Libertarianism: what is it?

Thanks, guys. Now this is stuck in my head:

On libertarian liberty:

Assume a libertarian society. In it, a child is born to poor, unskilled parents. The parents, working together, are barely able to make enough money to pay for food, clothing, and shelter (no minimum wage, no unions), and are almost never at home (no 40-hour work week). The child receives no meaningful education, because the parents can't afford to pay for school (no public school system). Even if incredibly self-motivated, the child can't even choose to educate himself (no public libraries, and no way to even learn how to read in the first place).

Assuming the kid doesn't die of disease or malnutrition, he grows up, takes one of the awful jobs that is available to his illiterate, totally unskilled self, and spends his life much like his parents did, with no opportunity for self-improvement at any point. Rinse, repeat.

To a libertarian, that child was perfectly free, because the government never told it what to do. So, yay! To me, that child lived a constrained, blinkered, wasted life, and never had any liberty in any meaningful sense.

Liberty is a nebulous concept, I know, and different folks have different conceptions of it. But the libertarian conception seems so limited and insufficient that I don't see how anyone even thinks it's desirable.

Malor wrote:

Right, exactly. These things are true. They are also evil. They may also be necessary, but we should never forget that we are coercing people at gunpoint, and do as little of it as we can.

I tend to think more coercion is required than most true Libertarians, but I don't candy-coat the reality of what's happening. All political power ultimately comes from the willingness to use force on the minority.

jonstock wrote:

On libertarian liberty:

Assume a libertarian society. In it, a child is born

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/liber2y.jpg)
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..." - Dr. Suchong

This is where the conversation should go: we have things called "children" that are just as human as any adult, but it can't be a moral system that leaves them to fend for their own. Or even makes them the sole responsibility of their parents. Not only does it take a village to raise a child, but a child has the right to demand that the village raise it. I think it's much better to go down this route than a more extreme one just because the more extreme arguments are less easily criticized by Libertarians. We don't need to sugar coat reality, we just need the courage of conviction to stand up for what we really believe in.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Robear wrote:

Wow. So, rule of law is no different from the Mafia? Really? That's where your thinking takes you?

I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

I've always thought the "taxes are taken at gunpoint" rhetoric was just rhetoric but apparently it's actually believed.

It's actually true. It doesn't mean you have to become a Libertarian, it just means you don't sugar-coat the reality. In the end, taxes are taken at gunpoint, otherwise we wouldn't call them taxes, we'd call them donations.

That's an extreme false dichotomy. Either it's a donation or it's taken at gunpoint? Is the voluntary exchange of money for services not an option?

But only on the minority? Again, rule of law? You're saying in one breath that it's a necessary evil, but then you say it's not actually there, by alleging that it doesn't really apply to everyone... From my perspective, as a white male and hence part of your presumed privileged class, I can't think of any laws that I can break and have ignored, where someone in a minority would get nabbed for them in the same circumstances. That's not to say the system is always *fair*, but alleging that the "majority" is going to escape it seems wrong. I would think the proper formula is that the willingness to use force on *all* citizens is what's bothering you, but maybe I misunderstand your arguments from earlier conversations.

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Robear wrote:

Wow. So, rule of law is no different from the Mafia? Really? That's where your thinking takes you?

I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

I've always thought the "taxes are taken at gunpoint" rhetoric was just rhetoric but apparently it's actually believed.

It's actually true. It doesn't mean you have to become a Libertarian, it just means you don't sugar-coat the reality. In the end, taxes are taken at gunpoint, otherwise we wouldn't call them taxes, we'd call them donations.

That's an extreme false dichotomy. Either it's a donation or it's taken at gunpoint? Is the voluntary exchange of money for services not an option?

Let me know when the government forgives me being late with the taxes because they were late picking up my garbage ; D

No, I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here. The thing about a voluntary exchange of money for services is that it's voluntary because everyone involved came to an agreement on that exchange. That's not what taxes are, either. Of course what you're talking about is an option, but that option is not taxes. That's called, like, bus fare and such.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Robear wrote:

Wow. So, rule of law is no different from the Mafia? Really? That's where your thinking takes you?

I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

I've always thought the "taxes are taken at gunpoint" rhetoric was just rhetoric but apparently it's actually believed.

It's actually true. It doesn't mean you have to become a Libertarian, it just means you don't sugar-coat the reality. In the end, taxes are taken at gunpoint, otherwise we wouldn't call them taxes, we'd call them donations.

That's an extreme false dichotomy. Either it's a donation or it's taken at gunpoint? Is the voluntary exchange of money for services not an option?

Let me know when the government forgives me being late with the taxes because they were late picking up my garbage ; D

No, I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here. The thing about a voluntary exchange of money for services is that it's voluntary because everyone involved came to an agreement on that exchange. That's not what taxes are, either. Of course what you're talking about is an option, but that option is not taxes. That's called, like, bus fare and such.

Is leaving the country not an option? Is opting out not considered an option?

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Robear wrote:

Wow. So, rule of law is no different from the Mafia? Really? That's where your thinking takes you?

I'm flabbergasted, honestly.

I've always thought the "taxes are taken at gunpoint" rhetoric was just rhetoric but apparently it's actually believed.

It's actually true. It doesn't mean you have to become a Libertarian, it just means you don't sugar-coat the reality. In the end, taxes are taken at gunpoint, otherwise we wouldn't call them taxes, we'd call them donations.

That's an extreme false dichotomy. Either it's a donation or it's taken at gunpoint? Is the voluntary exchange of money for services not an option?

Let me know when the government forgives me being late with the taxes because they were late picking up my garbage ; D

No, I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here. The thing about a voluntary exchange of money for services is that it's voluntary because everyone involved came to an agreement on that exchange. That's not what taxes are, either. Of course what you're talking about is an option, but that option is not taxes. That's called, like, bus fare and such.

Is leaving the country not an option? Is opting out not considered an option?

Should the inhabitants of the original 13 colonies have left the lands governed by the British crown instead of fighting a Revolution? That "you have the option to opt out" is an argument that can easily lead to some pretty nasty conclusions--we need to think before we run to it just because we want to win an argument with Libertarians.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Should the inhabitants of the original 13 colonies have left the lands governed by the British crown instead of fighting a Revolution? That "you have the option to opt out" is an argument that can easily lead to some pretty nasty conclusions--we need to think before we run to it just because we want to win an argument with Libertarians.

Well, right, that's valid, I was more referring to moving to a country that suits your requirements better. And yes, that country might not exist. But does the lack of a better government somewhere else now mean the government in question is forcing you to take part? I don't think so.

Edit: While on the topic, yes there are issues with moving to other countries. Those are implementation specific issues though and they don't by default turn the concept of taxes into armed robbery.

Minarchist wrote:
jonstock wrote:

On libertarian liberty:

Assume a libertarian society. In it, a child is born to poor, unskilled parents. The parents, working together, are barely able to make enough money to pay for food, clothing, and shelter (no minimum wage, no unions), and are almost never at home (no 40-hour work week). The child receives no meaningful education, because the parents can't afford to pay for school (no public school system). Even if incredibly self-motivated, the child can't even choose to educate himself (no public libraries, and no way to even learn how to read in the first place).

You're making one other very important assumption in this scenario: no charity. No scholarships for private schooling? No charity-based schools? No private libraries open to the public, a lá the Morgan Library? All of these things existed in the US in private form long before their public counterparts ever existed. There are reams of data of, in heavier immigration times, established Western European Jews taking it upon themselves to educate their newly-arrived and uneducated Eastern European brethren; and established, free northern blacks taking it upon themselves to educate their newly-freed southern brethren after slavery was ended.

Don't many pure Libertarian's equate charity with slavery? When I think Libertarian society I don't think of charities for a reason.

jonstock wrote:

On libertarian liberty:

Assume a libertarian society. In it, a child is born to poor, unskilled parents. The parents, working together, are barely able to make enough money to pay for food, clothing, and shelter (no minimum wage, no unions), and are almost never at home (no 40-hour work week). The child receives no meaningful education, because the parents can't afford to pay for school (no public school system). Even if incredibly self-motivated, the child can't even choose to educate himself (no public libraries, and no way to even learn how to read in the first place).

You're making one other very important assumption in this scenario: no charity. No scholarships for private schooling? No charity-based schools? No private libraries open to the public, a lá the Morgan Library? All of these things existed in the US in private form long before their public counterparts ever existed. There are reams of data of, in heavier immigration times, established Western European Jews taking it upon themselves to educate their newly-arrived and uneducated Eastern European brethren; and established, free northern blacks taking it upon themselves to educate their newly-freed southern brethren after slavery was ended.

Assuming the kid doesn't die of disease or malnutrition, he grows up, takes one of the awful jobs that is available to his illiterate, totally unskilled self, and spends his life much like his parents did, with no opportunity for self-improvement at any point. Rinse, repeat.

The other portion of this would be, what is the comparison to the current system? Would your scenario happen? It's quite likely. But, on aggregate, would more children be harmed by a libertarian scenario or the you-go-to-the-crappy-school-you're-zoned-for scenario the poor currently have to deal with? That is a much more difficult question to answer. Also, have you factored in the very important negative externality of the economic impact of forcibly taking the tax dollars to pay for the public school systems and libraries?

EDIT: also, as a salaried employee, I think your idea of a 40-hour work week existing right now is a crock.

gregrampage wrote:

Don't many pure Libertarian's equate charity with slavery? When I think Libertarian society I don't think of charities for a reason.

Uh, none that I've ever read of heard of. It's the individual's money; it would be anathema to libertarianism to tell them how they are (or are not) allowed to use it.

Now, I have heard of many individuals refuse to take charity on similar grounds or out of pride -- hell, I've done it myself -- but that's something different entirely, and also the choice of the individual.

Minarchist wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

Don't many pure Libertarian's equate charity with slavery? When I think Libertarian society I don't think of charities for a reason.

Uh, none that I've ever read of heard of. It's the individual's money; it would be anathema to libertarianism to tell them how they are (or are not) allowed to use it.

Now, I have heard of many individuals refuse to take charity on similar grounds or out of pride -- hell, I've done it myself -- but that's something different entirely, and also the choice of the individual.

Right, I guess I should've elaborated. The basis for that concept is that work without compensation is slavery.

A google search is not finding that concept to be very popular though so I guess I might be off on this. Maybe it was more of an Ayn Rand concept than Libertarian concept.

Maybe it's something you picked up from Bioshock.

Minarchist wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

Don't many pure Libertarian's equate charity with slavery? When I think Libertarian society I don't think of charities for a reason.

Uh, none that I've ever read of heard of. It's the individual's money; it would be anathema to libertarianism to tell them how they are (or are not) allowed to use it.

Now, I have heard of many individuals refuse to take charity on similar grounds or out of pride -- hell, I've done it myself -- but that's something different entirely, and also the choice of the individual.

I think part of the issue is Libertarianism attracts a lot of "personal responsibility" yahoos who love Libertarianism not for its embrace of liberty, but because they like twisting the rhetoric of it to beat up on the stereotypical 'welfare queen'.

Minarchist wrote:

Maybe it's something you picked up from Bioshock. :)

Haha, no, it was from The Fountainhead if I remember right.

Edit: Also what Cheeze said, but I guess that's not fair to hold everyone to that concept so I take my point.

gregrampage wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

Maybe it's something you picked up from Bioshock. :)

Haha, no, it was from The Fountainhead if I remember right.

That's possible. TBH I'm not an Objectivist so I'm not as familiar with some of her ideas as perhaps I should be.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think part of the issue is Libertarianism attracts a lot of "personal responsibility" yahoos who love Libertarianism not for its embrace of liberty, but because they like twisting the rhetoric of it to beat up on the stereotypical 'welfare queen'.

I dunno, that sounds more like socially-conservative republicanism to me. Those types tend to be repelled by actual libertarianism when they find out that they can't structure society through social issues like homosexuality.

Minarchist wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

Maybe it's something you picked up from Bioshock. :)

Haha, no, it was from The Fountainhead if I remember right.

That's possible. TBH I'm not an Objectivist so I'm not as familiar with some of her ideas as perhaps I should be.

One of the things that has come more clearly into focus by talking with Libertarian types--especially on here--is the distinction between them and Objectivists. There's a difference between Libertarianism and trying to do an end-around by disguising a quasi-Aristotelian philosophy as something different from everything else.

Minarchist wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think part of the issue is Libertarianism attracts a lot of "personal responsibility" yahoos who love Libertarianism not for its embrace of liberty, but because they like twisting the rhetoric of it to beat up on the stereotypical 'welfare queen'.

I dunno, that sounds more like socially-conservative republicanism to me. Those types tend to be repelled by actual libertarianism when they find out that they can't structure society through social issues like homosexuality.

Oh yeah, they like libertarianism as a weapon, not as a lifestyle. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea because they encounter types who would be repelled by actual libertarianism, and that's their limited experience with it and what they form their views of libertarianism from.

Robear wrote:

But only on the minority? Again, rule of law? You're saying in one breath that it's a necessary evil, but then you say it's not actually there, by alleging that it doesn't really apply to everyone... From my perspective, as a white male and hence part of your presumed privileged class, I can't think of any laws that I can break and have ignored, where someone in a minority would get nabbed for them in the same circumstances. That's not to say the system is always *fair*, but alleging that the "majority" is going to escape it seems wrong. I would think the proper formula is that the willingness to use force on *all* citizens is what's bothering you, but maybe I misunderstand your arguments from earlier conversations.

I think you are missing his meaning. I don't think he is talking about a class of citizen. He's talking about the majority voting to raise taxes in order to provide universal healthcare coverage. The minority are those that voted against it, but lost. They still have to pay the taxes, even though they didn't want the service.

Man, democracy just sucks...

CheezePavilion wrote:

One of the things that has come more clearly into focus by talking with Libertarian types--especially on here--is the distinction between them and Objectivists. There's a difference between Libertarianism and trying to do an end-around by disguising a quasi-Aristotelian philosophy as something different from everything else.

Indeed. Rothbard, despite being an early supporter of hers, even wrote a lengthy treatise taking apart the philosophy piece-by-piece. And for her part, Rand absolutely hated libertarians.

Oh yeah, they like libertarianism as a weapon, not as a lifestyle. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea because they encounter types who would be repelled by actual libertarianism, and that's their limited experience with it and what they form their views of libertarianism from.

I think one of the mistakes people make is that they assume it is a lock-step philosophy, in which to participate you have to have absolute agreement on all positions. In reality libertarians disagree on individual issues quite a bit (abortion rights is one of the more popular topics to debate, with it being something like 55-60% in favor); but what binds them together is an overwhelming sense that personal liberty is the most important thing a society can provide, and that without it many aspects of that society are worse-off. This is a rather clumsy paraphrasing of it, but you get the idea.

That being said, just like liberalism or Christianity or OWS or any other movement, there will always be those few who try to co-opt and abuse the position for a time to further their own personal goals.

Here's a synopsis of one of the studies I referred to earlier.

With funding from the National Science Foundation, Panchanathan set out to recreate mathematically a small community in which people participate in a public good, such as an annual clearing of a mosquito-infested swamp, which takes time from their day but which saves the entire community time down the line because the work prevents them from getting sick. He assumed that individuals in the close-knit community frequently swap favors, like helping neighbors repair their homes after a storm. He also assumed that no single individual or agency was being paid to keep individuals in line. Community members had to do it themselves, much as our evolutionary ancestors would have done.

In his mathematical model, Panchanathan pitted three types of society members:

· "Cooperators," or people who always contribute to the public good and who always assist individual community members in the group with the favors that are asked of them.

· "Defectors," who never contribute to the public good nor assist other community members who ask for help.

· "Shunners," or hard-nosed types who contribute to the public good, but only lend aid to those individuals with a reputation for contributing to the public good and helping other good community members who ask for help. For members in bad standing, shunners withhold individual assistance.

After these social interactions went on for a period of time that might approximate a generation, individuals were allowed to reproduce based on accumulated scores, so that those with more "fitness points" had more children. Those children were assumed to have adopted their parents' strategy.

Eventually, Panchanathan found that communities end up with either all defectors or all shunners.

"Both of those end points represent 'evolutionarily stable equilibriums'; no matter how much time passes, the make-up of the population does not change," Panchanathan said.

In a community with just cooperators and defectors, defectors — not surprisingly — always won. Also when shunners were matched against cooperators, shunners won.

"The cooperators were too nice; they died out," Panchanathan said. "In order to survive, they had to be discriminate about the help they gave."

But when shunners were matched against defectors, the outcome was either shunners or defectors. The outcome depended on the initial frequency of shunners. If enough shunners were present at the beginning of the exercise, then shunners prevailed. Otherwise, defectors prevailed, potentially pointing to the precarious nature of cooperative society.

This matches the points I've been making. IF you have a group that's dedicated on the whole to the principles involved, *and* willing to enforce them to the point of bodily harm, then that group - shunners - *could* hold the line and maintain the society. But if that group is not large enough to *enforce it's will* upon those who would take advantage of the system, then the society falls apart as the defectors predominate. This is why I'm extremely skeptical of any Libertarian scheme that does not allow coercion for the common good (which we know as the rule of law, or the American police state, take your pick.)

In practice, however, cooperative societies hold defectors in line through a series of measures, Panchanathan said. "The first level is disapproval: you say, 'That wasn't cool' or you give a funny look," he said. "Then you withdraw social support. Finally, you lower the boom and either physically hurt the defector or run him out of town."

That latter - physical harm or exile - is classic "coercion" of the sort that anarcho-libertarianism seeks to eliminate. And yet, without it, societies fail.

Minarchist wrote:

And for her part, Rand absolutely hated libertarians.

For once, I agree with Ayn Rand.

Although I used to really be into Objectivism, and have read most of her collected essays. But I moved on from that a long time ago. I think her philosophy is as morally bankrupt as the Libertarians she takes to task.

She just didn't like anyone else being a moral authority besides herself, and it bled into her work. It was common for her to much more viciously attack peers than opponents.

I think you are missing his meaning. I don't think he is talking about a class of citizen. He's talking about the majority voting to raise taxes in order to provide universal healthcare coverage. The minority are those that voted against it, but lost. They still have to pay the taxes, even though they didn't want the service.

They still *get* the service, though. That can be a huge benefit to them regardless of how they fell about it. That happens even today - someone who doesn't like taxes supporting hospitals could find themselves benefiting from them even without insurance, involuntarily, after a car accident say. The idea of celebrating the ability to evade social responsibilities that others shoulder is literally celebrating the "defector" position from the study above.

In a way, anarcho-libertarians want to retain the right to be defectors without any mechanism in place to effectively punish them for it. They want the penalties for not cooperating to be harmless, when in fact, that does more harm to the people around them, and can even drag the entire community down.

Enforcement of community obligations - social standards normalized by government or religion - is necessary for a community to survive. As long as that is "coercion", anarcho-libertarianism will benefit the individual at the expense of the community.

Robear wrote:

In a way, anarcho-libertarians want to retain the right to be defectors without any mechanism in place to effectively punish them for it. They want the penalties for not cooperating to be harmless, when in fact, that does more harm to the people around them, and can even drag the entire community down.

Enforcement of community obligations - social standards normalized by government or religion - is necessary for a community to survive. As long as that is "coercion", anarcho-libertarianism will benefit the individual at the expense of the community.

This is perfectly put, in my opinion.

Is leaving the country not an option? Is opting out not considered an option?

Actually, it isn't. The US government has decreed that you cannot give up your citizenship for tax reasons. Even if you leave the United States, the IRS has declared that it has the right to demand part of your earnings forever.

So, no, you can't opt out. Once you're born into the US system, you are required to work on its behalf for your entire life, even if you leave when you can.

In a way, anarcho-libertarians want to retain the right to be defectors without any mechanism in place to effectively punish them for it.

I don't know what anarcho-libertarians want, because I don't know any. But I do know that Libertarians don't want to be bound by an agreement they weren't a party to. They don't believe that your parents have the right to bind you to a life of servitude.

Malor, if you were part of a voluntary community, and the majority decided to work on a project you did not support, would you work on it anyway if asked to?

Malor wrote:
Is leaving the country not an option? Is opting out not considered an option?

Actually, it isn't. The US government has decreed that you cannot give up your citizenship for tax reasons. Even if you leave the United States, the IRS has declared that it has the right to demand part of your earnings forever.

So, no, you can't opt out. Once you're born into the US system, you are required to work on its behalf for your entire life, even if you leave when you can.

I'll grant that that is a bullsh*t policy by the US. And it allows for some legitimate criticisms of the US government. That said, I thought we were just talking about the concept of taxes. So what about in a different country where you are free to leave? Are taxes still taken by gunpoint or is it not a voluntary choice to live in the country and therefore exchange money for services?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Let me know when the government forgives me being late with the taxes because they were late picking up my garbage ; D

You mean with, like, a tax extension? They already have those, and they aren't that hard to get. :p

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here. The thing about a voluntary exchange of money for services is that it's voluntary because everyone involved came to an agreement on that exchange. That's not what taxes are, either. Of course what you're talking about is an option, but that option is not taxes. That's called, like, bus fare and such.

Some (most) of the criticism towards taxation in this thread is hilariously reactionary- taxes are simply the upkeep cost of living in a society. There are rules in place to enforce taxes because people tend to be shortsighted- they don't see the direct distribution of their funds, so they tend to forget that their money is being spent on things that they use, or things that are good for the long term health of the society. Without some form of enforcement, society would be unsustainable because people would just be blinded by the selfish immediacy of seeing money missing from their wallets and wouldn't contribute. It would be great if we could have some form of voluntary participation, but the foibles of human psychology pretty much dooms any such system offhand.

ruhk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Let me know when the government forgives me being late with the taxes because they were late picking up my garbage ; D

You mean with, like, a tax extension?

No, give the original post another read: I mean like when someone doesn't perform the service they promised to exchange for money, you don't have to pay them if they don't do the job.

Some (most) of the criticism towards taxation in this thread is hilariously reactionary- taxes are simply the upkeep cost of living in a society. There are rules in place to enforce taxes because people tend to be shortsighted- they don't see the direct distribution of their funds, so they tend to forget that their money is being spent on things that they use, or things that are good for the long term health of the society. Without some form of enforcement, society would be unsustainable because people would just be blinded by the selfish immediacy of seeing money missing from their wallets and wouldn't contribute. It would be great if we could have some form of voluntary participation, but the foibles of human psychology pretty much dooms any such system offhand.

So why aren't the arguments more like that (I think Robear has been talking about that) and less about radical ideas about what constitutes consent and 'if you don't like it, you can leave so you have no appeal if you're outvoted' or ideas about the government owning all property in a country because they conquered it?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Some (most) of the criticism towards taxation in this thread is hilariously reactionary- taxes are simply the upkeep cost of living in a society. There are rules in place to enforce taxes because people tend to be shortsighted- they don't see the direct distribution of their funds, so they tend to forget that their money is being spent on things that they use, or things that are good for the long term health of the society. Without some form of enforcement, society would be unsustainable because people would just be blinded by the selfish immediacy of seeing money missing from their wallets and wouldn't contribute. It would be great if we could have some form of voluntary participation, but the foibles of human psychology pretty much dooms any such system offhand.

So why aren't the arguments more like that (I think Robear has been talking about that) and less about radical ideas about what constitutes consent and 'if you don't like it, you can leave so you have no appeal if you're outvoted' or ideas about the government owning all property in a country because they conquered it?

That's generally the first line of reasoning I give to people in defense of taxes, and I've seen it used numerous times in other threads. If it hasn't been used often in this thread, yet, it's probably just due to the fact that we are all pretty familiar with each other in these forums so we aren't starting from zero in this argument, but rather as an extension of ALL the other discussions we've had about taxation in previous threads. I think sometimes we skip over some basic ideas in these threads because we've all had these same arguments with each other before.

Malor wrote:
Is leaving the country not an option? Is opting out not considered an option?

Actually, it isn't. The US government has decreed that you cannot give up your citizenship for tax reasons. Even if you leave the United States, the IRS has declared that it has the right to demand part of your earnings forever.

So, no, you can't opt out. Once you're born into the US system, you are required to work on its behalf for your entire life, even if you leave when you can.

Do you have some sources for that? Everything I can find on it says that's not true at all. You're free to renounce your citizenship for whatever reason you want, but here is an exit-tax that's only applicable if you A) still owe taxes from the previous five years, B) have a net worth over $2 million, or C) your average yearly tax liability over the past 5 years was over $145,000 (for 2010, it gets adjusted each year). According to what I've found, you can renounce your citizenship due to strictly tax reasons, you just have to pay some extra taxes in certain situations.
My main source:RenunciationGuide.com
Some of their sources:
Heroes Earning Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (pdf)
IRS Publication 519 (2010)
The only taxes to the US you'll have to pay after the "exit tax" (if you meet the requirements) are the same taxes people who were never citizens would have to pay.