NationStates Jolt Archive

Long ago in the "Why do dems consider libertarians enemies?" thread, xenophobialand asked me to prevent a consistent minarchist view of libertarianism that was different from anarcho-capitalism. While any explanation of libertarianism should satisfy, looking at his left-wing thinking I feel I should oblige.

That said, I'm going to explain a good minarchist state, and many of its characteristics.

Bill of Rights is set in stone, and weapons are largely deregulated, as regulated weapons are very rarely used in crime. The government is realistic about the effects of the laws it passes and does not seek to inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

Laws are subject to the Principles of Freedom, i.e. the Non-aggression principle, where nobody may initiate force but once it has been initiated the gloves are off, and the Principle of Autonomous Liberty, where a man's actions are his own choice unless they harm or endanger others.

The government takes a calculates a budget at the beginning of each fiscal year and keeps excellent birth and death records so that the population is kept track of.

When the budget is calculated, a flat tax is administered, being the total budget requirements of the government for the year plus 25 percent of that quantity as reserve for unforeseen circumstances.

The size of the government is reduced by ninety percent from what it is currently, so that government jobs are 1) giving salaries sufficient to be competitive with similarly skilled jobs in the private sector and 2) far fewer.

The court system is reformed, and vastly shrunk, and many of its functions privatized. Sensible judges are chosen who will not accept victim culture cases and PC-issues. It is formally established that people do not have a right to not be offended, reducing 60 percent of the courts' workload and vastly streamlining their efficiency.

With the vast reduction of PC cases, police can excercise their judgement far more frequently and far more effectively, and far more cases can be dealt with without court action. Police applicants are heavily screened, like any other government employee, for racism, short temper, and other undesirable characteristics in a public official.

The bulk of the things the government currently does have been streamlined by privatization. The advantage here is that by running their business with private companies under contract, undesirable employees can be canned easily and management problems can be dealt with under pain of contract termination. Social welfare has been phased out in favor of private charity. Only administrative, judicial, legislative and executive functions at their highest levels remain in the hands of the government itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other things will be added as people request explanations of them.
People who oppose this are requested to post a rational, egalitarian, non-circular argument against it, and explain their position on the Nolan Map (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html).

When the budget is calculated, a flat tax is administered, being the total budget requirements of the government for the year plus 25 percent of that quantity as reserve for unforeseen circumstances.
I assume that all individuals have rights, which may not be encroached upon In addition, I assume that it is intrinsic to the nature of these rights that there can be no justification whatsoever for their violation. Furthermore, rights should definitely not matter in the way of utilitarian ends, but as restrictions upon means that generate possible ends. Thus, protecting the rights of many does not justify the violation of rights of one, since we assume that human beings have only one life and therefore, a greater good upon one would not make right a lesser evil upon another. In sum, individuals have rights, as deontological restrictions upon ends, which should not be violated.

I strongly believe that people need more than these rights in order to lead a meaningful life, since an individual is only able to exercise his intrinsic rights if he has a minimal amount of holdings, enabling him to be independent of others

Consequently, I do not agree with the libertarian right to possession, for it does not allow the redistribution of entitled holdings in order to help the less advantaged.

Life, Liberty and Property are interlocking rights. The three are inseperable.

That one's life belongs to one's self, and only one's self is the basis of ownership.

That I do what I will with my life in the form of liberty, is a further indicator of ownership over my life and my actions.

That I might be at liberty to do what I will with the physical results of my actions, which is property, the physical manifestation of my life and liberty.

To say that I cannot control the physical manifestations of my life and liberty is to say that I cannot control my life and liberty.

Much as to say that I cannot control my liberty is to say that I cannot control my life, and to say that I cannot control my life obviously shows that I cannot control my liberty or my property.

It's all or nothing. ∞ or 0, nothing in between.

That I might be at liberty to do what I will with the physical results of my actions, which is property, the physical manifestation of my life and liberty.

I agree you have the right to the fruits of your labour, however a major part of property is not based on the fruits of your labour…

You must first show that you are indeed entitled to your property

I also consider the tittle of the thread a bit off...

Reading the title one would not expect a discussion of libertarianism...;)

I agree you have the right to the fruits of your labour, however a major part of property is not based on the fruits of your labour…

Eh?

Eh?

A large part of your property has been acquired through earlier generations… This includes your parents, and therefore your start in life (education for example) You have no intrinsic rights to this part of your property.

Let us take into account the liberty of your parents:

One has the right to do with their entitled holding as one pleases; hence this includes transferring it to another, whereupon the other becomes entitled to the holding and the first is no longer.*

You will agree to this, right?

*Nozick call this the principle of just transfer

The problem lies in the original aquisition, while leaving enough for others to use...

A large part of your property has been acquired through earlier generations… This includes your parents, and therefore your start in life (education for example) You have no intrinsic rights to this part of your property.
Of course, one must take into account the fact that your parents made their property, and passed it onto you of their own free will, as did their parents, and their parents, and their parents ad infinitum. Given that this is a free exchange, you clearly have a right to those parts of your property.

Of course, one must take into account the fact that your parents made their property, and passed it onto you of their own free will, as did their parents, and their parents, and their parents ad infinitum. Given that this is a free exchange, you clearly have a right to those parts of your property.


This only work if there is just original aquisition...

Also it makes later generations responsible for the actions of earlier generations

Shit, must go still want to debate libertarianism onother time though, i will have to get back at that

The problem lies in the original aquisition, while leaving enough for others to use...
What matters is if it is in use or not, if something is found in a state of nature, where it belongs to no one, and others are not using it, then you have infinite rights to produce with what you find. When stuff is in a state-of-nature, contrary to the claims of some, it is not held in common, instead it is not held at all. Others have no just claim ex post facto if they did not use it.

What matters is if it is in use or not, if something is found in a state of nature, where it belongs to no one, and others are not using it, then you have infinite rights to produce with what you find. When stuff is in a state-of-nature, contrary to the claims of some, it is not held in common, instead it is not held at all. Others have no just claim ex post facto if they did not use it.
I do not agree.

Commons exist because others have rights as well. If you take something that another previously could use, then he/she can now no longer use it. Consequently, you infringe of the rights of other to use the same object. Moreover, when do you acquire ownership? Do you have to declare a plot of land is yours, do you have to put a fence around it or do you have to work it? Does your claim of the land include all that is beneath the ground, does it include the skies above? To justly claim property there must remain enough to be used for others. You can not justly claim the only well in an area and let the others die of thirst.

This is actually more problematic than you allow it to be.

Then there is the historical problem that many that has previously been acquired was not acquired by just means, but through the infringement of rights: through theft and conquest.

I assume that all individuals have rights, which may not be encroached upon In addition, I assume that it is intrinsic to the nature of these rights that there can be no justification whatsoever for their violation. Furthermore, rights should definitely not matter in the way of utilitarian ends, but as restrictions upon means that generate possible ends. Thus, protecting the rights of many does not justify the violation of rights of one, since we assume that human beings have only one life and therefore, a greater good upon one would not make right a lesser evil upon another. In sum, individuals have rights, as deontological restrictions upon ends, which should not be violated.

I strongly believe that people need more than these rights in order to lead a meaningful life, since an individual is only able to exercise his intrinsic rights if he has a minimal amount of holdings, enabling him to be independent of others

Consequently, I do not agree with the libertarian right to possession, for it does not allow the redistribution of entitled holdings in order to help the less advantaged.

People with their holdings can redistribute them if they damn well please. Granted, I didn't say that the poor sit starving in the streets while being urged to get real jobs, I said that private charity takes the place of government welfare.

An important point for socialists to ponder is what public ownership of the means of production does to their effectiveness. There is no reason or incentive to can an undesirable employee.

Besides, practically speaking, the only functions of government that cannot be handled more effectively by privatization are administration and the military. History has shown that the more things are put into the hands of the government, the less ends up being accomplished in those areas.

Also, I'm sort of surprised xenophobialand himself hasnt responded. Last time I read anything of his it was something like "So why don't you, as a libertarian, go sit in your ivory tower and count your money. Maybe join the Flat Earth Society for good measure," directed at me. From what I read, he is incapable of distinguishing minarchism from anarcho-capitalism.