A question regarding libertarianism...

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, why do people assume that only government should provide X-amount of these particular services to various groups?

And if they assume that, then how much should X be? And, how do they know?

This is the only answerable question. I have said all along that government's function is both to provide "fences" so that individuals and other entities don't trod on the basic rights of others. Beyond that, and as a part of that, government needs to undertake things that are not inherently profitable for business or where there is an overriding moral imperative against taking profit.

Is monetary profit the only means for people to create organizations to produce goods and services? Obviously not.

So why do people insist that the government must provide such goods and services?

Much of biological and environmental research and work falls into the first bracket. Medicine falls into both.. it is both difficult to be inherently profitable and there is a moral imperative to ensure that profit doesn't limit its availability to some extent. The debate lies in how much and where profit can exist, but that is another topic, mostly already being addressed in the latest incarnation (whatever it is named now) of Phattscotty's healthcare thread.

Would there be no medicine nor any biological and environmental research without government-provided funding?

(Response: Well, there wouldn't be enough).

If we maintain that only government should provide X-amount of these particular services to various groups, then how much should X be?
And, how do we know?

[Woodruff]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

I really don't think that's true at all. I'm not even sure why you would say such a thing, unless you're correlating a few individuals with the organization as a whole (I'm sure there are some "Libertarians" who fit your definition...Phatscotty, I'm looking at you).

It did come out rather harsh. I know greekdog, for example, and you don't percieve that to be the result. The problem is, you are engaging in wishful, idealistic thinking, rather than the reality of what has and is happening.

What is happenening? The one prominent Libertarian in the United States who was in a position to individually affect things within his government significantly that I am aware of was Gary Johnson. He was a massive success in New Mexico. If you're going to judge Libertarianism by "what is happening", it seems to me that he's the only one you can legitimately look at.

The real bottom line is that our economy is now suffering because a very few people at the top have decided they "need" and have a "right" to take a bit too much of what the rest of us earn.

I'm sure it's not what you meant, but many people would say that's a statement against taxation.

As well, that's not Libertarianism...that is, as thegreekdog says, selfishness. Most businessmen actually aren't Libertarians, you do realize...right?

They further feel that having more money means they have the right and better ability to decide what is best for society.. never mind any evidence to the contrary. It is an old pattern, and whether it happens under a theocracy, a monarchy, a dictatorship is irrelevant. The problem is that those at the top get isolated from those around, and wind up not having enough direct checks, wind up justifying their behavior.

Yes, this is definitely bad. Yet again, this is not Libertarianism...this is crony capitalism.

The taking of money operates under the same principles of any other abuse of power. The saying "power corrupts" is true. Very, very few people have the ability to self-limit themselves. The reasons are inherent in the skills needed to succeed.. be it attaining physical domination, "political/social" domination (for lack of a better description) or practical/monetary domination. To find the objectivity requires stepping away from and outside of the goals. It requires a special kind of moral base which is no longer even very much touted.

This applies to everyone, and doesn't really impact Libertarianism at all. It's not like there would be no government or any rules under a Libertarian form of government. Libertarianism does not go against the Constitution, which would still be the law of the land (in my view, moreso than it is now, at least under one Gary Johnson).

[thegreekdog]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

No, actually, that's called being selfish. The libertarian brand has not changed; it's "The government can't do anything to benefit anyone better or more efficiently than I can."

That's delusion, if for no other reason than any system you put forward will, ultimately BE government.

Aside from that, it is just not backed by facts. You keep claiming it is, but the data really shows otherwise. AND, when government is not efficient, its by design -- because government is ONLY supposed to step into areas where business/individuals cannot function well.

The problem is that a plethora of additional functions have come up in recent decades, mostly because folks have "suddenly" realized that our lives actually do depend on the world around.. the animals and plants, the weather, etc and that we are not quite smart enough to redesign everything better than God ("God being specific to greekdog and other beleivers, for others it would be whatever entity/non-entity to whom people assign creation).

So, virtually all of the environmental protection agency, most of the variety of "ology" services, and a good portion of medical care are all performed by the government and labeled as inherent inefficiencies, but not because they necessarily are inefficient in their function, rather because people with those entities just did not exist to limit what they want to do.

Ignorant vitriol about libertarians aside, you do agree that the libertarian's stance is not "I'm selfish."