty because some people believe that it doesn't exist as a concept. So, I defined the word "liberty," but happened to put "economic" in front of it. If you have the right to pursue your own good as long as you don't infringe on the natural rights of others, that would include property rights, correct? You are defining the term specifically, while I applied a broad stroke to the issue.

But that sort of makes a larger point, doesn't it? How can you have one type of liberty without another type of liberty? Liberty doesn't exist in the political realm but not in the economic realm. It exists. Period. That's what libertarianism is all about.

Everybody I know gives to charity. I do find it funny that the people who advocate the hardest for social safety nets are often the people who don't donate to charity. This is all irrelevant, though. Fallacy of small sample.

Also, you haven't provided any statistics. This is a good time for statistics, by the way, because you're arguing something a posteriori. Rich people give quite a bit to charities, as do the middle class. Regardless, if they didn't hand over a dime, that wouldn't justify stealing their dimes.
In the USA about 85% of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population (New York Times), of which about half is going to give to charity and the other half going to just work on making more of it (Estimation I just made up). That won't be able to support two million people, unless each of those people is going to give a whole lot of money.

EDIT: Actually, I just read that giving to charity is actually going up (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/3/cpid/42.htm). This may have something to do with the increase in religiosity in America.

You know, we pay out the ass in taxes as it is, yet we still have the money to donate to charities. I expect that if taxes were abolished, we'd still find the money to donate. I also expect all the socialist-minded individuals to pay up.

Now, assuming that doesn't happen, and it's very unlikely that it won't happen, I don't know what else to tell you. I start from what I know I can't do and build practical solutions (within ethical means) from there. Private charities aren't invulnerable, but neither is the government.

This section here is the problem. Libertarians somehow believe that, if only people could keep more of their own income, they'd donate more. Unfortunately, Statistics Canada has done some investigations and found that, once beyond means poverty, people's donations tend to stay at the same percentage of their income regardless of what that income is. The guy who donates 0% when he's making 20,000/year will tend to donate that same 0% when he's making 60,000. The guy who donates 3% when he's making 40,000 well generally continue to donate 3% when he's making 20,000, and even lower, until the point where it cuts into his ability to live.

Using this, all we need to do is look at the percentage of donation to GNP and the percent of taxation that goes to social support. If a higher percentage of taxation goes to social support than donation to GNP, eliminating the taxation for social support will result in a net loss to the social support of the nation.

Or in otherwords, with or without taxation, people are still selfish pricks and the nation will run into a version of the Tragedy of the Commons while they wait for somebody else to support those who are unable to support themselves.

In the USA about 85% of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population (New York Times), of which about half is going to give to charity and the other half going to just work on making more of it (Estimation I just made up). That won't be able to support two million people, unless each of those people is going to give a whole lot of money.

EDIT: Actually, I just read that giving to charity is actually going up (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/3/cpid/42.htm). This may have something to do with the increase in religiosity in America.

I like you, you're funny. No, seriously, this is a really fun debate.

Hmm, if you could find an estimation that you didn't make up, I'd find that more convincing. :)

Also, charity isn't designed to support two million people, it's designed to assist two million people - the point being that you are supposed to provide for yourself as much as you can.

Your first paragraph is funny. Your first sentence says the government doesn't prop up businesses for ideological reasons. (That's odd because I never claimed that that was the reason.) You then say the government supports businesses because "political power [of companies, I assume]... begins to outweigh democratic power." How is that not ideological? Democratic power is just shorthand for "the right of some people to tell other people what to do, even if the 'other' people have a right to do it." And no, the federal government does subsidize businesses to make sure they don't fail. That's the whole point. If you want to stop big business and allow individuals to break into the market, you should support the end to all government subsidies of business. I say that as a capitalist and a libertarian.

You're right about the definition of capitalism, kind of. You mentioned private hands, but you forgot about the "free market" part. When the government interferes in the "free market," it stops being "capitalist" and moves closer to "market socialism."

And you misunderstand what economic liberty means. Economic liberty doesn't mean you have a lot of options or that you've been successful or that you can be successful. Economic liberty doesn't guarantee anything other than the right to do as you please without infringing on the liberty of others. Anybody can infringe on economic liberty since the government is an artificial collection of individuals. When the government intrudes, it's really just a bunch of individuals intruding. Technically I can initiate force against your economic liberty when I steal your property. The government is the worst offender, however, because it operates under the threat of force.

Democratic power would only be telling "other" people what to do if those people were not allowed a vote. But this really depends on whether or not you value the democratic process. For those that do, extreme concentration of wealth should be seen as having negative effects on democracy. In my opinion the government is only a "worst offender" where it does not represent its electorate, or in cases of the tyranny of the majority.

I do actually oppose government subsidies of business, but wouldn't rule out the possibility that there are reasons to support a business that outweigh market efficiency. I do understand your concept of economic liberty, but since people are not born into even remotely equal conditions I just don't think it is as important as the concept of economic freedom that I gave earlier, that people's lives should not be severely limited by economic factors. If circumstances were reasonably fair I would agree with the libertarian ideal concept.

This section here is the problem. Libertarians somehow believe that, if only people could keep more of their own income, they'd donate more. Unfortunately, Statistics Canada has done some investigations and found that, once beyond means poverty, people's donations tend to stay at the same percentage of their income regardless of what that income is. The guy who donates 0% when he's making 20,000/year will tend to donate that same 0% when he's making 60,000. The guy who donates 3% when he's making 40,000 well generally continue to donate 3% when he's making 20,000, and even lower, until the point where it cuts into his ability to live.

Using this, all we need to do is look at the percentage of donation to GNP and the percent of taxation that goes to social support. If a higher percentage of taxation goes to social support than donation to GNP, eliminating the taxation for social support will result in a net loss to the social support of the nation.

Or in otherwords, with or without taxation, people are still selfish pricks and the nation will run into a version of the Tragedy of the Commons while they wait for somebody else to support those who are unable to support themselves.

Interesting, but I don't see the problem. If we cut or eliminate taxes, people will have more money in their wallet. If these same people don't increase the "percentage" of their income they give to charities, then that would mean they're still giving more money in real terms. (Obviously, because 3% of 10,000 is lessthan 3% of 100,000.)

Your second paragraph makes a better case, but we don't need private charities to be as bloated as the national government. It'll be a net loss, but not necessarily in a meaningful way. In fact, we know that social programs are bureaucratic and wasteful of taxpayer money.

I like you, you're funny. No, seriously, this is a really fun debate. Thank you. *bows*

Hmm, if you could find an estimation that you didn't make up, I'd find that more convincing. :) I would, too. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to search through all those NYT, Newsweek, Courier, Herald etc. articles.

Also, charity isn't designed to support two million people, it's designed to assist two million people - the point being that you are supposed to provide for yourself as much as you can.
Yes, but as I stated before, most people can't do that.

The country I proposed had a very good economy and managed to create a large number of jobs. In the United States the number of open jobs each month might reach 150,000 or even 200,000, if we're lucky. (TIME reported a high growth in April 2005, when 137,000 jobs were created.) That still leaves a lot of people relying on charity for support -- thus, taking money from the other poor people who have jobs which don't give them enough to support themselves or their families, in a sense.

I agree with you. I support some privatization and capitalism, but leaving people at the mercy of big business will merely create a corporate dictatorship.

So true. You're beautiful. Thank you for saying that...

Interesting, but I don't see the problem. If we cut or eliminate taxes, people will have more money in their wallet. If these same people don't increase the "percentage" of their income they give to charities, then that would mean they're still giving more money in real terms. (Obviously, because 3% of 10,000 is lessthan 3% of 100,000.) Tax cuts don't make people richer. They don't help them get better jobs. They just don't have to pay as much money to the government. What will they do with the remainder? Give it to charity? No, they'll save it so they can get a better job, etc.

And altogether note that most people give to charity at their local church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or school. Of the religious funds, how much will go to the actual people who need them, and how much will go towards renovating the church, providing for the imam, etc.?

Your second paragraph makes a better case, but we don't need private charities to be as bloated as the national government. It'll be a net loss, but not necessarily in a meaningful way. In fact, we know that social programs are bureaucratic and wasteful of taxpayer money.
I see. It's a waste of taxpayer money to give food to the poor.

Waterkeep: thanks for backing up your argument with actual proof, instead of just making an emotional appeal. However, if the percent donated stays the same, that still means more money that's donated at higher levels of earned income. In the case of 3% of $40,000 vs. $20,000 that's a difference of $1200 and $600, respectively. I'd say that's still pretty good. The question is whether this arthmetic increase will offset the loss of money "donated" through taxes/welfare. Of course, even if the amount is smaller, you have to consider the additional costs associated with government welfare like red tape, inefficiency, inability to treat individuals on a case-to-case basis and the lack of accountability (which arguably keeps people on welfare longer).

Democratic power would only be telling "other" people what to do if those people were not allowed a vote. But this really depends on whether or not you value the democratic process. For those that do, extreme concentration of wealth should be seen as having negative effects on democracy. In my opinion the government is only a "worst offender" where it does not represent its electorate, or in cases of the tyranny of the majority.

I do actually oppose government subsidies of business, but wouldn't rule out the possibility that there are reasons to support a business that outweigh market efficiency. I do understand your concept of economic liberty, but since people are not born into even remotely equal conditions I just don't think it is as important as the concept of economic freedom that I gave earlier, that people's lives should not be severely limited by economic factors. If circumstances were reasonably fair I would agree with the libertarian ideal concept.

I disagree with your analysis of democracy. Voting isn't an implicit contract you make with the federal government or your fellow citizens that says "the majority can tell me what to do, even if that violates my liberty." If every person in a society consents to involutary taxation, then that's fine, but it would stop being involuntary. Simply living in a country or participating in voting in no way means I consented to a violation of my liberty.

I do believe in democracy as an institution, but not in its strict Aristotelian sense. I believe in a constitutional republic. A constitution ideally restricts what the government and individuals can do. In other words, neither can violate liberty. Every piece of legislation would fall within that ethical framework. Sort of like the US Constitution, but better.

I equate economic freedom and economic liberty. The problem with your definition is that it requires the initiation of force on others to support. It can't be "free" if it promotes unfree means to achieve its ends.

Liberty is liberty is liberty. I don't like to divide liberty along civil, political, social or economic lines. I say economic liberty because some people believe that it doesn't exist as a concept. So, I defined the word "liberty," but happened to put "economic" in front of it. If you have the right to pursue your own good as long as you don't infringe on the natural rights of others, that would include property rights, correct? You are defining the term specifically, while I applied a broad stroke to the issue.

But that sort of makes a larger point, doesn't it? How can you have one type of liberty without another type of liberty? Liberty doesn't exist in the political realm but not in the economic realm. It exists. Period. That's what libertarianism is all about.

I agree on liberty but you can apply it to different areas. You oppose force for one thing, and this infringes my right to steal, assault, kill etc. And my approach to economic liberty is that it's great and should be left alone where possible but that it can infringe on others' liberties.

Anti-statist rant, take one:

Govt-provided healthcare is often at a lower quality and administered a heck of a lot slower than private healthcare. Not to mention undercutting the jobs created by private healthcare by forcing them to nationalize. Most libertarians, as well as I, believe that Emergency Rooms should remain open to all, however.

Education - if you listen to most libertarians you'll notice that many of us don't want to completely anhiliate education. We just take a big piss if the Feds try and usurp education, which rightly should be left to the states. And I don't want to privatize education; however, if a parent wants to send their child to a private school, they should be able to choose *who* educates their children

Oh, and 'libertarian socialist' is an oxymoron

I disagree with your analysis of democracy. Voting isn't an implicit contract you make with the federal government or your fellow citizens that says "the majority can tell me what to do, even if that violates my liberty." If every person in a society consents to involutary taxation, then that's fine, but it would stop being involuntary. Simply living in a country or participating in voting in no way means I consented to a violation of my liberty.

I do believe in democracy as an institution, but not in its strict Aristotelian sense. I believe in a constitutional republic. A constitution ideally restricts what the government and individuals can do. In other words, neither can violate liberty. Every piece of legislation would fall within that ethical framework. Sort of like the US Constitution, but better.

I equate economic freedom and economic liberty. The problem with your definition is that it requires the initiation of force on others to support. It can't be "free" if it promotes unfree means to achieve its ends.
Ah. I believe more in a constitutional democracy. You still have the constitution, but the people = the government and have a right to vote on whatever bills are proposed by a special legislative council elected every four years. In addition, to prevent mob rule, they will require a 2/3 vote to pass. Ok... / my vision for an ideal government

Tax cuts don't make people richer. They don't help them get better jobs. They just don't have to pay as much money to the government. What will they do with the remainder? Give it to charity? No, they'll save it so they can get a better job, etc.

And altogether note that most people give to charity at their local church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or school. Of the religious funds, how much will go to the actual people who need them, and how much will go towards renovating the church, providing for the imam, etc.?


I see. It's a waste of taxpayer money to give food to the poor.

You missed the point. The original poster said that the percentage of income one gives to charity doesn't increase as one's income increases. I merely argued that that still translates into more money in real terms because 3% of 10,000 is less than 3% of 100,000. And actually, tax cuts can make people richer, if only for the time being. It would increase my overall annual income. :) And tax cuts can help people get better jobs. I could use that extra money to invest in a business, maybe my own business or go back to school. You get the idea.

Also, please don't strawman me. I never said it was a waste. I said the federal government is bureaucratic and bloated.

I've seen a lot of people who appear to believe that it is truly right and "just" to not have government-provided welfare, healthcare, and education, and then accuse me (when I disagree with them) of being an "authoritarian" and a "communist". Let me take a moment to tell you why, despite my beliefs in private property, capitalism, etc., I nevertheless support giving money and aiding the poor:
hahahaha! the funny thing is that i'm authoritarian yet i'm completely against welfare or healthcare(education's nesicary, i'd say, though.)

Ah. I believe more in a constitutional democracy. You still have the constitution, but the people = the government and have a right to vote on whatever bills are proposed by a special legislative council elected every four years. In addition, to prevent mob rule, they will require a 2/3 vote to pass. Ok... / my vision for an ideal government

:) Hahah. That's just a bigger mob!

Anti-statist rant, take one:

Govt-provided healthcare is often at a lower quality and administered a heck of a lot slower than private healthcare. Not to mention undercutting the jobs created by private healthcare by forcing them to nationalize. Most libertarians, as well as I, believe that Emergency Rooms should remain open to all, however.

Education - if you listen to most libertarians you'll notice that many of us don't want to completely anhiliate education. We just take a big piss if the Feds try and usurp education, which rightly should be left to the states. And I don't want to privatize education; however, if a parent wants to send their child to a private school, they should be able to choose *who* educates their children

Oh, and 'libertarian socialist' is an oxymoron

Haha. I know. That's one of the most irritating phrases I've ever heard.

Anti-statist rant, take one:

Govt-provided healthcare is often at a lower quality and administered a heck of a lot slower than private healthcare. Not to mention undercutting the jobs created by private healthcare by forcing them to nationalize. Most libertarians, as well as I, believe that Emergency Rooms should remain open to all, however. It's true that government-funded healthcare is usually lower-quality, but what about all the people refused admittance to private hospitals because they don't have the money to pay the place? (It's from a publication whose name I can't be bothered to remember right now.)

Education - if you listen to most libertarians you'll notice that many of us don't want to completely anhiliate education. We just take a big piss if the Feds try and usurp education, which rightly should be left to the states. And I don't want to privatize education; however, if a parent wants to send their child to a private school, they should be able to choose *who* educates their childrenThat is quite true. However, in countries without states, who takes care of the education?

Oh, and 'libertarian socialist' is an oxymoronExactly. That's why I'm a socialist libertarian.

Seriously! Libertarianism is a social ideology, and socialism is an economic one. They can coexist perfectly well. Generally, libertarian socialists are known by the more common and easier to pronounce name of liberals or leftists.

:) Hahah. That's just a bigger mob!
Exactly, but it prevents the oppression of large minorities.

Of course, even if the amount is smaller, you have to consider the additional costs associated with government welfare like red tape, inefficiency, inability to treat individuals on a case-to-case basis and the lack of accountability (which arguably keeps people on welfare longer).
At this point though, you're wagering that the waste in government is not only large enough to make up for any difference in the percentages, but also large enough to make up for those who donate specifically because of the tax rebates that doing so provides them.

I don't know the numbers, but my gut feeling is even the government can't waste that much in doling out welfare.

The other difficulty is that the inability to treat individuals on a case-to-case basis stems not from the mode of delivery, but from the sheer number of people requiring support. Without taxation, this number would change very little (as those requiring support typically aren't paying taxes in the first place) and the loss of efficiency by working on a case-to-case basis eats up some of that money you regained from the government's "wasteful" practices.

In essence, it promotes a society where those that care about other people find themselves having to take on additional burdens to make up for those that don't. As such, those that care have a harder time advancing in society to positions where they can do more good, and you have the conditions set to create a vicious downward cycle.

Tax cuts don't make people richer. They don't help them get better jobs. They just don't have to pay as much money to the government. What will they do with the remainder? Give it to charity? No, they'll save it so they can get a better job, etc.

And altogether note that most people give to charity at their local church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or school. Of the religious funds, how much will go to the actual people who need them, and how much will go towards renovating the church, providing for the imam, etc.?


I see. It's a waste of taxpayer money to give food to the poor.
Well, I'm not one to usually defend churches, but in my experience, many churches have separate donations, for example one for general stuff and another for Katrina victims.

I know a lot of people (mostly Democrats) who are for government programs like welfare, but who oppose "legislating morality" -- banning gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. They (rightfully) consider this a violation of individual liberty because you are, essentially, forcing people who do not believe the same thing as you to at least act like they do.

Food for thought: if I forcefully take a portion of your income and I use it towards what I consider a moral end (say, helping the poor), but you do not agree with me morally (you may think the poor are poor of their own fault), haven't I violated your individual liberty? Haven't I, in essense, forced you to act like you share my belief while you actually don't?

It's true that government-funded healthcare is usually lower-quality, but what about all the people refused admittance to private hospitals because they don't have the money to pay the place? (It's from a publication whose name I can't be bothered to remember right now.)

That is quite true. However, in countries without states, who takes care of the education?

Exactly. That's why I'm a socialist libertarian.

Seriously! Libertarianism is a social ideology, and socialism is an economic one. They can coexist perfectly well. Generally, libertarian socialists are known by the more common and easier to pronounce name of liberals or leftists.

I didn't post that second paragraph that you attributed to me. :)

Libertarianism isn't a social ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology of liberty, hence the root word, that applies to all areas of life, specifically the individual. Socialism isn't liberal, at least in the truest sense of the word, not the co-opted version modern-day Democrats use.

And socialism is authoritarian because it requires the initiation of force.

Exactly, but it prevents the oppression of large minorities.

What about the individual?

hahahaha! the funny thing is that i'm authoritarian yet i'm completely against welfare or healthcare(education's nesicary, i'd say, though.)

No, that's not particularly funny...

I find the word 'libertarian' far more useful when it means economically and socially liberal, but don't get me started on the way Americans use the word 'liberal'.

I didn't post that second paragraph that you attributed to me. :)Whatever, I'm too lazy to fix it right now. Must be tired.

Libertarianism isn't a social ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology of liberty, hence the root word, that applies to all areas of life, specifically the individual. Socialism isn't liberal, at least in the truest sense of the word, not the co-opted version modern-day Democrats use.

And socialism is authoritarian because it requires the initiation of force.
You seem to have mistaken economic freedom for all types of freedom in general, just like most of the "civilized" world in Jennifer Government -- you know, the book the site advertises. You can be libertarian and support high taxes and welfare. Socialism is authoritarian, but only economically speaking, and economic authoritarianism is called conservatism.

Whatever, I'm too lazy to fix it right now. Must be tired.


You seem to have mistaken economic freedom for all types of freedom in general, just like most of the "civilized" world in Jennifer Government -- you know, the book the site advertises. You can be libertarian and support high taxes and welfare. Socialism is authoritarian, but only economically speaking, and economic authoritarianism is called conservatism.

Go right to the source and ask the horse:



Libertarians (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml) believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.

This is from the LP website. Libertarianism according to Merriam Webster:

1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Absolute and unrestricted liberty - not economic liberty, not social liberty, not political liberty. Just liberty. You're hijacking a word that means a proponent of all liberty and applying it narrowly to one part of your ideology--presumably the social end--to make yourself sound like you're some great champion of freedom. Socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist is an oxymoron because socialism intrinsically violates liberty. If you need an adjective to qualify liberty, like economic or political or social, you're missing the point of libertarianism.

And socialism is authoritarian because it requires the initiation of force.

only against those who have stolen capital (and the wealth it produces) from it's rightful owners and won't give it back. which isn't the initiation of anything at all. allowing that theft to go on unhindered is authoritarian.

At this point though, you're wagering that the waste in government is not only large enough to make up for any difference in the percentages, but also large enough to make up for those who donate specifically because of the tax rebates that doing so provides them.

I don't know the numbers, but my gut feeling is even the government can't waste that much in doling out welfare.

The other difficulty is that the inability to treat individuals on a case-to-case basis stems not from the mode of delivery, but from the sheer number of people requiring support. Without taxation, this number would change very little (as those requiring support typically aren't paying taxes in the first place) and the loss of efficiency by working on a case-to-case basis eats up some of that money you regained from the government's "wasteful" practices.

In essence, it promotes a society where those that care about other people find themselves having to take on additional burdens to make up for those that don't. As such, those that care have a harder time advancing in society to positions where they can do more good, and you have the conditions set to create a vicious downward cycle.
Very interesting point. God, how I hate your position and yet admire your logic. xD

only against those who have stolen capital (and the wealth it produces) from it's rightful owners and won't give it back. which isn't the initiation of anything at all. allowing that theft to go on unhindered is authoritarian.

From whom was it stolen? How do you know they owned it? You have to be more specific.

Absolute and unrestricted liberty - not economic liberty, not social liberty, not political liberty. Just liberty. You're hijacking a word that means a proponent of all liberty and applying it narrowly to one part of your ideology--presumably the social end--to make yourself sound like you're some great champion of freedom. Socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist is an oxymoron because socialism intrinsically violates liberty. If you need an adjective to qualify liberty, like economic or political or social, you're missing the point of libertarianism.
Socialism only violates one kind of liberty. The freedom to own property is not equivalent with the freedom to have an abortion. Socialism violates the first (well, kind of...) and not the second. Thus, one has to make a distinction.

Did I say "all libertarians"? I'm referring to anarcho-capitalism, which is what some people have styled "libertarian". Read the title. Libertarian is in quotes. I don't believe these people are really libertarian.

but surely you must see that all threats to liberty begin and end with the modern welfare state. no other entity is even capable of producing unfree outcomes. duh.

Socialism only violates one kind of liberty. The freedom to own property is not equivalent with the freedom to have an abortion. Socialism violates the first (well, kind of...) and not the second. Thus, one has to make a distinction.

There aren't KINDS of liberty.

Liberty:

1 : the quality or state of being free

If you are discussing all the areas in which liberty applies--the economic, political or social realm--then that's fine. But if you think an individual has the right to liberty in one aspect--socially, for example--then why do you think the individual doesn't have the right to liberty in every other aspect?

Social libertarianism means you believe that consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others. So, all right, let's reduce that. That means if I enter into a contract with another individual, and as long as all parties consent, the government has no right to inferfere. Okay, let's pretend I want to enter a sexual contract with you. I consent to having sex with you and you consent to having sex with me. We like to be freaky with whips and chains, but since we both consent, the government has no right to interfere. I presume you agree.

Now, after we have sex, I want to enter into another private and mutually agreed upon contract with you. This time I want to buy your business. What's different about this contract? There's nothing different other than the fact that it's economic in nature.

This is the point: you divide up liberty to serve some self-interest you have in believing you are a proponent of freedom. If you support any violation of liberty, you have to reconcile that. But don't call yourself "libertarian" because "libertarian" doesn't divide itself up that way, even if you do.

but surely you must see that all threats to liberty begin and end with the modern welfare state. no other entity is even capable of producing unfree outcomes. duh.

Anybody can violate liberty. The government's just the worst offender.

Let's say I own a business. You walk in and buy one of my products on an installment plan. A few months down the road you hit a rough patch and you can't afford to pay the monthly installments. I can't throw you in jail. I can't seize your assets. I can't break down your door in the middle of the night and demand payment for what you took. Well, I can, but then I'd be arrested.

The government imposes a bill on you every year. If you don't pay that bill, even if you didn't agree to it in the first place or you didn't even incur that much debt with the federal government, the government can either throw you in jail and seize your assets or income or both.

Again, it's not that I can't violate your liberty, it's just that the government has the threat of force on its side. I can use force against you, but I'd also have to go jail if I do. Who puts the government in jail?

If you are discussing all the areas in which liberty applies--the economic, political or social realm--then that's fine. But if you think an individual has the right to liberty in one aspect--socially, for example--then why do you think the individual doesn't have the right to liberty in every other aspect?

Social libertarianism means you believe that consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they don't violate the rights of others. So, all right, let's reduce that. That means if I enter into a contract with another individual, and as long as all parties consent, the government has no right to inferfere. Okay, let's pretend I want to enter a sexual contract with you. I consent to having sex with you and you consent to having sex with me. We like to be freaky with whips and chains, but since we both consent, the government has no right to interfere. I presume you agree.

Now, after we have sex, I want to enter into another private and mutually agreed upon contract with you. This time I want to buy your business. What's different about this contract? There's nothing different other than the fact that it's economic in nature.

This is the point: you divide up liberty to serve some self-interest you have in believing you are a proponent of freedom. If you support any violation of liberty, you have to reconcile that. But don't call yourself "libertarian" because "libertarian" doesn't divide itself up that way, even if you do.I'm fine with buying other businesses, I just don't want the world to turn into a corporate dictatorship where corporations can actually dictate to people what they must do, etc. Haven't you ever heard of a compromise? :rolleyes:

If you have the right to run a business with dangerous working conditions you are infringing the rights of your workers. The only way to prevent this infringement in real life is to use force and infringe the owner's economic liberty. Many liberties impede others, and there is no system that can allow all liberties without making this type of compromise. Of course this is where the free market is usually dragged out but that is only because it overlooks certain forms of coercion. If you control whether or not someone can afford to eat and feed their family, you have as much coercive power over them as if you used physical force or theft.

I'm fine with buying other businesses, I just don't want the world to turn into a corporate dictatorship where corporations can actually dictate to people what they must do, etc. Haven't you ever heard of a compromise? :rolleyes:

I can't compromise on liberty. You have the right to it or you don't.

As I said in an earlier thread, if you want to severely restrict the power of corporations, oppose all government subsidies to businesses. I do. Force businesses to rise or fall without welfare.

Also, what corporations tell people what they must do? When has that ever happened? Businesses operate under contracts. If you want to work for a business, you agree to an employment contract to be X-salary or wage for Z-number of hours. If you want to buy a product from a business, you agree to pay X-dollar amount for Z-item. Maybe the contract sucks, but it's mutual. If it's not mutual or the business violates its end, you can break that contract. Corporations don't have the threat of the force and the law on their side. They have to bribe or manipulate the people who do. The government sanctions all violations of liberty, not corporations. If corporations violate liberty, they're liable. Try taking on the government.

From whom was it stolen? How do you know they owned it? You have to be more specific.

this is probably not the place for this discussion, but socialists and supporters of capitalism hold different premises about what entities can ever rightfully own certain things. so i just feel the need to chime in when people start using the terms 'economic liberty' and 'economic authoritarianism'. if they aren't handled with particular care, you wind up framing the debate by accepting one side's premises as the true ones, without going through the trouble of arguing for that position.

the only way that socialist redistribution would be authoritarian is if the capitalists were in fact the rightful owners of the wealth they hold. but under socialist arguments, they aren't and therefore redistribution is perfectly legitimate.

under the old monarchies, the entire country was technically the property of the king, with parts of it given to various vassels as part of the fuedal system, and a whole pile of laws and customs surrounding the entire social structure that allowed it to exist and operate. when the liberals showed up they started dismantling all of that, with violence when required. did they 'initiate force' or were they fighting against an unjust system?

this is probably not the place for this discussion, but socialists and supporters of capitalism hold different premises about what entities can ever rightfully own certain things. so i just feel the need to chime in when people start using the terms 'economic liberty' and 'economic authoritarianism'. if they aren't handled with particular care, you wind up framing the debate by accepting one side's premises as the true ones, without going through the trouble of arguing for that position.

the only way that socialist redistribution would be authoritarian is if the capitalists were in fact the rightful owners of the wealth they hold. but under socialist arguments, they aren't and therefore redistribution is perfectly legitimate.

under the old monarchies, the entire country was technically the property of the king, with parts of it given to various vassels as part of the fuedal system, and a whole pile of laws and customs surrounding the entire social structure that allowed it to exist and operate. when the liberals showed up they started dismantling all of that, with violence when required. did they 'initiate force' or were they fighting against an unjust system?

Capitalists aren't aristocrats. They're not the same institutions and have very little in common. I agree that aristocracy is a violation of liberty. I don't agree that capitalists don't rightfully own their wealth. That you'll need to explain to me.

If you have the right to run a business with dangerous working conditions you are infringing the rights of your workers. The only way to prevent this infringement in real life is to use force and infringe the owner's economic liberty. Many liberties impede others, and there is no system that can allow all liberties without making this type of compromise. Of course this is where the free market is usually dragged out but that is only because it overlooks certain forms of coercion. If you control whether or not someone can afford to eat and feed their family, you have as much coercive power over them as if you used physical force or theft.

If a person consents to working in an environment with dangerous conditions, how is that an infringement upon the worker's liberty?

Okay, I have to go. Thanks for the fun debate! You can telegram your response if you'd like me to see it. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to check on this thread again. :) Bye.

If a person consents to working in an environment with dangerous conditions, how is that an infringement upon the worker's liberty?

What are the person's other options? "Consenting" to work rather than starve is no different from "consenting" to work rather than be shot. If someone in a wealthy nation is working a highly paid job doing stunts, or a job they see as rewarding such as policing, they have made an informed decision to work under dangerous conditions. But if a factory makes no effort to provide safe conditions and can still pay low wages, a form of coercion is clearly involved. The libertarian definitions of 'force' are artificial: they include whatever forms businesses don't need to use and exclude the ones they do.

I agree that aristocracy is a violation of liberty.

but only because you agree with the premises of their historical opponents. but are those premises objectively correct in any real sense? or do you just favor their outcome over the old way?

The ends do not justify the means. You are too busy wrapping yourself up in pragmatic justifications for why we "need" welfare that you've completely lost sight of the fact that you have to violate economic liberty to do so.
Libertarians are too wrapped up in ideology, that they never think about the real world.

The ridiculousness of the "kill the poor" comparison doesn't work. The right to life is not the same as the right to property. The right to life is the most important of all rights. If there is a clash between the right to life and the right to property, then the right to life must take priority.

I don't see what's wrong with reasonable pragmatic justifications for taxation. The ends justify the means.


You can't kill all the poor because that's a violation of liberty.

You can't tax because that's a violation of liberty.
Way to oversimplify! The right to life trumps the right to property.

You can ask people to buy bonds or donate to the government and charities. Hell, so many people out there speak of the benevolent force that is the federal government and how we libertarians are just so goddamn selfish for not wanting to pay taxes, so I expect those individuals to do the ethical and consistent thing and give money to charities and the government voluntarily.

I do give a lot of money to charity.

Everybody I know gives to charity. I do find it funny that the people who advocate the hardest for social safety nets are often the people who don't donate to charity.
That's because such people think that charity should be the government's job, not the private sector's. But in practical terms, if you're a socialist and don't give to charity when you can afford it, you're a hypocrite.

I disagree with your analysis of democracy. Voting isn't an implicit contract you make with the federal government or your fellow citizens that says "the majority can tell me what to do, even if that violates my liberty." If every person in a society consents to involutary taxation, then that's fine, but it would stop being involuntary. Simply living in a country or participating in voting in no way means I consented to a violation of my liberty.
Yes it does. In every society, people must sacrifice some degree of liberty (both personal and economic) in order to live in harmony and avail of the infrastructure provided by society.

Haha. I know. That's one of the most irritating phrases I've ever heard.
Actually "libertarian" originally referred to socialists. Only in the past 50 years in America (when "liberal" had been taken by social democrats) has libertarian meant capitalist. In Europe, Liberal means the same as Libertarian does in America. So really, Liberal Socialist is an oxymoron.

I know a lot of people (mostly Democrats) who are for government programs like welfare, but who oppose "legislating morality" -- banning gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. They (rightfully) consider this a violation of individual liberty because you are, essentially, forcing people who do not believe the same thing as you to at least act like they do.

Food for thought: if I forcefully take a portion of your income and I use it towards what I consider a moral end (say, helping the poor), but you do not agree with me morally (you may think the poor are poor of their own fault), haven't I violated your individual liberty? Haven't I, in essense, forced you to act like you share my belief while you actually don't?
Most people who say they oppose "legistlating morality" don't know what they are talking about. Conservatives, socialists, and yes, even libertarians are legislating morality. The only system without legislation of morality is anarchism.

Socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist is an oxymoron because socialism intrinsically violates liberty.
...and from a socialist's point of view, capitalism violates liberty, because it is an utterly undemocratic system.

If you are discussing all the areas in which liberty applies--the economic, political or social realm--then that's fine. But if you think an individual has the right to liberty in one aspect--socially, for example--then why do you think the individual doesn't have the right to liberty in every other aspect?
People have the right to liberties as long as they do not harm society or other individuals. That goes for both social and economic liberties. Liberty is not involable; it is conditional on the well-being of the general population. Liberties that harm others are not acceptable.

Most socialists are libertarian on personal issues because we simply don't see any potential harm to society in them. It has little to do with abstract notions of "untouchable freedom".

Oh, and 'libertarian socialist' is an oxymoron

no. you're thinking of 'libertarians' who approve of the unfree conditions that are intimately linked with the capitalist class system. a system which automatically results in amazing levels of artificial inequality driven by private ownership of nearly everything by a tiny elite. especially when they start proposing that power should be officially linked to wealth. even under normal circumstances wealth and power are directly related. those crazy bastards want to encourage it, and remove non-wealth based power from the equation entirely.

and i distinctly remember you getting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8983199) spanked (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405046) on this point before:

Yo, Capitalist.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), whole cities and regions declared "comunismo libertario" [Libertarian Communism]. Anarchists and syndicalists had been using the term "Libertarian" for at least the previous century.

To cut to the chase; stop using our moniker (and tarnishing its good reputation), kthxbi.

I agree with you. I support some privatization and capitalism, but leaving people at the mercy of big business will merely create a corporate dictatorship.

We live in a corporate dictatorship, where all of the basic needs of life are priced and packaged. Freedom of choice is only how much money you have in your pocketbook.

We don't have liberty as long as it doesn't "hurt" others. What does "hurt" mean? That's too vague and subjective to mean anything substantive in a debate. We have liberty as long as we don't violate the natural rights of others.
If I were to slap you, would it hurt? If I were to slap anyone else, would it hurt them?

Okay.

If I were to put you out of a job and let you starve, would that hurt? If I were to put others out of a job and let them starve, would it hurt them?

This is what I'm talking about when I say "logic" and "reason" are naughty words to libertarians.

You can't kill all the poor because that's a violation of liberty.

You can't tax because that's a violation of liberty.
And you can't make laws at all, because that's a violation of liberty.

Your first paragraph is funny. Your first sentence says the government doesn't prop up businesses for ideological reasons. (That's odd because I never claimed that that was the reason.) You then say the government supports businesses because "political power [of companies, I assume]... begins to outweigh democratic power." How is that not ideological? Democratic power is just shorthand for "the right of some people to tell other people what to do
Someone is always going to tell others what to do. But it is better for the strongest power to be the will of the people than to advocate "might is right." In a meritocratic society, morals do not exist, because rule is based purely on the desire for power, which is at best, amoral, at worst, outright evil.

And if you oppose democracy on the grounds that it's tyrrany by majority, what do you support? Tyrrany by financial status?

I equate economic freedom and economic liberty. The problem with your definition is that it requires the initiation of force on others to support.
All laws require the initiation of force to support. If you oppose force, you oppose law.

Why do you oppose democratic coercision, but support corporate coercision?

Out of the 30 OECD countries, we come in 4th for the least amount of welfare yet you and other conservatives are still bitching about "too much welfare."

Libertarianism isn't a social ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology of liberty, hence the root word, that applies to all areas of life, specifically the individual. Socialism isn't liberal, at least in the truest sense of the word, not the co-opted version modern-day Democrats use.
Libertarianism is not based on strictly liberty, but a distorted version of it. You believe that the government as an organization is inherently immoral, but for some reason, corporations are not. You don't see society as several powers that must remain in conflict to be stable, but rather, you see society as a war between state and industry. Furthermore, you only advocate negative liberty (encouraging freedom through non-action), almost never advocating position liberty (freedom through action).

What about the individual?
Which individual? The poor, black individual or the rich, white individual?

1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
So, Libertarians would only restrict liberty if it hurts others?

Okay. So, in a Libertarian society, I can follow a person around with a gun to their head, but it isn't illegal until I fire?

There aren't KINDS of liberty.
But there are liberties that are more important. It is more important for a poor man to have the opportunity to become financially-stable, than it is for a rich man to become richer. If you disagree with this, then you also disagree that a good quality of life is important for all INDIVIDUALS.

You speak of "individual liberty," yet your policies would most benefit the wealthy, not all individuals. You also oppose democracy. Therefore, you do not support individual liberty at all, but liberty for those who can afford it -- a dog eat dog world, that had may as well be anarchy. If we end social welfare and privatize every government agency, what, then, is there for the government to do? Make arbitrary laws that it can't enforce, because its army and police are owned by corporations? Because corporations certainly hold no obligation to the government, without reward or coercision.

Corporation:
1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
4. Informal. A protruding abdominal region; a potbelly.

The government is a corporation, as are Microsoft, Sony, and AOL-Timewarner. Now... Libertarians believe that coercision is bad, that it's wrong for the government to violate liberty. And they believe that competition is a virtue. Okay, so why is it that the Microsoft can compete with other corporations, for its leaders' own selfish goals, but the corporation that is the U.S. government cannot compete with other corporations as well, with the goal of appeasing the general will of the people?

Okay, I have to go. Thanks for the fun debate! You can telegram your response if you'd like me to see it. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to check on this thread again. :) Bye.
Tail between your legs.

What is the goal of liberatarianism? Freedom? Freedom alone? Liberty? I'm tired of these ideologies, freedom is a means, not an ends. From the smarter libertarians, I've heard that they would like to grant total business liberation that would lead to more production, that would lead to more capital, that would lead to better quality of life.
If that is the case, I have no problem with what your intrests are. I don't agree that is what will happen, but at least you have thought it through, and I'm sure you can kick my ass when it comes to economics.
Otherwise, do you have any idea what happens to man when he is entirely free of social and moral obligations? Do you wish to destroy all the laws and order that our ancestors fought so hard to maintain? In your arrogance will you overthrow out of a childish resentment for authority hierarchy itslef? A proper respect of heritage, history, and philosophy is required before one can simply say "I want to be free, and I want to condemn everyone else to my freedom as well!"
Grow up!

That certainly isn't how the Libertarian Party portrays you:

http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

Actually, per-capita, we come in dead last as the least generous nation on earth. Simply because we're a large nation do conservatives and libertarians say, "WE GIVE MORE TO CHARITY, TOTAL, THAN ANYONE ELSE." It's because we're a gigantic fucking country. The average yearly donation is (surprise, surprise) just enough to get a tax write-off and not any higher.
...Im not an American...

I can't compromise on liberty. You have the right to it or you don't.
I don't think even Libertarians want complete economic freedom. At the very least they want contract law upheld. Without that, capitalism inevitably fails. It's a compromise if you say my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.


If corporations violate liberty, they're liable. Try taking on the government.

I have the right to vote the scoundrels out of government. Also the government has been sued - successfully - many times. Government has been shown to be at least as liable as large corporations. On the other hand I have no right to vote out the scumbags running a corporation that's causing problems. There is an asymetry in "liability", but it favors the corporation. Also, without government, the question of a corporations liability is irrelevant. That's why guns are so important to Libertarians, it takes a lot of guns to keep large corporations from taking away your liberty.