Libertarianism: what is it?

Pages

It doesn't matter whether you lean left, right, or towards anarchy. At the extremes of each side is oppression.

I believe that's true, Bandit.

SixteenBlue wrote:

My point was that my taxes are not taken by force, they're giving voluntarily. The only time force is used is when someone receives while refusing to give what they owe.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Taxes are not taken by force. I voluntarily pay them because I choose to live in a society, preferably one with a social net. The only time force is involves is when you choose to take part in a society but choose not to pay the dues required.

Isn't this a very dangerous argument to make? If you adopt the logic that as long as someone is free to leave a society it means any demands that society places on the individual are voluntary, then we've thrown the idea of human rights that all governments must respect out the window as long as they respect this one right, the right to join another society.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

My point was that my taxes are not taken by force, they're giving voluntarily. The only time force is used is when someone receives while refusing to give what they owe.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Taxes are not taken by force. I voluntarily pay them because I choose to live in a society, preferably one with a social net. The only time force is involves is when you choose to take part in a society but choose not to pay the dues required.

Isn't this a very dangerous argument to make? If you adopt the logic that as long as someone is free to leave a society it means any demands that society places on the individual are voluntary, then we've thrown the idea of human rights that all governments must respect out the window as long as they respect this one right, the right to join another society.

Isn't that concept a cornerstone of Libertarian ideals? The idea that if product A doesn't meet your needs then choose product B that does?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

My point was that my taxes are not taken by force, they're giving voluntarily. The only time force is used is when someone receives while refusing to give what they owe.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Taxes are not taken by force. I voluntarily pay them because I choose to live in a society, preferably one with a social net. The only time force is involves is when you choose to take part in a society but choose not to pay the dues required.

Isn't this a very dangerous argument to make? If you adopt the logic that as long as someone is free to leave a society it means any demands that society places on the individual are voluntary, then we've thrown the idea of human rights that all governments must respect out the window as long as they respect this one right, the right to join another society.

Isn't that concept a cornerstone of Libertarian ideals? The idea that if product A doesn't meet your needs then choose product B that does?

Society is a product? Doesn't that mean government is just another corporation? : D

CheezePavilion wrote:

Society is a product? Doesn't that mean government is just another corporation? : D

This whole time I've been describing government as an exchange of money (taxes) for services. I'm not calling it a corporation but I don't see why it's weird to think of it as a product you're purchasing.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Society is a product? Doesn't that mean government is just another corporation? : D

This whole time I've been describing government as an exchange of money (taxes) for services. I'm not calling it a corporation but I don't see why it's weird to think of it as a product you're purchasing.

So what happens when the government offers an exchange of money (taxes) for services where only Christians get a discount? Where some services are not offered to women? If the only human right a government has to respect is the right to join another society, then why would unjust discrimination on the basis of religion/sex/etc. be impermissible?

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Society is a product? Doesn't that mean government is just another corporation? : D

This whole time I've been describing government as an exchange of money (taxes) for services. I'm not calling it a corporation but I don't see why it's weird to think of it as a product you're purchasing.

So what happens when the government offers an exchange of money (taxes) for services where only Christians get a discount? Where some services are not offered to women? If the only human right a government has to respect is the right to join another society, then why would unjust discrimination on the basis of religion/sex/etc. be impermissible?

A) Who said it's the only right that has to be respected? B) You leave? How is that different than any other system in place? All governments can be corrupt and awful and all of them can make life awful, but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental issue with government. Just like all corporations can be corrupt and awful but that doesn't mean they all are or we shouldn't have them. I don't even understand what you're getting at.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Society is a product? Doesn't that mean government is just another corporation? : D

This whole time I've been describing government as an exchange of money (taxes) for services. I'm not calling it a corporation but I don't see why it's weird to think of it as a product you're purchasing.

So what happens when the government offers an exchange of money (taxes) for services where only Christians get a discount? Where some services are not offered to women? If the only human right a government has to respect is the right to join another society, then why would unjust discrimination on the basis of religion/sex/etc. be impermissible?

A) Who said it's the only right that has to be respected?

You did: when you say that choosing to live in a society means you volunteer to pay whatever dues that society imposes on you, well, whatever human rights that government doesn't respect, you volunteered for that treatment.

B) You leave? How is that different than any other system in place? All governments can be corrupt and awful and all of them can make life awful, but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental issue with government. Just like all corporations can be corrupt and awful but that doesn't mean they all are or we shouldn't have them. I don't even understand what you're getting at.

And I think that's why you're failing to grasp where Libertarians are coming from. It's different in that if you believe government *should* recognize certain human rights and it does not, you get to complain and say something is morally wrong even after you leave. According to the logic of your criticism of Libertarianism, once you have the option to leave, you can't complain that anything any government does is morally wrong: anyone that chooses to stay--like you said--has volunteered to pay those dues.

CheezePavilion wrote:
A) Who said it's the only right that has to be respected?

You did: when you say that choosing to live in a society means you volunteer to pay whatever dues that society imposes on you, well, whatever human rights that government doesn't respect, you volunteered for that treatment.

I absolutely did not say that. I said taxes aren't taken by force because I am choosing to be part of the society. That doesn't mean I agree to EVERYTHING they can ever do to me.

CheezePavilion wrote:
B) You leave? How is that different than any other system in place? All governments can be corrupt and awful and all of them can make life awful, but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental issue with government. Just like all corporations can be corrupt and awful but that doesn't mean they all are or we shouldn't have them. I don't even understand what you're getting at.

And I think that's why you're failing to grasp where Libertarians are coming from. It's different in that if you believe government *should* recognize certain human rights and it does not, you get to complain and say something is morally wrong even after you leave. According to the logic of your criticism of Libertarianism, once you have the option to leave, you can't complain that anything any government does is morally wrong: anyone that chooses to stay--like you said--has volunteered to pay those dues.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
A) Who said it's the only right that has to be respected?

You did: when you say that choosing to live in a society means you volunteer to pay whatever dues that society imposes on you, well, whatever human rights that government doesn't respect, you volunteered for that treatment.

I absolutely did not say that. I said taxes aren't taken by force because I am choosing to be part of the society. That doesn't mean I agree to EVERYTHING they can ever do to me.

Okay, but now you're making another argument in addition to that one: taxes are different from other things society imposes on you. Once we get involved in those arguments, it might be harder to back up your argument about taxes being voluntary because you can always leave.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

Um, if people didn't think taxes were oppression, they wouldn't be Libertarians in the first place!

CheezePavilion wrote:
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

Um, if people didn't think taxes were oppression, they wouldn't be Libertarians in the first place!

Well that's an unproductive stance. Why bother having a discussion if it requires an assumption not be challenged?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

Um, if people didn't think taxes were oppression, they wouldn't be Libertarians in the first place!

Well that's an unproductive stance. Why bother having a discussion if it requires an assumption not be challenged?

Cheeze's axioms are the best axioms.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

Um, if people didn't think taxes were oppression, they wouldn't be Libertarians in the first place!

Well that's an unproductive stance. Why bother having a discussion if it requires an assumption not be challenged?

Telling people to "just stop acting like" is not a 'challenge' that's part of a 'discussion'. Of course you can challenge that stance, but telling people to just drop what they believe and agree with you is not very productive either.

Toning down the rhetoric is another matter, but do you see that you're not asking for a discussion here, you're asking people to just agree with you that they are 'choosing a dynamic relationship'? If they agreed with you about that, they wouldn't be Libertarians (or even in many cases, the kind of liberals they are) in the first place, and there would be no discussion necessary to begin with. They'd just be someone with the same beliefs you have, only maybe with a difference of opinion on negotiating on room for improvement.

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying drop the gunpoint and slavery rhetoric because this is a dynamic relationship that you are choosing to be in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't negotiate and there isn't room for improvement, just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes.

Um, if people didn't think taxes were oppression, they wouldn't be Libertarians in the first place!

Well that's an unproductive stance. Why bother having a discussion if it requires an assumption not be challenged?

Telling people to "just stop acting like" is not a 'challenge' that's part of a 'discussion'. Of course you can challenge that stance, but telling people to just drop what they believe and agree with you is not very productive either.

Toning down the rhetoric is another matter, but do you see that you're not asking for a discussion here, you're asking people to just agree with you that they are 'choosing a dynamic relationship'? If they agreed with you about that, they wouldn't be Libertarians (or even in many cases, the kind of liberals they are) in the first place, and there would be no discussion necessary to begin with. They'd just be someone with the same beliefs you have, only maybe with a difference of opinion on negotiating on room for improvement.

So if you think something is objectively false you can't say "stop saying that" because that's not a productive way to treat someone's beliefs? Again, what's the point of discussing then? I do realize this is a discussion but I didn't think I was required to preface all posts with "It is my opinion that..." I'm not the one that shut down the discussion with a useless truism.

SixteenBlue wrote:

So if you think something is objectively false you can't say "stop saying that" because that's not a productive way to treat someone's beliefs?

Of course you can, but then you have to back it up. Like, for instance, you have to defend it against the criticism I'm making of it here: that it leads to a situation where extra taxes for non-Christians or men getting extra benefits are okay, because *those* societies can say the same thing: it's voluntary, because we allow you to leave. You can't just dismiss it by restating your own beliefs louder and telling people to simply recognize them by saying "just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes."

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

So if you think something is objectively false you can't say "stop saying that" because that's not a productive way to treat someone's beliefs?

Of course you can, but then you have to back it up. Like, for instance, you have to defend it against the criticism I'm making of it here: that it leads to a situation where extra taxes for non-Christians or men getting extra benefits are okay, because *those* societies can say the same thing: it's voluntary, because we allow you to leave. You can't just dismiss it by restating your own beliefs louder and telling people to simply recognize them by saying "just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes."

I don't need to back up the stances you've created for me because they're not mine. I never said it's ok to tax non-Christians. I never said the government has no accountability and that part of the contract you're entering doesn't include participation in the government process. I'm not saying oppression is ok because you can leave, I'm saying taxes are not oppression because you choose to be part of the society. You can't create a hypothetical situation where a government oppresses someone and use that to say "taxes are oppression."

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

So if you think something is objectively false you can't say "stop saying that" because that's not a productive way to treat someone's beliefs?

Of course you can, but then you have to back it up. Like, for instance, you have to defend it against the criticism I'm making of it here: that it leads to a situation where extra taxes for non-Christians or men getting extra benefits are okay, because *those* societies can say the same thing: it's voluntary, because we allow you to leave. You can't just dismiss it by restating your own beliefs louder and telling people to simply recognize them by saying "just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes."

I don't need to back up the stances you've created for me because they're not mine. I never said it's ok to tax non-Christians. I never said the government has no accountability and that part of the contract you're entering doesn't include participation in the government process. I'm not saying oppression is ok because you can leave, I'm saying taxes are not oppression because you choose to be part of the society. You can't create a hypothetical situation where a government oppresses someone and use that to say "taxes are oppression."

So why can't someone say "discrimination is not oppression because you choose to be a part of the society"?

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

So if you think something is objectively false you can't say "stop saying that" because that's not a productive way to treat someone's beliefs?

Of course you can, but then you have to back it up. Like, for instance, you have to defend it against the criticism I'm making of it here: that it leads to a situation where extra taxes for non-Christians or men getting extra benefits are okay, because *those* societies can say the same thing: it's voluntary, because we allow you to leave. You can't just dismiss it by restating your own beliefs louder and telling people to simply recognize them by saying "just stop acting like government is oppressing you because you don't want to pay taxes."

I don't need to back up the stances you've created for me because they're not mine. I never said it's ok to tax non-Christians. I never said the government has no accountability and that part of the contract you're entering doesn't include participation in the government process. I'm not saying oppression is ok because you can leave, I'm saying taxes are not oppression because you choose to be part of the society. You can't create a hypothetical situation where a government oppresses someone and use that to say "taxes are oppression."

So why can't someone say "discrimination is not oppression because you choose to be a part of the society"?

Because there's no inherent social contract that says you are trading oppression for the benefits of a society. Discrimination is not required for a government to function. Money is.

Edit: These are absurd scenarios/statements you are constructing. I imagine you think so too and you're trying to point out flaws in my logic but do you really think I'm so asinine to think discrimination is not oppression?

SixteenBlue wrote:
So why can't someone say "discrimination is not oppression because you choose to be a part of the society"?

Because there's no inherent social contract that says you are trading oppression for the benefits of a society. Discrimination is not required for a government to function. Money is.

Leaving considerations like this to the side for the time being, you're right: money is required for a government to function. Taxes are how a government gets money (let's just assume for now). The issue is you want to tax the people of your society to fund a social net. However, unlike money, a government does not need a social net to function.

(edited for clarity)

CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
So why can't someone say "discrimination is not oppression because you choose to be a part of the society"?

Because there's no inherent social contract that says you are trading oppression for the benefits of a society. Discrimination is not required for a government to function. Money is.

Leaving considerations like this to the side for the time being, you're right: money is required for a government to function. Taxes are how a government gets money (let's just assume for now). The issue is you want to tax the people of your society to fund a social net. However, unlike money, a government does not need a social net to function.

(edited for clarity)

Sure, and there's plenty of room for discussion about the necessary size of a government. But we can put that aside too and focus on the bare minimum government that Libertarians would approve of and it still requires money which still requires taxation. You're still exchanging your money for those services and that's not oppression or force.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
So why can't someone say "discrimination is not oppression because you choose to be a part of the society"?

Because there's no inherent social contract that says you are trading oppression for the benefits of a society. Discrimination is not required for a government to function. Money is.

Leaving considerations like this to the side for the time being, you're right: money is required for a government to function. Taxes are how a government gets money (let's just assume for now). The issue is you want to tax the people of your society to fund a social net. However, unlike money, a government does not need a social net to function.

(edited for clarity)

Sure, and there's plenty of room for discussion about the necessary size of a government. But we can put that aside too and focus on the bare minimum government that Libertarians would approve of and it still requires money which still requires taxation. You're still exchanging your money for those services and that's not oppression or force.

I think there's a different argument on which to base a Libertarian government that doesn't depend on your 'money for services' model. Let's say the jackbooted thugs from the government come along and put a gun to my enslaved head and demand money in order to protect property by funding say, a police force or a court system.

I say "I'm being oppressed--I don't believe in protecting property!"

They say "so why are you complaining about your property being taken?"

Then I say:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/Lib.jpg)

In other words, in order to criticize a service that protects your property from taking your property, you either have to argue (a) it does a bad job, or (b) that you don't believe in protecting property. The issue, of course, being that if you argue (b) you've just undermined your own argument.

And (a) I guess is much of what distinguishes anarchist libertarians from night watchmen libertarians yadda yadda yadda.

Heh. It's always interesting to watch people try to grapple with libertarian thought when they first encounter it.

Notably, the Libertarian Orientation Scale and traditional measures of political ideology that run along a liberal-conservative axis are only weakly correlated.

But then they try to cram it in anyway. Sigh.

That article confused me. "Communitarian"? This is a kind of communalism-oriented anarchist?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

That article confused me. "Communitarian"? This is a kind of communalism-oriented anarchist?

It's someone who believes government should be run with Jeff Winger in charge and Senor Chang as Secretary of State.

Bloo Driver wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

That article confused me. "Communitarian"? This is a kind of communalism-oriented anarchist?

It's someone who believes government should be run with Jeff Winger in charge and Senor Chang as Secretary of State.

That government would chang the world.

Pages