A question regarding libertarianism...

[Lootifer]

The basic "live and let live" attitude is what really defines a libertarian, the idea that I won't tell my neighbour what to do with his life as long as he doesn't try to tell me what to do with mine.

That makes sense in a world where the individual and their neighbour are blessed with the same or similar [modern] tools in which to succeed.

But [hypothetical] smart old me can look over the fence and see that my neighbour isnt blessed with the same tools I have.

Is it not my responsability as the genetically/socially/nepotistically/whateverally elected leader in this relationship to share the spoils of my enhanced tools?

Dont get me wrong, im not asking for traditional methods of wealth redistribution (the long list of failures BBS has at the ready for just this thread); but more holistically in a modern society (looking mostly at the west/developed nations here) is it not the duty of those with advantages to help those without? Are we not smart enough now that we cannot come up with viable social structure that is just as growth orientated yet accounts for social issues as well? I guess breaking it down even further Im asking is "We are technically powerful enough, can we not just ditch the whole survival of the fittest [see: smartest] thing now?"

/endrant

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, Lootifer. Are you ready?


(1) To clarify that quote, libertarianism in a nutshell is "keep your hands to yourself; don't act without permission," in that it's about negative rights and consent. It does not posit that everyone must keep only to themselves in all circumstances, so we have to keep this distinction in mind. Libertarianism asks, "when is the use of violence justified?" It's a political philosophy about consent and the proper role of individuals and government.

For example, if someone is trapped in a burning house, as a libertarian, there is implied consent in that you can break down the door and try to save that person. A misconstruction of libertarianism would be "ah, since I must keep my hands to myself, then I can't save that person." Nay, I say. Consent matters in the use of violence, but libertarianism does not oblige you to save that person's life (i.e. libertarianism does not advocate positive rights to life--only negative rights).

(A positive right to life is the right to live--at unknown costs to others. A negative right to life is the right to not have your life taken away, that is you have the negative right to not have your private property violated without your permission.)


(2) So, if consent is implied, then according to social contract theorists, the State is justified in extracting your wealth involuntarily (e.g. taxes) since you choose to not exile yourself--regardless of your private property rights. Furthermore, to stretch their line of reasoning, since you have the option to vote, then you grant permission to the public policymakers--as long as they adhere to the contract--in this case, the Constitution (haha!).


(3) I'll answer your questions by applying the positions of (a) libertarianism and then (b) the insights of Hayek, spontaneous order, free markets, and new institutional economics, but before that, I have a few questions:


(A) Do points #1 and #2 make sense to you?

(B) Shall I apply #3 to your scenario of neighbor-to-neighbor interactions? Shall I upscale it to the national/provincial level? And/or shall I scale it up the international level? Because the application of #3 differs in regard to these levels.




(4) Hey, Lotifar. It's spelled "libertarianism," not "libertarism."

(5) Cut Chemist - The Garden

[Lootifer]

3a: Yup all good

3b: Whatever you think best answers the high level or holistic question of (using your words): Are we not smart enough to now advocate for positive rights as well? (dont feel you have to answer that question directly of course).

[jimboston]

Is it not my responsability as the genetically/socially/nepotistically/whateverally elected leader in this relationship to share the spoils of my enhanced tools?

1) I'm not sure it's a responsibility. Is it the "right thing to do"... yes in some limited way. Should you be required to do it? I'm not sure.

Being polite to others is the "right thing to do"... but there are no laws saying one "must" be polite. Of course you can't be overly impolite either... because that can border on abuse and harassment. So the analogy only goes so far.

2) The "share" word is subjective. Bottom line... "how much should you share"? I think must civilized people do not object to some sharing... to some assistance and some basic needs being provided to those not so "gifted". The objections arise when those receiving the help keep asking for more and more and more.... there needs to be a limit, and we need to know that the people on the receiving end really need the help.

Would you assist your neighbor if you same he was capable of working, but just too lazy or too busy play CC all day to bother? I mean... why should he bother working if he can play CC all day and let you pay his rent?

[Lootifer]

Yes but my form of assistance would be to help them realise the satisfaction of working for your own livlihood. Its not a hard thing to impart, yet many in our society dont understand it; to me its a purely educational/develiopment thing.

[BigBallinStalin]

3a: Yup all good

3b: Whatever you think best answers the high level or holistic question of (using your words): Are we not smart enough to now advocate for positive rights as well? (dont feel you have to answer that question directly of course).

Well, I'm not against positive rights per say, but if they infringe upon the negative rights of others, then those positive rights aren't acceptable. For example, the positive right to security can interfere with the negative right to life (i.e. provision of security through draft conflicts with respecting people's property rights).

Note: I'm not a big fan of speaking within the language of rights. Consequentialism FTW.

Also, "no," because it's not just a matter of being smart enough. Once we take the step to advocating for the central planning of service/good X for y-amount of people, then we run into problems which are better solved by markets.

[xeno]

To expand on what bbs is saying, true Libertarianism to me is the notion that you are born with a set of unalienable rights; and these rights don't involve anyone but yourself as an individual. You are free to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You are free to make decisions based on your own life experience. And you are only limited in this human experience by your own capacity. Government's only role is to protect the rights of the individual.

[thegreekdog]

3a: Yup all good

3b: Whatever you think best answers the high level or holistic question of (using your words): Are we not smart enough to now advocate for positive rights as well? (dont feel you have to answer that question directly of course).

Well, I'm not against positive rights per say, but if they infringe upon the negative rights of others, then those positive rights aren't acceptable. For example, the positive right to security can interfere with the negative right to life (i.e. provision of security through draft conflicts with respecting people's property rights).

Note: I'm not a big fan of speaking within the language of rights. Consequentialism FTW.

Also, "no," because it's not just a matter of being smart enough. Once we take the step to advocating for the central planning of service/good X for y-amount of people, then we run into problems which are better solved by markets.

To add to this, once we take the step to advocating for the central planning of service/good x for y-amount of people, you begin to enter into the realm of rent-seeking, which most people find disgusting.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic "live and let live" attitude is what really defines a libertarian, the idea that I won't tell my neighbour what to do with his life as long as he doesn't try to tell me what to do with mine.

That makes sense in a world where the individual and their neighbour are blessed with the same or similar [modern] tools in which to succeed.

But [hypothetical] smart old me can look over the fence and see that my neighbour isnt blessed with the same tools I have.

Is it not my responsability as the genetically/socially/nepotistically/whateverally elected leader in this relationship to share the spoils of my enhanced tools?

Dont get me wrong, im not asking for traditional methods of wealth redistribution (the long list of failures BBS has at the ready for just this thread); but more holistically in a modern society (looking mostly at the west/developed nations here) is it not the duty of those with advantages to help those without? Are we not smart enough now that we cannot come up with viable social structure that is just as growth orientated yet accounts for social issues as well? I guess breaking it down even further Im asking is "We are technically powerful enough, can we not just ditch the whole survival of the fittest [see: smartest] thing now?"

/endrant

We cannot and shoulse not provide anything close to "equality" for everyone. All people are not equal and therefore don't deserve the same. Even the definition of what "equal" is differs.

A classic example.. you have 2 kids, one excells in sports, the other in music. Do you force both to spend equal time in each pursuit or do you give the musician more music lessons and allow the sports-minded kid to participate in more sports? Of course, to back up a bit, you have to expose the children to both music and sports to even know at which they excell...and that might not be at all possible for all families.

What we CAN do and should do is set a basic "bottom" beyond which we just won't allow any but those who work really, really hard at being derelicts to fall. (you want to kill yourself with drugs, there is only so much we can do...). Food and education for kids are 2 things most people can agree upon, though how to administer those can differ.

The problem is, as we see today, it is often the game of those at the top to criticize those at the bottom and claim that they are "just not working hard enough"..a nd need to be blamed for their failures, regardless of any circumstances (and yes, there certainly are people who fit that mold..but not the whole group) or to encourage those in the bottom and middle to blame someone else.. anyone else, (immigrants make a good target.. particularly illegal immigrants) for any troubles, so they won't look up to where the real blame lies.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The basic "live and let live" attitude is what really defines a libertarian, the idea that I won't tell my neighbour what to do with his life as long as he doesn't try to tell me what to do with mine.

That makes sense in a world where the individual and their neighbour are blessed with the same or similar [modern] tools in which to succeed.

But [hypothetical] smart old me can look over the fence and see that my neighbour isnt blessed with the same tools I have.

Is it not my responsability as the genetically/socially/nepotistically/whateverally elected leader in this relationship to share the spoils of my enhanced tools?

Dont get me wrong, im not asking for traditional methods of wealth redistribution (the long list of failures BBS has at the ready for just this thread); but more holistically in a modern society (looking mostly at the west/developed nations here) is it not the duty of those with advantages to help those without? Are we not smart enough now that we cannot come up with viable social structure that is just as growth orientated yet accounts for social issues as well? I guess breaking it down even further Im asking is "We are technically powerful enough, can we not just ditch the whole survival of the fittest [see: smartest] thing now?"

/endrant

This sounds eerily familiar to turn of the century imperialist attitudes, namely "white man's burden." Just fyi.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

The basic "live and let live" attitude is what really defines a libertarian, the idea that I won't tell my neighbour what to do with his life as long as he doesn't try to tell me what to do with mine.

That makes sense in a world where the individual and their neighbour are blessed with the same or similar [modern] tools in which to succeed.

But [hypothetical] smart old me can look over the fence and see that my neighbour isnt blessed with the same tools I have.

Is it not my responsability as the genetically/socially/nepotistically/whateverally elected leader in this relationship to share the spoils of my enhanced tools?

Dont get me wrong, im not asking for traditional methods of wealth redistribution (the long list of failures BBS has at the ready for just this thread); but more holistically in a modern society (looking mostly at the west/developed nations here) is it not the duty of those with advantages to help those without? Are we not smart enough now that we cannot come up with viable social structure that is just as growth orientated yet accounts for social issues as well? I guess breaking it down even further Im asking is "We are technically powerful enough, can we not just ditch the whole survival of the fittest [see: smartest] thing now?"

/endrant

This sounds eerily familiar to turn of the century imperialist attitudes, namely "white man's burden." Just fyi.

-TG

Good observation, and essentially, it is correct. The modern "white man's burden" is usually limited to domestic borders--aside from Foreign 'Aid' of course, and exporting democracy through military occupation too.

[Lootifer]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

[BigBallinStalin]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Is it accurate for you to homogenize cultural groups like that?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Can't tell if patronizing...

Regardless, you yourself introduced a "genetically" elected leader (whatever that means ). And more importantly, what does the cultural difference matter? By acknowledging an inequality between you and your neighbo[u]r, and your assertion that you have some as-yet defined obligation to them, it then becomes an issue of where this obligation ends and to what means it requires. Should these obligations be forced to be accepted by the "lesser" of the two neighbors, despite their wishes?

Culturally, the U.S. and Canada have much in common, as I imagine N.Z. shares many cultural attitudes as us ol' American pigs. Does this internal obligation not reinforce nationalistic patriotism or indeed racial/cultural superiority among culturally alike neighbors at the expense of those without? Would this influence as well the in-group psyche and outlander hate for other cultures (I'm thinking of pre-War Japan in particular)?

-TG

[Lootifer]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Is it accurate for you to homogenize cultural groups like that?

Its a hypothetical...

[Lootifer]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Can't tell if patronizing...

Regardless, you yourself introduced a "genetically" elected leader (whatever that means ). And more importantly, what does the cultural difference matter? By acknowledging an inequality between you and your neighbo[u]r, and your assertion that you have some as-yet defined obligation to them, it then becomes an issue of where this obligation ends and to what means it requires. Should these obligations be forced to be accepted by the "lesser" of the two neighbors, despite their wishes?

Culturally, the U.S. and Canada have much in common, as I imagine N.Z. shares many cultural attitudes as us ol' American pigs. Does this internal obligation not reinforce nationalistic patriotism or indeed racial/cultural superiority among culturally alike neighbors at the expense of those without? Would this influence as well the in-group psyche and outlander hate for other cultures (I'm thinking of pre-War Japan in particular)?

-TG

You have mistakenly assumed I mean better when I say leader. There is no superiority here; both parties are human beings therefore are equal. The leader just means they have better tools for creating economic value (that is observationally determined).

As far as cultural differences are concerned. That is a communication issue. It does not fundamentally alter the situation - that is I am assuming that cultural sensitivity and understanding is such that communication is ideal.

[Gillipig]

To expand on what bbs is saying, true Libertarianism to me is the notion that you are born with a set of unalienable rights; and these rights don't involve anyone but yourself as an individual. You are free to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You are free to make decisions based on your own life experience. And you are only limited in this human experience by your own capacity. Government's only role is to protect the rights of the individual.

I think this is a very common world view. That we are born with rights and freedom to do what we please as long as our freedom does not threaten others rights.

But I just think it's a load of bullshit! It makes no sense to me. Out of the millions of potential people that could be born to your parents, you were one of the rare few that were born. No one has a right to life, most potential humans are never conceived, yet you were, and you were born, and on top of that lucky break you claim to have rights????? Why? Why do you have rights? Is it the old "every sperm is sacred" thing? You could make an argument for that if we give each other rights it's more pleasant for everybody. But that will just be an argument for why we should delude ourselves into thinking we have certain rights. It's not an argument for why you actually have rights. I will buy that argument every day of the week as long as you admit that we're not really born with rights, it's just something we should delude ourselves into thinking so that we can get along better.
And another thing, what if the rights we claim to have is leading us into ruin? More specific I'm thinking about the right to control your own body. Sounds good and fair at first glance but should people be allowed to have as many children as they want? Overpopulation is becoming a bigger and bigger issue every year. Forests are cut down so that people can grow crops, more people are starving every year that passes, it's the root to urban violence, extinction of wild animals and plants. Do we really need to be so damn many? Why should there be 10 billion people on the earth when we can't feed 7 billion? It's not the more the merrier, it's the opposite! The fewer we are, the better life we can offer those that are alive.

[BigBallinStalin]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Is it accurate for you to homogenize cultural groups like that?

Its a hypothetical...

DAMN YOUR HYPOTHETICAL!!

What do you think about my long-delayed response?

I'll gladly forego the politicizing and instead expand on whatever bothers you about that response.

[john9blue]

I guess breaking it down even further Im asking is "We are technically powerful enough, can we not just ditch the whole survival of the fittest [see: smartest] thing now?"

you can't ditch a law of nature.

[Lootifer]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

[BigBallinStalin]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

Evolve past what exactly? Evolution? Competition? "Darwinist survivalism"?

[Lootifer]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

Evolve past what exactly? Evolution? Competition? "Darwinist survivalism"?

Id prob call it alpha maleism.

The dwsire to expand, procreate, and dominate others.

[PLAYER57832]

No but my argument is you can culturally evolve past it.

Evolve past what exactly? Evolution? Competition? "Darwinist survivalism"?

Because every thread eventually centers along A, G or E... or all three.
Abortion, God and Evolution

[muy_thaiguy]

I know this may sound redundant, but Wyoming is fairly Libertarian in many aspects of every day life. Mainly, as long as what you're doing isn't hurting anyone, people here don't mind. And like what was pointed out, "live and let live" doesn't mean you ignore doing the right thing when needed, it means so long as what someone is doing isn't harmful to them or other people, there's no reason to get in their face about it, for lack of a better phrase. You can still offer some help, or even something as simple as holding a door open for someone.

I know this isn't true for many places, but here it is. We unfortunetly do have some morons out here (West Boro Baptist Church for example), but every state and country does.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Except im talking about internal neighbours (same cultural point of view) not external ones. I am also not making any assumptions about relative differences; the hypothetical me is acting based on observations.

But thats cool. Very political of you tg.

Can't tell if patronizing...

Regardless, you yourself introduced a "genetically" elected leader (whatever that means ). And more importantly, what does the cultural difference matter? By acknowledging an inequality between you and your neighbo[u]r, and your assertion that you have some as-yet defined obligation to them, it then becomes an issue of where this obligation ends and to what means it requires. Should these obligations be forced to be accepted by the "lesser" of the two neighbors, despite their wishes?

Culturally, the U.S. and Canada have much in common, as I imagine N.Z. shares many cultural attitudes as us ol' American pigs. Does this internal obligation not reinforce nationalistic patriotism or indeed racial/cultural superiority among culturally alike neighbors at the expense of those without? Would this influence as well the in-group psyche and outlander hate for other cultures (I'm thinking of pre-War Japan in particular)?

-TG

You have mistakenly assumed I mean better when I say leader. There is no superiority here; both parties are human beings therefore are equal. The leader just means they have better tools for creating economic value (that is observationally determined).

As far as cultural differences are concerned. That is a communication issue. It does not fundamentally alter the situation - that is I am assuming that cultural sensitivity and understanding is such that communication is ideal.

Yeah, exactly. But to assert that you have an obligation to improve their economic value implies that they can't do it themselves or that they are inferior, just as social darwinists of imperial Britain or the Netherlands believed it was their duty to guide the native Africans into civilized life, because an inequality in means => inequality in methods => inequality in culture. Just because you've limited the obligation to a homogenous culture doesn't mean that the effects don't apply elsewhere afterwards. That's not to say that you shouldn't help them if you so desire, but to insist that you must has different connotations.

-TG