NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I am a left-leaning libertarian. I would like to see a laissez-faire economy, but I know it has its flaws and I am willing to admit that. But that's an economic issue. What I want to know is: What arguments are there against laissez-faire social policy? Are they anything other than "I don't need to do n, so no one else does either"? Is there something deeper to this, because I've been an American for my entire 19 years of life, and I know that the zeitgeist of American society has not been favorable to laissez-faire social policy. So there has to be a reason.

I'm going to stand on my soapbox for laissez-faire social policy by citing the following passage of a quite-important little document in our nation's history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now, if that isn't an argument that we've strayed from our founding principles in these 230 years, I don't know what is.

Note to non-american persons: you're welcome to join in this too, I'm just afraid I know more about my nation's founding than yours.

Where's the left leaning in anything you've just said?

Yeah, what do you mean by libertaranism social policy?

"social libertarianism" is usually used to mean socialists whose government permits you freedom in social (drugs, sexuality, styles of clothing ... blah blah) but not economic issues, surely?

Where's the left leaning in anything you've just said?
Well, a hardcore libertarian would say that the laissez-faire economy is infallable.
Yeah, what do you mean by libertaranism social policy?
Laissez-faire, basically total sexual freedom amongst consenting adults, absence of drug laws, lack of interference by the government in social issues.

Well, a hardcore libertarian would say that the laissez-faire economy is infallable.
Which is the complete opposite of the traditional meaning of 'left wing'. That is socialism, and Government intervention.

"social libertarianism" is usually used to mean socialists whose government permits you freedom in social (drugs, sexuality, styles of clothing ... blah blah) but not economic issues, surely?
I meant libertarian social policies, but I can see how that's confusing. I'll change the thread's name.

EDIT
Or I won't, because it won't let me. Shit.

I meant libertarian social policies, but I can see how that's confusing. I'll change the thread's name.

Ah, the problem I think is that the term Laissez-faire is usually used when speaking about economic policy. It does make sense in a social context, but people will assume you are referring to Laissez-faire economics.

Or I won't, because it won't let me. Shit.
Welcome to the strange world of Jolt.

You'll have to submit a request in the Moderation forum for it to be changed.

A lot of the right wing would permit freedom of sexual expression as well actually (as well as clothes of course).

The right wing stance on drugs is that drugs can cause harm to a society so must be outlawed.

I understood what you meant.

I don't think its wrong, per se, but I disagree with it. My ideology is different.


EDIT: Then again though, economics are far from my area. I stick more to Politics, international relations, and military studies.

Ah, the problem I think is that the term Laissez-faire is usually used when speaking about economic policy. It does make sense in a social context, but people will assume you are referring to Laissez-faire economics.
Well, I explicitly stated "laissez-faire social policy". And I'm fully aware of the works of Adam Smith. I just hope people read the opening post.

The right wing stance on drugs is that drugs can cause harm to a society so must be outlawed.
But that policy is vastly ineffective. When we had prohibition (did the UK have prohibition also? I know Canada didn't) it led to the formation of a black market ruled by gangs and enforced by murder, impure alcohol that caused blindness and death, and an increased usage of alcohol. The same exact thing happened with MDMA in the 1980's. The policy is an impractical one, and winds up more often than not causing more harm to society than good.

The policy is an impractical one, and winds up more often than not causing more harm to society than good.
Exactically.

There needs to be pill testing (an issue in Oz at the moment), legalised "soft" drugs, like in Amsterdam for example (no huge cannabis-related crime there), and for those who can't be helped off the hard drugs, they should be able to get it cheaply on prescription (like in Switzerland and a number of cities in Germany).

The problem with a laissez faire social policy (just as with a similar economic policy) is that people have to be responsible for themselves. We have too many people who refuse to take responsibility for their own imbecilic behavior.

If you iron your clothes while worn, expect to be burnt – this is common sense. You did something stupid and hurt yourself – unfortunately these people will not accept that and will yell and scream and sue the company because they should have protected the idiots from themselves.

You can only have a laissez-fair policy if you take responsibility for your own mistakes. When you expect others to pay for your mistakes, you give others the right to restrict your behavior.

Were everyone responsible for themselves and were the only ones which had to pay for their mistakes, I would be the first one arguing that society had no business telling someone what to do or not to do. Since I am going to be forced to pay for little Johnny’s ‘accident’, I demand that little Johnny be prevented from having accidents.

When it comes to drug use – it is the same problem we have when prohibition outlawed alcohol. Before prohibition, organized crime was negligible. Were drugs not illegal, quality would go way up and crime would go way down (not just the obvious hordes in jail for drug possession, but also the incidences of murder and other violent crimes). The problem with this tactic is that people do stupid things when high, and rather than punishing them for that stupid act (much like we do with people who do stupid things when drunk) society has decided to attempt to eliminate it altogether.

The ‘war on drugs’ will always be a failure because of simple economics – you will always be able to find someone willing to supply a product with a 3,000% profit margin.

Do you know why cocaine was first banned? It was because of racist fears – cocaine was used quite a bit by dock workers (who tended to be poor blacks) because it worked as a great stimulant allowing them to work longer and harder. Unfortunately some people were able to whip up the fear of some cocaine-crazed black man raping a white woman. They said that cocaine makes them uncontrolled and violent, so the scary blacks are going to go on a rampage raping and pillaging if we don’t ban cocaine. Those few who pointed out that the majority of the population used cocaine in many different forms were shouted down as not caring about their poor neighbors who were about to be raped and killed any second by drug crazed black men.

Because freedom's hard to stomach and most people are pussies.

Because freedom's hard to stomach and most people are pussies.
Close enough.

The problem with a laissez faire social policy (just as with a similar economic policy) is that people have to be responsible for themselves. We have too many people who refuse to take responsibility for their own imbecilic behavior.

It's funny, liberals all tend to believe people are all good and decent, and we can all live in harmony together. (Read: blind optimism)

Conservatives tend to believe that people are horrible monsters that want to kill each other and do all manner of horrible things, so must be controlled if they are to survive. (Read: blind pessimism)

(Of course, they seem to switch platforms with surprising regularity, depending on the issue)

Personally, I believe that people are annoying, stupid creatures that I would rather not have to associate with. Since that's not possible, I'd love (really, really love) a live-and-let-live philosophy, if people'd just abide by the and-let-live part.

Do you know why cocaine was first banned? It was because of racist fears – cocaine was used quite a bit by dock workers (who tended to be poor blacks) because it worked as a great stimulant allowing them to work longer and harder. Unfortunately some people were able to whip up the fear of some cocaine-crazed black man raping a white woman. They said that cocaine makes them uncontrolled and violent, so the scary blacks are going to go on a rampage raping and pillaging if we don’t ban cocaine. Those few who pointed out that the majority of the population used cocaine in many different forms were shouted down as not caring about their poor neighbors who were about to be raped and killed any second by drug crazed black men.
Opium was made illegal because people were afraid of chinese men dragging white women to opium dens and raping them. Before that, opium use was considered as bad as caffeine. Most people drank coffee in the morning to wake up, and smoked opium at night to go to sleep. But suddenly it was outlawed.

Marijuana was made illegal because of the fear of Mexicans getting high and then starting fights, raping white women, and becoming lazy, apathetic workers (a stereotype that still persists because Mexican farm workers would do their jobs high in the '10's & '20's).

It's amazing how easy it is to get a drug outlawed by saying, "X racial group will take it and rape white women."

It's funny, liberals all tend to believe people are all good and decent, and we can all live in harmony together. (Read: blind optimism)

Conservatives tend to believe that people are horrible monsters that want to kill each other and do all manner of horrible things, so must be controlled if they are to survive. (Read: blind pessimism)


Thats why centrism pwns.

Do you know why cocaine was first banned? It was because of racist fears – cocaine was used quite a bit by dock workers (who tended to be poor blacks) because it worked as a great stimulant allowing them to work longer and harder. Unfortunately some people were able to whip up the fear of some cocaine-crazed black man raping a white woman. They said that cocaine makes them uncontrolled and violent, so the scary blacks are going to go on a rampage raping and pillaging if we don’t ban cocaine. Those few who pointed out that the majority of the population used cocaine in many different forms were shouted down as not caring about their poor neighbors who were about to be raped and killed any second by drug crazed black men.

Cannabis was outlawed for some different, but equally stupid reasons. Its industrial uses are too wide-spanning for the "safety of industry." For example, cannabis produces 4 times as much paper per acre as conventional pulping. Biodegradable plastic stronger than anything currently available can be made from it. Hemp clothes and hemp rope are both more durable than synthetics, and biodegradable as a bonus. Fuel can be made from hemp far more easily than with oil or corn.

Also, marijuana(a disgusting word I make a point of not using) was used to describe it for racist reasons. The word was Mexican slang for cannabis and people with ulterior motives for its banning used it as a way of saying "we should keep this plant and the people who grow it out because it's ostensibly a soul-destroying weed(but i dont really care. the important thing is that it will actually put my lumber company out of business if it stays legal)."

Thats why centrism pwns.

I must grudgingly admit, now that I have become a centrist democracy, that you are totally right. But I'm still a minarchist and say that totally-centered centrism is bad. Centrism falling just below minarchism is the best system.

First let me say that I was a Libertarian at one point. Everyone knows that the government is broke, so lets get rid of it...essentially. But it was a case of come for the "war on drugs" polices, stay for the lower taxes. Here are 3 brief arguments against libertarianism.

Firstly "Leave it Be" economics is a joke to corporations. Even big corporations would jump and scream if we implemented that. Think of it: Big government bailouts, subsidies, and huge government contracts. Also the only members of the business community that you will find arguing for less regulation are those that stand to gain from it big business can't stand the idea of free competition. I also point to companies like Wal-Mart who can look to the government to insure thier workers and police thier parking lots. Ok this is probable an arguement for less government, but I think it helps to explain why we do not have "Let it Be" economics

Sencondly, One of the ideas of Libertarianism is that with less government there would be less taxes, with less taxes, individuals would fund private charities that would fill the vaccum that government programs used to provide. My problem with this is that I suspect that largest portion of civil society to step in would be religious organizations. I suspect this because some religious leaders openly call for this. I look to society in the middle east and Europe during the middle ages for reasons for why this is disfunctional. Furthermore I believe it would undermine another foundational American value (since we are into quoting Jefferson, who cautioned against the influence of the clergy) that is religious (or lack there of) freedom.

Thirdly I I firmly believe that a tyrrany of the government is preferrable to a tyrrany of the business sector (to misquote Chompsky). Of course there is assuming that there is a difference. Government is meant to be accountable and responsive, something that the privite sector is not meant to be.

In the end the bottomline is to me that people get the government that they deserve in a democracy.

Note to non-american persons: you're welcome to join in this too, I'm just afraid I know more about my nation's founding than yours.
i'm not sure if a 230+ year old document has much relavence to any modern debate over issues of morality, but that's a different issue altogether...

i personally am something of a social libertarian (laissez faire socialness), but certainly not economically. however i'm not totally libertarian in this respect and i can see a number of places where government intervention in people's private decisions benefits those people.
that's the main arguement for an authoritarian approach to social policy: to protect people. mostly from themselves.
you recognise that laissez faire economic systems have problems, and most likely you know that one of those problems is overconsumption of demerit goods and underconsumption of merit goods. simple economic fact that cannot be rectified without government intervention in one way or another (the way the govt achieves this is whole other debate)

my favourite example is heroin. a laissez faire social policy would say 'fair game' to let people damage themselves and take the drug. however, it is proven that it is really quite bad for your health (an understatement) and just taking it once or twice will have you hooked. is it not the government's responsibilty to protect its citizens and prevent them from making perhaps what would be only one little mistake by taking the drug, but for which they will be paying for years to come and possibly with their lives. that is not a matter of personal responsibility - the government would be being irresponsible if they simply let people take the drug.
you can argue for better information and that at the end of the day its still a personal choice, which is true. but it is a choice for which the stakes are too high and the concequences of which, despite whatever information may be taught or published, will be unknown or the person will not care. often drugs are a means of escape, especially a "non-recreational" drug like heroin, so you cannot treat an irrational action with rational thought, if you catch my drift (i'm tired and too lazy to explain things properly)


anyway, that's my 2 cents. for the most part i'd say social libertarianism is a good thing but there are reasons against it in terms of protecting citizens from dangers they do not know, or understand, or care about (another example could be smoking: many people know full well the health risks but ignore the advice given or do not care; to protect more people, starting smoking should be discouraged)

the question is how far that ethos is taken in a government trying to protect its citizens...

I'm of a "live and let live" way of thinking. If it doesn't hurt me or anyone besides yourself, you can do what ever you want, I don't care.

Social libertarianism is good, but when you get to the extremes - I'm talking polygamy, legalising hard drugs, legalising handguns, no restrictions on abortion - you're on pretty shaky ground.

Legalising polygamy would disrupt the system of equal distribution of partners that we have created. I suspect that it would lead to patriarchy, as it has done in the past.

Legalising hard drugs has, on the one hand, the massive bonus of putting organised crime out of business. But on the other hand you're giving millions of people access to cocaine and heroin. It's really risky. And once it's done it can't be undone.

Legalising guns is also an uncertain issue. One the one hand, you give the average citizen a tool to defend himself. On the other, you're letting the average person access to a lethal weapon, and you're actually trusting them to use it responsibly (or better yet, not use it at all). And again, once it's done it can't be undone.

Abortions in the second and third trimesters are thankfully rare and should be illegal IMO. In these stages there is not much difference between the foetus and the newborn. Which makes it murder.

Social libertarianism often makes it easier for people to physically injure themselves and other people, which will have to be covered by society to heal them.

"social libertarianism" is usually used to mean socialists whose government permits you freedom in social (drugs, sexuality, styles of clothing ... blah blah) but not economic issues, surely?
Socialism is economic freedom. Capitalism is economic freedom for a minority.

Legalising hard drugs has, on the one hand, the massive bonus of putting organised crime out of business. But on the other hand you're giving millions of people access to cocaine and heroin. It's really risky. And once it's done it can't be undone.
Millions had access to every drug imaginable until the end of the first quarter of the last century. Society, amazingly enough, functioned. And "it can't be undone"? How do you think the government made these drugs illegal? They just did it! They can undo it. I don't think that they should have outlawed them in the first place.

Legalising guns is also an uncertain issue. One the one hand, you give the average citizen a tool to defend himself. On the other, you're letting the average person access to a lethal weapon, and you're actually trusting them to use it responsibly (or better yet, not use it at all). And again, once it's done it can't be undone.

Ooh! This is a good one! I not only live in a country with a Contitutional right to own a gun, but my country is only bordered by countries with the same right. Does America have a high murder rate? Yes. Is this because of our gun rights? No. To argue that is a cum hoc ergo procter hoc. Canada and Mexico both have gun rights, but significantly lower murder rates. "It can't be undone"? How did they take away your right to arm yourself in the first place?

Social libertarianism often makes it easier for people to physically injure themselves and other people, which will have to be covered by society to heal them.

Why? Yes, people are more easily injured, but why is that society's problem?

Socialism is economic freedom. Capitalism is economic freedom for a minority.

Wow. Please explain that one to me. Explain how a government taking money from my pockets allows me decide what and from whom I buy? Are you using some different definition of economic freedom?

"social libertarianism" is usually used to mean socialists whose government permits you freedom in social (drugs, sexuality, styles of clothing ... blah blah) but not economic issues, surely?

Yeah, cuz I'm one... minus the whole "prisoner's rights" thing... they should do somethin' useful... like fix New Orleans or something like that... work will fix 'em good, IMVHO.

@ PM

Merit and demerit goods? What are these and who decides which goods fall in which category. There is a major clue to what is wrong here in the term goods, if you consider the meaning of the word.

To argue that a government would be irresponsible in letting peopple do things that harm themselves is to presume that the government has a responsibility to prevent people from harming themselves. That presumption is one that I challenge. The individual, not some abstract socially constructed entity, is responsible for themself. You ask:
is it not the government's responsibilty to protect its citizens and prevent them from making perhaps what would be only one little mistake by taking the drug
ands I answer - it depends. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens yes, but only from others, not from themselves.

As soon as you start allowing that a government has to protect its citizens from making a mistake, then you start on the road of Government enforced behaviour. (There is no other way of preventing "mistakes".) This would lead us back to the Victorian systems of controlled environments for disruptive youths (Borstals for the UK NSers) Teenagers that get pregnant are removed from their family and locked up etc. Where do you stop? The Government decides what education and training you will receive (after all a mistake here will destroy the rest of your life)?

Freedom, unfortunately, is a double edged weapon. I am a social (and economic) libertarian, and I choose to be free from Government meddling in my life as much as is possible, and as a consequence I also accept that I am free to mess my life up - completely, and if I do it is my fault.

Furthermore I believe it would undermine another foundational American value (since we are into quoting Jefferson, who cautioned against the influence of the clergy) that is religious (or lack there of) freedom.
How so?


Thirdly I I firmly believe that a tyrrany of the government is preferrable to a tyrrany of the business sector (to misquote Chompsky). Of course there is assuming that there is a difference. Government is meant to be accountable and responsive, something that the privite sector is not meant to be.
How is the private sector not accountable and responsive? I would claim that a private company is more responsive and accountable than a government program, as while the public can affect the company easily by refucing to buy it's goods, in a democracy people can only really vote for a large "block" of policies, which makes targeting an individual government program much harder than targeting a single company.

Millions had access to every drug imaginable until the end of the first quarter of the last century. Society, amazingly enough, functioned. And "it can't be undone"? How do you think the government made these drugs illegal? They just did it! They can undo it. I don't think that they should have outlawed them in the first place.
Maybe millions couldn't afford them back then. We have a problem with junkies now. Legalising heroin won't make any of them stop taking it, and will encourage more people to take it. Addiction takes over their minds, leading them to hurt and steal from people in order to buy more drugs.

Ooh! This is a good one! I not only live in a country with a Contitutional right to own a gun, but my country is only bordered by countries with the same right. Does America have a high murder rate? Yes. Is this because of our gun rights? No. To argue that is a cum hoc ergo procter hoc. Canada and Mexico both have gun rights, but significantly lower murder rates. "It can't be undone"? How did they take away your right to arm yourself in the first place?
Canada and Mexico still have high murder rates compared to Europe. People kill people, granted, but guns make it much easier to pull off a successful murder. Even murders that happen in anger would not all be possible without guns - in which case you'd have a case of assault which is still better than a case of murder. Once you legalise guns they flood the country. Any attempt to ban them will result in a the creation of a huge black market.

Why? Yes, people are more easily injured, but why is that society's problem?
Because society has to pay for their healing.

Wow. Please explain that one to me. Explain how a government taking money from my pockets allows me decide what and from whom I buy?
Your idea of economic freedom merely guarantees my freedom to starve and to die of sickness/injury.

For people to enjoy true freedom, we don't need to total economic equality, but we do need provisions of food, shelter, water and healthcare.

Yes, the wealthy minority may be marginally less free, but the majority will be more free.

Maybe millions couldn't afford them back then. We have a problem with junkies now. Legalising heroin won't make any of them stop taking it, and will encourage more people to take it. Addiction takes over their minds, leading them to hurt and steal from people in order to buy more drugs.
Luckily, by making them illegal, we don't have that problem. Since no one wants to break the law, no one will ever do heroin. If they hurt or steal from someone, guess what? Now they've violated someone's rights, and they get to go to prison. But if you're sticking a needle in my arm, you're not hurting me at all. There's no need for my tax dollars to go to the police, courts and prisons just because some politician fifty years ago didn't like heroin.

Canada and Mexico still have high murder rates compared to Europe. People kill people, granted, but guns make it much easier to pull off a successful murder. Even murders that happen in anger would not all be possible without guns - in which case you'd have a case of assault which is still better than a case of murder. Once you legalise guns they flood the country. Any attempt to ban them will result in a the creation of a huge black market.

Where do you live, honestly? Because you've clearly never been to a country with gun rights. We don't have door-to-door gun salesmen (at least not in Oregon). I wouldn't say the market is "flooded". And guess what, chachi? You've just made my point for me as for not outlawing firearms. I do not like the black market, Sam I am. So the Second Amendment stays. Also, Canada and Mexico have low murder rates compared to my country. And compared to Europe? They may have a few murders, but at least they have freedom.

Because society has to pay for their healing.

Oh, but this is the cool thing. They don't. Haha. See, from your general ignorance about gun rights and the above line, can I fairly guess that you're a young person from a socialist country. Am I right? Yeah, here in the western hemisphere, we're not too all "up" on socialism. Canada and Bolivia come the closest, and Canada is by no definition of the word socialist. In the least. Like, at all. So, how kind towards socialist policies do you think the US is? Not very. So, you do something stupid? Guess who pays for it? You! Can't pay for it? Well, don't do something stupid? What if it isn't your fault? Well, we have something cool called common law. You sue the person responsible, and then they pay for it.

Your idea of economic freedom merely guarantees my freedom to starve and to die of sickness/injury.

For people to enjoy true freedom, we don't need to total economic equality, but we do need provisions of food, shelter, water and healthcare.

Yes, the wealthy minority may be marginally less free, but the majority will be more free.

I had no idea that your entire family died and that you have no friends whatsoever. Because how else could you arrive in a situation that you have absolutely no one to turn to if this were to happen to you? I'd rather crash at a friend's place than work through the red tape of the government. Also, friends are a lot more likely to help if the government isn't taking away so much of their money that they can only afford to take care of themselves. Capitalism has its benefits. I find it amazing that people say, "Imagine how much better if the government was responsible for X." I wonder if these people have ever been to the DMV…

Your idea of economic freedom merely guarantees my freedom to starve and to die of sickness/injury.
Well if that isn't emotionally loaded....


For people to enjoy true freedom, we don't need to total economic equality, but we do need provisions of food, shelter, water and healthcare.
And who shall provide it?


Yes, the wealthy minority may be marginally less free, but the majority will be more free.
Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
We've always been at war with Eurasia. Thinking anything else is doubleplusungood crimethink.

We've always been at war with Eurasia. Thinking anything else is doubleplusungood crimethink.
Nonono. We've always been at war with Eastasia, even if we haven't changed the flags from Eurasia yet. You don't want Miniluv to visit you, do you?