# Libertarians



## Jokster (23 Jun 2006)

www.libertarian.ca 

Check out this political party and vote for them the next chance you get



P.S., why was my account messed with for my Smokers! thread. Lol. I wasn't meaning to troll.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jun 2006)

The fact that you admit not wanting to, without being accused, goes a long way to proving you were and knew exactly what you were doing.

You've been warned. Consider yourself at the top of the ladder, on the edge of the ramp, at the end of your rope, looking down into the abyss, going, going....................

Go read the guidelines, savour what you garner there. You won't recieve another warning.


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-defence-foreign.html

Everything there seems a tad on the isolationist side  :



> "Because we believe that every individual is entitled to keep the product of his or her labour, we oppose, as a violation of individual rights, all government activity which consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from citizens.
> 
> Specifically, we support the repeal of all taxation. Pending such repeal, we are opposed to the use of criminal sanctions against tax evaders, and support unconditional amnesty for all persons convicted of violating tax law.
> 
> ...




Oh my... that's hilarious!

Their government policies seem to be do nothing internationally... and equally nothing nationally. Anarchist party anyone? At least that kind of a party would be blatant about doing nothing for anybody.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2006)

Libertarianism is the political philosophy which allows the individual the most scope to work for their own benefit. As such, Libertarians are only in favor of such rules and government that protect their rights, and prevent other people from infringing on them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian for more details

Libertarians do support a police and Armed Forces, but strictly for defensive purposes (i.e. prevent criminals from stealing their property or foreign nations from imposing their rules over a Libertarian population). A Libertarian nation might resemble Switzerland, in that every citizen has the means to defend himself and his community available in his/her own house.

As a practical matter, I adhere to "small l" Libertarianism, since voluntary associations of like minded people have real limitations when it comes to building large projects like infrastructure, or hunting criminals across jurisdictional boundaries.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As a practical matter, I adhere to "small l" Libertarianism, since voluntary associations of like minded people have real limitations when it comes to building large projects like infrastructure, or hunting criminals across jurisdictional boundaries.


as do I. Or perhaps I fall under Classical Liberalism, more.


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> as do I. Or perhaps I fall under Classical Liberalism, more.


Classic(al)...yes yes that is a word I would use to define the cowboy  ;D

HL


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> as do I. Or perhaps I fall under Classical Liberalism, more.



Agreed, classic liberalism is a preferable niche.  Before current day "Liberals" corrupted the word to refer to the nanny state, liberalism was that sweet spot where social liberty and fiscal conservatism met.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2006)

Canadian Libertarians are a sometimes active bunch, although not in sufficient numbers to challenge the ruling orthadoxy (yet....)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/cust3.html



> *Apathetic Libertarians in Canada*
> by Michael Cust
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2006)

>Everything there seems a tad on the isolationist side

The purer the libertarianism, the more selfish it seems (and likely would be in practice).  But consider this: by what right would you assume power to direct the life of another person?  A pronouncement of your chosen religious doctrine?  A conclusion of a reasoned philosophical argument regarding the nature of the rights of individuals?  Tyranny of the one or the many?

Co-operation is admirable, and necessary for great undertakings, but conscription is not co-operation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Jul 2006)

Libertarian?!?  Objectivist!?!  What's that?     

Libertairans come in as many varieties as Socialists and Conservatives (there are even those that _/shudder/_ call themselves "Socialist Libertarians").



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Libertarianism is the political philosophy which allows the individual the most scope to work for their own benefit. As such, Libertarians are only in favor of such rules and government that protect their rights, and prevent other people from infringing on them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian for more details


  Also, for topical primary source stuff I'd suggest:  http://www.samizdata.net/blog/


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2006)

Best Libertarian joke I've heard:



> How many Libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?
> 
> None.  Obviously market forces will take care of it.




(Yes, yes, I know, that's more Randian than libertarian.)


----------



## Black Watch (26 Jul 2006)

these guys sure will cut taxes  :
No, realy, this is the kind of political behevior that could not only rip apart the society, but also the economy, because if there's no jurisdiction to protect the workers here, all the jobs will go where manpower is cheap and we will starve because we won't have anny support from the gvt


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> these guys sure will cut taxes  :
> No, realy, this is the kind of political behevior that could not only rip apart the society, but also the economy, because if there's no jurisdiction to protect the workers here, all the jobs will go where manpower is cheap and we will starve because we won't have anny support from the gvt



This is a very narrow view of Libertarianism, and certainly what Socialists and Statists of all stripes would like you to believe. The canard about jobs being lost due to lack of government support is demonstrably false:

1. European nations with many rules and regulations protecting jobs have high levels of unemployment since employers decline to hire people rather than be saddled with an unsuitable worker they can't get rid of.

2. A similar situation obtains when looking at the United States. Jobs migrate from the "Rust Belt" (generally "Blue States" with powerful labour unions and lots of regulations) to the "Sun Belt" (generally "Red States" with "right to work" legislation).

3. During the 1980's, this mantra was also invoked in Canada and the United States to oppose NAFTA. (Remember the quote about the "great sucking sound" of jobs being lost to Mexico?). This has not happened since the regulatory environment and the supporting legal structures in Canada and the United States allow the free movement of capital and investment. Mexican workers are going to the United States, there is no flow of Arizona and Californians to Mexico to live and work.

Libertarianism is not about unlimited license, it is about the freedom to live and work in cooperation with others, and the protection from force, coercion and arbitrary regulation ("A nation ruled by laws, not men").

A further exploration of that topic is here: 

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/



> Wednesday, July 26, 2006
> *Equality is another one of those words… *
> …whose original meaning in a political context is almost irretrievably lost under an iterative barrage of progressive newspeak. From The Inequality of Equality by William Gairdner, via Jesse Gritter Online:
> 
> ...



_edit to add link and discussion_


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2006)

>because if there's no jurisdiction to protect the workers here, all the jobs will go where manpower is cheap and we will starve because we won't have anny support from the gvt

If all the jobs go elsewhere, we won't be buying anything from them anyways, and they won't have jobs either.  Back in the days before governments conceived of worker protection, there were jobs, so you shouldn't expect all the jobs to go away.  Nor is it possible for all jobs to go away, in any event.  You can't offshore your doctor, your plumber, or the staff at the local restaurants.


----------



## Black Watch (27 Jul 2006)

I was mistaken between libertarians and economic liberals. Please accept my apologies


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2006)

No need to applogize, political language has been twisted in order to obscure points. Consider that a member of today's Conservative Party would have correctly been called a Liberal in Edmond Burke's time, "progressive" taxation punishes initiative and hard work and National Socialism is always describes as "Right Wing" (in the media) despite the second word in the title.

Libertarianism is not Utopianism, and things are always worth discussing to firm up ideas and clarify things.


----------



## Signalman150 (31 Jul 2006)

A-Majoor

I was vy interested to read the quote by Edmund Burke at the top of the article.

When I first heard it 30 years ago it was by that famous author "Anon" and was "All that is needed for the Forces of Evil to take over the world is for enough good men to do nothing".

That axiom has been part of my personal morality ever since.  I remember getting into a two hour discussion (over copious quantities of fermented, distilled and brewed substances) with a girl fm college about this belief.  Although she was not a declared Libertarian, she espoused the ideals of the Libertarian web site.  I wish to hell I'd had the article (the one you posted) then.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2006)

An update on Libertarianism in the US. It is interesting that people would think Libertarians would defect to the Democrats(!), although Big Government Republicans are equally repugnant to a Libertarian.

http://jaworski.blogspot.com/2006/12/liberaltarians_13.html



> *Liberaltarians*
> 
> About a week ago I mentioned Lind's article about the death of libertarianism. Since then, I have come across many articles that claim just the opposite. That libertarianism is not dead, but is finding a new home... on the left.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Dec 2006)

Signalman150 said:
			
		

> A-Majoor
> 
> I was vy interested to read the quote by Edmund Burke at the top of the article.
> 
> ...



My favorite Libertarian (or more rightly classic liberal) quote is from JS Mill 





> 'A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of men better than himself."



Unfortunately this seems to be forgotten by most if not all Libertarians.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2007)

Some more reading about Libertarianism

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.com/2007/02/radicals-for-capitalism.html&title=



> *"Radicals for Capitalism"*
> The Wall Street Journal has a review of a new book - "Radicals for Capitalism" by Brian Doherty. Here's a sample:
> 
> With "Radicals for Capitalism," Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due. He tracks the movement's progress over the past century by focusing on five of its key leaders--Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman. The emphasis is on their ideas, but Mr. Doherty also takes into account their personal struggles--not least their feuds with other thinkers and their relation to an intellectual establishment that for most of their lives thought they were either crazy or irrelevant or both.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2007)

More on Libertarianism. Buck up fellow travellers; all is not lost!

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_11-2007_03_17.shtml#1174182832



> *Two Fallacies that Cause (Excessive) Libertarian Despair:*
> 
> Tyler Cowen's counsel of libertarian despair (discussed in my previous post), and other similar works by fearful libertarians (e.g. - this slightly less pessimistic contribution to the same symposium by Brink Lindsey) are, in my view heavily influenced by two important fallacies that lead many libertarians to be more pessimistic than is warranted.
> 
> ...



The one thing that *can* help the Libertarian cause is the "sniff test". People who brag about how government programs have "helped" need to be challenged to prove their assertations with real numbers. One thing I like doing is to divide any government program by $50,000, which is the loosley accepted figure for the amoount of private investment needed to create a full time job. This gives a figure of merit: how many full time jobs this program cost the economy. I have yet to see a job creation program or any other program that creates more jobs than the private sector could have for the same amount.

Once enough people learn how to smell government BS using tools like this, they will finally be able to ake action rather than submit to the general sense of dispair.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Mar 2007)

It has occurred to me on more than one occasion how much better off we would be if before voting, people took a few minutes to read a little of <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html">Bastiat</a> (let alone <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged">Rand</a>, <a href="http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/">Friedman</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom">Hayek</a>), or hell, even just watch and try to understand an episode of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park#Political_issues"> South Park!</a>


----------



## edgar (22 Mar 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Best Libertarian joke I've heard:
> 
> 
> (Yes, yes, I know, that's more Randian than libertarian.)



Let me rephrase that for you. 

How many Libertarians does it take to stop a Soviet division?

None.  Obviously market forces took care of it.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2007)

One of many Libertarian prescriptions for policy:

http://angryroughneck.blogspot.com/2007/03/intellectual-means



> *Intellectual means*
> 
> Alright it seems my last post warranted a death threat in response. How do I follow that up. Christ there are lots of crazies. I came home wanting to talk about the Negative income tax. Oh well. The show must go on. I have already done posts on the evils of its opposite-- the graduated or progressive tax model (see earlier post)
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (26 Mar 2007)

Libertarianism as a pure ideology is just as utopian and just as dangerous as communism.  That said, there are fantastic ideas in it, it's just that these ideas must be separated from the rabid selfishness that permeates so much of the libertarian message.

Give me a rational mix of classic liberal and modern liberal ideals, throw in a pinch of Nationalism and a dash of conservative suspicion and I'd be happy.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2007)

Libertarianism is mostly a distillation of Classical Liberalism, with a modern understanding of economics, incentives and human nature thrown in. What you see as "rabid selfishness" I see as human nature boiled down to its essentials (as is visible in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan once the masks come off). Interestingly, in Socialist countries, rabid averace is an even stronger motivation, and scrambling for the levers of power to gain and maintain your standard of living and crush the opposition is far more common there (the result of a purge in Canada's Liberal Party; being tossed from caucus. The result of a purge in Cuba: up against the wall.....)

Maybe we really do need Leviathan to maintain peace and good order, although most Libertarians believe that people can make rational choices and that the rational choice in the vast majority of cases is non coercion.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Libertarianism is mostly a distillation of Classical Liberalism, with a modern understanding of economics, incentives and human nature thrown in. What you see as "rabid selfishness" I see as human nature boiled down to its essentials (as is visible in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan once the masks come off). Interestingly, in Socialist countries, rabid averace is an even stronger motivation, and scrambling for the levers of power to gain and maintain your standard of living and crush the opposition is far more common there (the result of a purge in Canada's Liberal Party; being tossed from caucus. The result of a purge in Cuba: up against the wall.....)



What I see in places like Bosnia is the end result of a fend for yourself, me first mentality which is what raw Libertarianism boils down to.  Human nature proves and you make good example of it with this illustration that unfettered by law, morality and a sense of society/community the human animal quickly succumbs to the lowest common denominator. 

Yes greed is a motivator in socialist nations, but I would argue that avarice is just as much of a factor in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Afghanistan when “the masks come off” as you put it.  What is it that motivates a man to kill his neighbour and take his property?  Is there a better answer than greed?



> Maybe we really do need Leviathan to maintain peace and good order, although most Libertarians believe that people can make rational choices and that the rational choice in the vast majority of cases is non coercion.



Is our choice really that simple?  Does it boil down to black or white so easily?  I would argue that as much as the modern Liberal welfare state has got wrong in society it has got just as much right.  The same can be said for Conservatism.  I don’t see government as fundamentally evil, wasteful or corrupt but more as an essential human construct that is continually developing to serve the society it forms within.

Our focus as members of society should not be to dismantle government but to build a government so effective that it appears to have been dismantled already.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Mar 2007)

I think Libertarians recognize that "fend for yourself" is a basic human instinct: handing someone the levers of power of the state doesn't change this.  Perhaps _because _it is a human construct, the state has no inherent moral superiority: it is simply a tool for the few to best extract what they want from the many.  That it is generally (not _always_, except in the case of anarchists) ultimately destructive* to the many that it purports to assist or support, only serves to further underscore the point.


*Destructive in the sense that it is less efficient than the free market.


----------



## Exarecr (27 Mar 2007)

Gentlemen,(and women),please,this is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet most Canadians probably think a "Libertarian",is a Feminist hockey player from Ontario. Most of the verbiage is little more than "stupid speak".


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Mar 2007)

Exarecr said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,(and women),please,this is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet most Canadians probably think a "Libertarian",is a Feminist hockey player from Ontario. Most of the verbiage is little more than "stupid speak".



If you don't want to join in the argument then by all means don't.  Sitting on the sidelines and poking with a stick is childish at best and generally trollish.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Mar 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I think Libertarians recognize that "fend for yourself" is a basic human instinct: handing someone the levers of power of the state doesn't change this.  Perhaps _because _it is a human construct, the state has no inherent moral superiority: it is simply a tool for the few to best extract what they want from the many.  That it is generally (not _always_, except in the case of anarchists) ultimately destructive* to the many that it purports to assist or support, only serves to further underscore the point.
> 
> 
> *Destructive in the sense that it is less efficient than the free market.



But in a democratic system we don't really "hand the levers of power" to anyone.  The most we do is lend them our confidence for a finite period.  This alone is enough to ensure that the baser human desires are held in check.  Yes, there will still be some who play with the darker choices of game theory but I think the majority are kept in relative check by the wants, needs and power of the other players, namely the voters.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Mar 2007)

Well, tyranny of the majority (or in Canada's case, a ~40% minority) is still tyranny!  Even if 99% of the population votes for it, Libertarians don't believe that person "A" has the _right _to the fruits of the labour of person "B".

IMHO, the biggest problem with democracy is that it results in various special (minority or majority) interests competing for the right to decide how, and more importantly, to whom wealth is distributed.  Constitutions (in various forms) are the tool used to stop one interest from imposing it's will on another, that is the only real check: elections are a popularity contest.  Libertarians generally do not believe in _positive _rights, that is, rights that impose a (generally financial) burden on another party.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2007)

I think John Galt (like his namesake) has gotten this right.

Libertarians do not (generally) believe in "positive" freedoms, in fact that concept is a corruption of the term.

Reccesoldier, your argument about temporarily handing the levers of power over is perhaps even more theoretical than many of the principles that underlie most ideologies; how do you "temporarily" hand over the levers of power to career politicians and a permanent bureaucracy? You might note I am a big fan of term limits for elected office.

Recognizing that people can descend to violence and coercion to achieve their short term goals is simply a recognition of human nature (and indeed nature in general; watch a troop of Chimps or Baboons in action and you will see lots that is familiar). Libertarianism is a recognition that cooperation and non coercion are the rational keys to setting and achieving long termgoals; and that is really what defines intelligence and civilization.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Mar 2007)

>Yes, there will still be some who play with the darker choices of game theory but I think the majority are kept in relative check by the wants, needs and power of the other players, namely the voters.

I have met very, very, very few people who were involved in one organization or another who didn't take at least a few shades of grey advantage of a position of authority (ie. power to do something) to the benefit of themselves or friends.  Selfishness, I can deal with - you have something, and I have to make my own if you won't share.  Arbitrary authority I am nearly powerless to overcome - I have something, and they take it.  The worst thing you can say about a selfish person who respects the boundaries between himself and others is that he won't share.  Charity and altruism are praiseworthy and to be encouraged, but selfishness gets too much stick - as a personal failing, it is very small beer.  Using others as means to your ends - that's a huge failing.


----------



## edgar (28 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...  Using others as means to your ends - that's a huge failing.



Isn't that the definition of leadership?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> Isn't that the definition of leadership?




http://www.teal.org.uk/leadership/definition.htm



> Our Definition of Leadership
> 
> There are many diverse definitions of leadership. This page outlines a few common approaches, and outlines the definition of leadership underpinning Christian Leadership World. For this site, our leadership definition is defined as "enabling a group to engage together in the process of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and then living it out." We also emphasise the importance of a leader's character and integrity in building up the trust necessary for the leadership to be exercised over a period of time. For Christian Leadership, the importance of prayer must be emphasised - since God seeks to work in partnership with his people, and prayer is the primary channel of communication.
> 
> ...



And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to willingly accomplish the aim of the leader.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to _willingly _accomplish the aim of the leader.



_Willingly _being the key word here: compelling others to do one's bidding through coercive means (legally or otherwise) is not leadership.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to willingly accomplish the aim of the leader.



You mean...

Leadership is the art of influencing human behaviour so as to accomplish the mission in the manner desired by the leader

We had to memorize 5 definitions on my CLC.  Leadership, Management, Inspiration, Command and one that predates Women in the Combat Arms and political correctness

I still remember them all.


----------



## edgar (29 Mar 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> _Willingly _being the key word here: compelling others to do one's bidding through coercive means (legally or otherwise) is not leadership.


So what was all that yelling about at the battle school? 
Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Mar 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
> Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.



I don't think that I am in a position to answer that honestly in public.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Mar 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?



That was for those people who practise that other type of motivation... Loudership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2007)

>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
> Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.



No, the yelling is Command and motivation, since it is difficult to get people to follow the commanders intent (willingly or otherwise) in a hail of gunfire.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Isn't that the definition of leadership?
> 
> Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.



Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?


----------



## edgar (30 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Isn't that the definition of leadership?
> 
> Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.



So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.


----------



## FrenchAffair (30 Mar 2007)

Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?



Perhaps the best predictor is the market. Wherever the market is free and efficient, consumers participate fully and enthusiastically, choice is high and prices are generally low. Think about that whenever you go out to buy groceries.

The political system is (deliberately) an inefficient market. Choices are limited, information about the market and "products" is limited and the consumer (voter) can only shop (vote) at irregular intervals, usually measured in years. Political parties control the process to the extent they can get away with, and a permanent bureaucracy also works to limit voter power while it enhances its own. Taxpayers and voters do use the available information to make rational choices whenever and however they can, although it can take the form of tax evasion, capital mobility and labour mobility. The ones with the most resources have the most incentive to move away from high tax and high regulatory environments, taking their investment power with them. (The wealthy investor acting rationally may not be overtly Libertarian, and I would suspect many such people would never claim to adhere to the Libertarian philosophy even as they act upon it).

"This is the way its going to be" has a place, particularly in emergency situations, however short of war or natural disaster there is very little reason for government to invoke these sorts of powers. Of course, by claiming regulatory failure and unintended consequences of government regulation are "market failures", they create their own permanent emergencies and use these excuses to extend government powers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2007)

>Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?

I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.

But none of that is a satisfactory reason for any other person or people to assume more than a very bare minimum of power to direct their lives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2007)

>So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.

That's your shoe, not mine.  Don't presume to speak for me.


----------



## TCBF (31 Mar 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).



- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2007)

>Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. 

Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?

As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?
> 
> I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.



And one could only presume that that individuals would make better* choices if they were not insulated from the consequences of their actions (i.e., settlement in the Mississippi River Basin).

-----------
*People generally act rationally: we have to be aware of what incentives exist and what any given individual's motivations are.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.


FA is right OTL: I suspect he's trying classify Pinochet as a Libertarian because of his free market economic policies (only).  Evidently the entire concept of civics is completely lost on the (original) poster.


----------



## FrenchAffair (31 Mar 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.



 Milton Friedman was at his time the leading economic libertarian in the world. He met with and approved of the Chicago Boys (a group of Chilean economists) who at the behest of Augusto Pinochet worked to create a free market economy and decentralize economic and ultimately political power, the same goals of Libertarians. Friedman even met with Pinochet and became friends with him, approving of his government and the direction it was going. As it was at the time the closest thing to a Libertarian society. And we all know how that went. 

 Another, and more realistic example of “Libertarian” policies at practice would be modern Somalia. With the “federal” government having limited if any power and only providing foreign affairs and limited military defense the structure of Somalia government today is exactly what Libertarians strive to create. Civil protection is provided by private companies (warlords) and anything else any individual wants if they can afford it they can get, and those who can’t afford it simply die off. Exactly the principles Libertarians wish to instate in what ever society they exist in.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2007)

Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?


----------



## FrenchAffair (31 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence.
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't speak from such a wealth of ignorance.  As to how it is morally disgusting, please explain why a person minding his own business disgusts you and how you came to lump that in with political philosophies on the end of the spectrum occupied by people who are obsessed with controlling others.  Ponder the number of other political philosophies which lie between the people minding their own business and the people minding other people's business to the extent of democide.  Where on that morally disgusting spectrum do you sit?
> 
> As I say, the guy who spends his days obsessively counting his spare change in his attic bothers me a lot less than the people who just need the right cause to rationalize their stupidity.



My position on Libertarians is far from one created from ignorance. Libertarians are such an obscure and irrelevant political entity, the very fact that I know what a Libertarian is demonstrates that I am not ignorant on the philosophy. 

It is morally disgusting because it advocates “survival of the fittest”. There would be no welfare, there would be no public health care, there would be no public education…. There would be no government programs at all to benefit anyone in society. The basis of Libertarism is if you can’t afford it you don’t deserve it. They believe in the “god” of the “infallible” market force. To them, those who don’t make money don’t because they do not deserve it (not smart enough, don’t work hard enough…. Ect) and therefore deserve to suffer the consequences of that. 

 The poor would get poorer, the rich would get richer and the middle class would either succeed or fail in till we are left with a society of the rich elite who are capable of educating and sustaining themselves, and the poor who are forced in to “slavery” simply to survive. 

 There would be no minimum wage, there would be no “workers rights”, under Libertarians it would be completely legal to operate Asian style sweatshops in Canada because according to them it is the only way to make our markets “competitive” and if individuals did not like the conditions of these sweatshops they would quit. 

 Public education would be eliminated, families unable to pay for education would not be able to send their children to school. Those families of poorer means would only be able to send there children to schools of lower quality…. In end the Rich would get better education where the poor would be lucky if they got any at all (Like how it was back in 14th century England). 

 Libertarians don’t believe that we should have a military for anything other than our own defense. Our military would be severally under funded (since Libertarians don’t believe in the right to tax citizens there would be little if any funds for our armed forces). We would no longer participate or contribute to humanitarian missions or peacekeeping. There would be no more foreign aid to help people around the world, there would be no more UN missions to help and protect refugees. The problems of other people around the world would no longer be a concern or issue to Canadians under a Libertarian government. 

At home, there would be no more restrictions on trade of any kind. Our borders would be completely open, no more taxes on foreign goods, no more tariffs. In short Canadian industrie would either have to lower it’s standards to meet that of places like south east Asia to remain competitive (paying workers 50 cents an hour in despicable conditions) or see 100% of these sectors move to 3rd world countries. 

 Roads, Police, Fire….. all these services would become private. Private corporations would own roads, and you could have to pay them to use them. So simply driving to work, you would have to map out a specific path and only use those roadways you have paid to use. You would have to pay for private corporations to police and protect your nebigourhoods, private companies to protect your house against fires…

 Libertarians believe that corporations do everything better than the government, and thus everything the government does for us today, would have to be done by private corporations. 

 Libertarians are morally disgusting because I believe that a society can best be judged by how we treat our poorest, worst off citizens (like a great man once said) and under a Libertarian government our poor would be left in the street to die.


----------



## FrenchAffair (31 Mar 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yes, beating in the heart of every libertarian is the bloodlust of a Somali warlord.  Are you legally mentally competent?



Somalia is the perfect example of the ultimate evolution of a state running on Libertarian principles. There is limited if any federal government, Private enterprise is free to do what ever they want with no regulations and individuals are free to do what they want, when they want with little if any restrictions.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2007)

Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy.

In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself. While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs, and; b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones. Obviously there is a market mechanism to provide these services to those with the inclination to either buy them or provide voluntary service.

The rest of your objections (if I can use that term) are the typical track of calling regulatory failure "market failure" as justification to impose more government intrusion into private spheres. Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much. The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming, a current event is Canadian farmers attempting to free themselves from the Canadian wheat board, as evidence mounts the board sells Canadian wheat at below market prices, lowering the return of farmers who are forced to sell through the board (reducing their standards of living, taxable income etc.). Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice, and unlike the former Soviet Union, our groceries are not rationed, but like the former USSR, our health care is.

I believe I have spent enough valuable time on this tangent, and don't intend to "feed the trolls" any further. The facts are there for you and everyone else to examine and draw conclusions from. Don't be surprised when people come down on you for pulling erroneous conclusions out of the air.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> *Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here.*


+1

Even the Anarcho-Capitalists argue in favour of a (mutually-agreed) legal code ... the Minarchist school of libertarianism supports a small level of government, functioning by way of a minimal level of taxation, that is responsible for an effective military, police and judicial system: Somalia has none of these ... Pinochet was a tyrant who had no respect for individual liberty.


----------



## FrenchAffair (31 Mar 2007)

> Perhaps a little more reading and a little less trolling is in order here. Somalia is a failed state, and if it represents anything at all it is Anarchy



 The successful implication of Libertarian philosophy upon a society would result in effective “anarchy”. There would be little distinction between Anarchy and a full on Libertarian society beyond the few basic laws maintained (if possible) by a Libertarian government. 

 Anarchy and Libertarism are two shades of the same color, just like Communism and Fascism. 



> In terms of what a true Libertarian society would look like; there would not be welfare, but neither would there be any restrictions on your offering charity to those less fortunate than yourself.



 Show me a time in history when there have been actual laws or restrictions against giving to charity?

 I doubt there has ever been such laws, but that has never prevented mass poverty. Today as it stands the world rich could easily end world starvation and vastly improve the conditions of hundreds of millions of the world poor. But they don’t. Why would it be any different in a Libertarian society? 

 Charity only goes so far, and Charitable originations only have resources and political abilities that extend so far. No origination is as effective and efficient in providing needed aid and bettering the social and economic conditions of our citizens than the government. Stopping them from doing that is morally reprehensible. 



> While you object to privatization of the police, fire department etc. it should be noted that a: these are relatively modern constructs



 And society evolved to create such establishments, what benefits is there in reverting to practices that our society has seen fit to eliminate? 



> b: private security firms and volunteer fire departments far outnumber "public" ones.



 Quality over quantity. Public departments provide equal coverage to all people. Look what happened when private fire departments were established in 17th century England. When you paid a fire department they would put a plaque up on your house indicating that you were provided coverage by a certain company. If your house was on fire and another company responded but you did not pay them, they would let your house burn. 

 To say that private corporations, motivated by profit, are the best originations to protect our cities and home from fire is illogical. If you don’t pay them, there is no motive for them to protect your house. The rich would be well covered, where the poor would be lucky if they even showed up to put the fire out. 

As for private security, they do nothing other than supplement public institutions. There is no situation in the western world where private institutions take over the rolls of investigation and prosecution of crimes. 



> Poor children in public schools get whatever the State decides to provide, which in my experience (from dealing with recruits who have graduated from such schools) isn't much.



Public education is what you make of it. We are taught the exact same things in public school as private schools. 

 The fundamental issue here is that Libertarians believe only those who can afford it deserve education, and since children are depended on their parents really Libertarians believe that only those born into money deserve education, poor parents would be unable to educate their children (sins of the father). 

 That is a barbaric, the cornerstone of developed society is free and universal access to education. It is morally despicable that any individual in our society would seek to deny those of lesser means their fundamental right to education. 



> The evidence of private industry and free trade outperforming government institutions is overwhelming



 The free market has it’s place, but it’s freedoms must be balanced with the wellbeing and needs of society. Libertarians take a free market to the extreme and advocate that it is the magical cure for everything. Unfortunately for them, the market force is not the answer for everything. 



> Wal-Mart saves the poor millions of dollars and provides them greater consumer choice



 Well at the same time providing workers with no benefits, as minimal pay as possible and absolutely no rights as workers (if a store unionizes, they shut the store down).

 Tell me, what do you think Wal-Mart would pay it’s employees if the government didn’t set a minimum wage as Libertarians would advoicate? 



> The facts are there



 I think the only fact that is ultimately relevant is the few thousand votes nationally the Libertarian party gets at best and the fact that no moral and educated society will ever embrace libertarian principles. 




> Somalia has none of these



 They did for many years, but like I said. Somalia today is the ultimate evolution of a Libertarian society. That small, minimally funded government was disregarded as soon as the private corporations (in this case Somalia) gained more power than the government did. Any libertarian society would go the same way, as corporations gained more and more power fueled by their need for more and more money ultimately the government would only stand in their way and they would disregard it and eliminate it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

FrenchAffair: you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  I respect this site enough to try to limit myself to posting about things that I know about.  I ask that you please do the same.


----------



## FrenchAffair (31 Mar 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> FrenchAffair: you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  I respect this site enough to try to limit myself to posting about things that I know about.  I ask that you please do the same.



Attacking the person rather than the argument is a common logical fallacy. I have responded to the arguments presented against mine in turn, if you can not do the same common courtesy and professionalism would ask you to simply not respond rather than try to save face by a lack luster personal attack against me. 

Political ideologies, their differences and applications in the world has been the main field that I have studies in university for the last 2 years so your outlandish claims that I am uninformed it baseless. With out doubt there are individuals who know plenty more than I do, and if you happen to be one of those people then an exchange of arguments would be the course of action to take. But if all you can do is attack my person, and like you claim have respect for this site. Then respect this site by not sinking to the level of personal attacks. 

_*Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"- Seth Finkelstein*_


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem: it is a statement of fact.  If you feel the need to compare credentials, one of my degrees is in Political Economy.  Economics covers the sphere of production, where Politics studies the mode of distribution: Political Economy is the study of the interaction of the two.  Libertarianism is a philosophy of Political Economy.  While you seem to have (very) superficial understanding of some of the economic aspects of libertarianism, the political, and political economy aspects are apparently completely beyond you.  You don't seem to understand the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism nor, ironically, between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism.  Your arguments aren't being refuted directly not because we disagree, but because they are nonsensical: you might as well be arguing that the Air Force has outdated submarines.  Mr. Majoor gave you some very good advice ... I suggest you read some of what he, I, and others have written here on the subject, because your idea of what Libertarianism is flat out wrong.  Here's a primer from the Cato Institute: <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-01-99.html">*Key Concepts of Libertarianism*</a>.

In particular, I draw your attention to: 


> *The Rule of Law.* Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.
> 
> *Limited Government.* To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe -- more than other parts of the world -- that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.


----------



## FrenchAffair (1 Apr 2007)

> "You obviously have no idea what you are talking about" is not an ad hominem: it is a statement of fact.



 It is a subjective opinion. I’m going to assume based on your name and defense of these principles that you adhere in some form to the philosophies of Ayn Rand and thus your perspective is going to be one of pro-libertarian. An individual who subscribes to another philosophical and political standing might agree with what I am saying. So instead of delving into accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, if you from your perspective disagree with what I (or anyone) says you are fully welcome to state your case and I am fully open to read and debate any issues of this. How ever lets keep mature about this, if I don’t know what I am talking about, you can easily demonstrate that by a simple and well placed counter argument. Logical and reason will stand clear from illogical and the irrational, so there is no need for accusations. 



> Libertarianism is a philosophy of Political Economy



 It is far more than just that. It is a all encompassing political philosophy. It embodies a broad, but limited (in numbers) spectrum of groups that share similar theories on not just economic issues, but as well social and moral. 

 Libertarians seek to install social and moral policies just as much as economic ones. 



> You don't seem to understand the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism nor, ironically, between Libertarianism and Authoritarianism.



I fully understand the differences on paper, but in practical application those differences are a lot smaller than Libertarians would like us to believe. 

 Libertarianism is vastly similar to Anarchism in it’s approach to many issues, creating what we can call somewhat “regulated anarchy” which would ultimately lead to circumstances that can be described in no other way than authoritarianism. 

 Libertarians would effectively give corporations a free hand, with no regulations upon business, no regulations upon workers rights or standards these corporations would eventually have a over dominating control of society, especially for the workers depended on them for their very survival (remember, there would be no social programs to help the unemployed or exploited) and would become slaves in everything but name. Enslaved by the conditions created by Libertarian policy. 



> Your arguments aren't being refuted directly not because we disagree, but because they are nonsensical



They are based on the simple conclusions that can easily be come to simply by looking at what Libertarians support and though rational thought seeking what the conclusion of those policies would be upon a developed nation. The vast majority (over 99.98% to be exact) of Canadians came to the same conclusion so unless you are claiming that all but a few accost this broad nation are “nonsensical” your claims are incorrect. 



> Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.



 Which can be boiled down to the commonly quoted phrase of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, and as long as what you do does not infringe upon another right to those three things you can do it. How ever it does nothing to address what I speak of, which is the corner stones of civilized society, which would be removed under a libertarian government. 

 “Each man for himself” is the only appropriate moto for Libertarians, and it charactizes the philosophy entirely and nothing I have claimed is contrary to what Libertarians propose. 

 If you wish I can quote the Libertarian platform where they seek to eliminate government mandated minimum wage, or public health and education… or even the basic government institutions that ensure minimum standards of workers rights (since of course the “market force” will make it all work out for the best)


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2007)

I can't see how a small dose of Libertarianism would ultimately lead to a calous anarchy any more than Canada's present over-regulated social welfare paradise will eventually lead to all out Communism ...

... wait a minute...


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Apr 2007)

Those that claim that hedonism, selfishness and anarchy are not what Libertarianism is about are absolutely correct, however... 

I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty.  All you have to do to see the fallacy of this argument is look back into history.  Sweat shops are a direct result of unregulated business.  The illiberal practices of the so called company towns in the old west were another, indentured servitude was the practical outcome, though it was never called that.  

All this liberty of business and economy does is redirect the power away from elected governments (in a democratic system) to unelected businessmen who's _*only*_ responsibility is to make money for himself, the company and if there are any, shareholders.  It's the final triumph of the oft' perverted "Golden Rule", you know the one that goes "He who has the gold, makes the rules."  I for one would not want to live in a society in which that was more of a fact than a clever turn of phrase.

I can almost hear the argument now... "But if workers are treated poorly then they can go work somewhere else."  A common refrain, but largely unlikely and impractical in a libertarian society.  Without any social programs anyone who does not work is reduced to the status of beggar at best.  Debtors prisons, another result of pay as you go liberty.  

Another libertarian argument is that if the people don't like what the company does then they can buy their products elsewhere.  Except for the small omission that Libertarianism has absolutely no problem with monopolies.  Just imagine what an unscrupulous Bill Gates could do with enough money to buy an entire nation.  Can you say corporate state?

Buy the police, fire departments, the military.  The few existing politicians would be easily bought if not out-right then by proxy (if you own everything then your power in an economic and practical sense is unlimited).  

Think of the POWER!  When the only obstacle to power is money there is literally no obstacle to someone with _enough_ money.

Of course none of this is what Libertarianism is all about... in the same way that Stalin's purges, gulags and the iron curtain are not what communism is about.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2007)

>I have responded to the arguments presented 

You have not.  You have re-created the same straw man as many others who object to libertarian principles.  Libertarianism is not the absence of law and government.  Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government.  All of the failings being pointed out are the failings of people.  People do not magically shed their weaknesses when they take up politics or careers in public service.  The ultimate short cut to money and power is government and employment in government service.  Where should we expect people long on desire but short on willpower and industriousness to seek their aims?

Yes, people working privately can foul up the lives of others.  But no-one can f*ck up the economy, people's investments and livelihoods, the environment, or the well-being of entire cultures and groups of people so fast and on such a scale of magnitude as governments, even governments with noble intentions.  You don't need to look outside the borders of Canada to find government abuses that far outweigh anything people acting privately could aspire to.  Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2007)

Rather than spending our valuable time sweeping straw men out of the room, we really should be concentrating on how to institute Libertarianism as a viable political philosophy. The Dead Hand of Socialism and the Grasping Hand of government are certainly doing their best to arm wrestle the Invisible Hand of the market to the ground (although the true result is the growth of unintended consequences as market forces continue to operate in the new and distorted environments). Blogging seems to be a good starting point, as it is an unfettered medium with low entry barriers, and has the added bonus of being linkable to kindred spirits, and is also a two way medium, thus available to educate people.

Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.

WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........


----------



## JesseWZ (2 Apr 2007)

> Anarchy and Libertarism are two shades of the same color, just like Communism and Fascism.[


Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> I can not believe that any ideology which claims to have liberty as it's driving force would or could believe that unfettered business and an unregulated economy would somehow lead to more individual liberty.



Then it would seem you have yet to delve far enough into the illogical and delusional world of Libertarians. 

 I quote you from the Libertarian Parties platform

*”Replacement of all government-granted monopolies and subsidies with deregulated free markets

“we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics.”

“The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights”*

Libertarians believe that all woes of the world will be solved though the magical “market force”. To them, sweatshops exist only because of government interference into the market place. To them, the unregulated economy is the unfailable solution to every problem. 

Libertarians also have no issue with sweatshops. For them to interfere in private business is against the fundamental principle of their philosophy. The answer a Libertarian would give as to this situation is that if the workers do not like the conditions that they are working in they can quit and find a new job.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
> Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.



Communism and Fascism are practically the same in essence. Communism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “people” above all other, and Fascism creates an authoritarian dictatorship, putting the “state” above all other. 

 In practice, Fascism and Communism are very similar. Fascism can not be “right wing” as the “farther right” ones goes on the spectrum the less government involvement, the more individual freedoms one has. The extreme form of the “right wing” is Anarchy. Fascism and Communism are both aspects of extreme “left wing” philosophies.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> Safeguarding the rights of individuals and the commons are expected functions of a libertarian government.



 How ever, the definition of “rights” to a Libertarian is far from what most people in our society would define them as. 

 Libertarians do not believe in the right to education, health care, food, shelter…. To a Libertarian all those things depend on the basis of if or if not you can afford them. 



> Find a private company which has done anything as vile over the past century as the way Canada has positioned its aboriginal population.



 Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2007)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Not unless the shades of color you refer to are black and white...
> Fascism is  nationalistic  and veheminently anti-communist. Its like the farthest right you can get on the political spectrum. Communism on the other hand is quite the opposite.



Actually Jesse, I think that is a common misconception, but read Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html to see how the one dimensional "left/right" divide distorts political thinking.

You might also like the thread on the Euston Manifesto http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html which looks at quite a few competing ideas in the realm of politics and ideology. Many of our better posters participated in that one, and I thought it was a good debate.

Enjoy!


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.



Really?  Are you talking about what amounts to a very minimal pay here in Canada, or fairly high wages for their country?  A little perspective may be in order.  Now I am sure that should.....say the "Unions" move into these places,..........you'd see even more changes............but that would throw this discussion about "Libertarians" right out the window.  These nations will soon overtake ours with their manufacturing and become the World's producers, while we devolve into States where 'Tourism' will be our only 'Seasonal Employment'.  The "Money" is on the move.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Reccesoldier brings up some interesting observations, but I suspect the best answers to his examples are rooted in history. Many of the examples he brings up represent a time and place where the choices were limited (i.e. frontiers and company towns, where there was only one employer). Law and legal institutions were also poorly developed in many of these settings. In a more developed society where there is a larger and developed infrastructure, more choice is available.



But in the ideal libertarian society there would be significantly less law (and I would argue order) than there is today.  Imagine the actions and methods of drug dealers in Toronto in the absence of legislation.  Do you honestly believe that their methods would change if the drugs suddenly became legal.  Unfettered access to our children and no recourse for Joe and Jill six pack.



> WRT monopolies, in a free market the existence of a monopoly can only take place for a limited time, as the example of the monopolist gathering monopoly rents encourages the growth of competetors who are eager to cash in. Even now, if you don't like Windows, use LINUX in one of its many forms. Government monopolies are pernicious because they use the power of the State to maintain themselves. In my home town the worst substandard housing is owned and operated at taxpayer expense by the city; and the existence of such a large bloc of subsidized housing discourages the establishment of rental housing. Now the call has gone out for subsidized low income housing to be built by the city or province, so home builders are reacting to the establishment of a unscrupulous monopolist by moving out of the low cost housing industry en mass and concentrating on "executive" homes. The market is there, but government has undercut their ability to service the market at a profit...........



In theory... again just like the behemoth communism, libertarianism sounds great on paper.  Remember communism was supposed to set people free.  The ultimate goal was to enable people to work as and when the spirit called them, at whatever they wished, for the good of all.  In reality the command economy led to unending menial labour for all and replaced the "upper class" with the apparatchik.  

In theory the free market would lead to unrestricted competition and monopolies would be a fleeting thing as you say but I can just as easily see the rise of what I called the corporate state which controls not through the mechanism of legislation but through the much broader and much more invasive use of market domination.  

How can a mom and pop business exist in a market dominated by such a corporation?  How long until the mom and pop can't find suppliers because they are all owned by the corporation? Mom and pop have to import their resources from far away because the monopoly owns all the required resources near them, this drives mom and pop's price up and they can not compete and they go out of business, or perhaps better yet the corporation buys them out and continues running mom & pop's business making the same product giving an illusion of competition where there really is none.  The corporation has done nothing wrong, in fact by ensuring their survival they have done everything right according to the market.  Now imagine a corporation that could do that in any and all markets.  Not only do they rule the forestry sector but the petro chemical sector, security industry, fire/rescue services, housing, grocers.  No one works, purchases or manufactures anything which can not be controlled by the corporation through the "free" market.

Before you begin countering this theory, I would remind you that your scenario too is just a theory.  Neither of them can be proven or has been proven to date so the surety with which you counter the assertions of those like FrenchAffair and I is a fallacy predicated on theory, that's it, that's all.

My mother is a wise woman, she always called for me to exercise restraint. "Moderation in all things"  she would say.

I can agree with many Libertarian principals but I'm looking for a balance, somewhere between the Libertarian and modern liberal society.  Our society the thing we call Canada and our identity would not exist without at least a portion of what we call the nanny state, our freedoms would never have been guaranteed if some among us had not been forced or coerced into accepting them.  

I will never be able to swallow the Libertarian ideal whole there is just too much theory, not enough practical application, too much belief, not enough proof.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> How can a mom and pop business exist in a market dominated by such a corporation?  How long until the mom and pop can't find suppliers because they are all owned by the corporation? Mom and pop have to import their resources from far away because the monopoly owns all the required resources near them, this drives mom and pop's price up and they can not compete and they go out of business, or perhaps better yet the corporation buys them out and continues running mom & pop's business making the same product giving an illusion of competition where there really is none.  The corporation has done nothing wrong, in fact by ensuring their survival they have done everything right according to the market.  Now imagine a corporation that could do that in any and all markets.  Not only do they rule the forestry sector but the petro chemical sector, security industry, fire/rescue services, housing, grocers.  No one works, purchases or manufactures anything which can not be controlled by the corporation through the "free" market.



You have just, in essence, discribed conglomerate that was set up by K.C. Irving.  He set up a chain of Gas Stations, then Refineries, then the Trucking companies to transport his product.  He branched out into the Logging Industry and Pulp and Paper.  He linked all his businesses to cut costs.  His enterprise even runs a chain of hotels.  They are into the Food Production (Potatoe farms, etc.) and Food Processing business.  The are in the Shipbuilding and Shipping business (to transport Crude to their refineries from their offshore productions facilities).  They have large property holdings in major metropolitan centeres.  The list is almost endless, as to what kind of business empire the Irving family has created.  

Irving Oil
Irving Shipyards
Irving Shipping
Keddy's
Canada Splint
Irving Pulp and Paper
Irving Forest Products
Irving Refineries
Kent Building Supplies
Cavendish Farms Foods
Telegraph-Journal (Saint John) 
Times & Transcript (Moncton) 
Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
MITV (later sold to Global Television)
The Tribune (Campbellton and Restigouche County) 
La Voix (French Language) (Campbellton and Restigouche County) 
The Bugle-Observer (Woodstock) 
La Cataract (French Language) (Grand Falls, New Brunswick) 
Le Madawaska (French Language) (Edmundston, New Brunswick) 
Midland Trucking
and many more to basically 'own' the Maritimes and much of the Northeastern US.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Apr 2007)

Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese _interference_)of any kind.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese _interference_)of any kind.



Actually, there is no need to think of what kind of setup would happen.  The ownership of most of the industry and media in the Maritimes by one family has more or less stifled the Region.  Their control of so much of the economy in the Region, has political ramifications.  In many cases, if it isn't an Irving controlled 'idea', it is 'not going to happen'.    

What isn't tied up by this family, has been taken up by the McCain and Sobie families.


----------



## edgar (2 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.
> 
> That's your shoe, not mine.  Don't presume to speak for me.



So your opinion then, is that it is presumptuous to rephrase your statement in a clear and simple way, one that easy to understand, and ask you if that is correct in order to understand your perspective better.

Since nothing was clarified, I can answer the point I heard, which is that punishment (coercion), has no place in a libertarian society. This is not in accordance with reality. You have only two tools with which to influence behavior, the carrot and the stick. They are inescapably linked, because withholding the carrot is a form of stick, and sparing the stick is a form of carrot.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really?  Are you talking about what amounts to a very minimal pay here in Canada, or fairly high wages for their country?  A little perspective may be in order.  Now I am sure that should.....say the "Unions" move into these places,..........you'd see even more changes............but that would throw this discussion about "Libertarians" right out the window.  These nations will soon overtake ours with their manufacturing and become the World's producers, while we devolve into States where 'Tourism' will be our only 'Seasonal Employment'.  The "Money" is on the move.



I do not understand how one can be so naïve. 

 Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.

a)	To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries

 Or

b)	Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health? 

 Corporations are out to make money, not improve the quality of life of individuals. Nike is going to make a lot more money if they can manufacture their shoes for 25 cents an hour labor over in south east Asia…. If they improve the conditions of those workers, they will demand more money. The more money Nike has to pay workers… the less money they make. 

 It is in corporations best interest to keep these parts of the world impoverished. Libertarians not only would endorse that, but they would bring the same lack of regulations that allows and creates those conditions in south east Asia and Africa to Canada. 




> Now I am sure that should.....say the "Unions" move into these places,..........you'd see even more changes



No they can’t. Look at what Wal-Mart did when workers in *Quebec* unionized. They fired the workers and shut the store down. And that is in Quebec.

Workers in the 3rd world are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. If they try to create unions these corporations will just shut their factory down and move it somewhere else. Leavening these people with out any means at all. 

 These people can not organize unions because they are enslaved in everything but name. 

You’re delusional fantasies about the “utopia” a Libertarian society would create can only draw parallels to the “utopia” communists claim their manifesto would create…. We all see how that worked out in practice… just as we can see how a libertarian “utopia” would work out in reality just by looking at situations where many aspects of Libertarian policy are currently at work.


----------



## Reccesoldier (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I do not understand how one can be so naïve.
> 
> Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.
> 
> ...



To quote the movie Stripes...

"Relax Francis"


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You have just, in essence, discribed conglomerate that was set up by K.C. Irving.  He set up a chain of Gas Stations, then Refineries, then the Trucking companies to transport his product.  He branched out into the Logging Industry and Pulp and Paper.  He linked all his businesses to cut costs.  His enterprise even runs a chain of hotels.  They are into the Food Production (Potatoe farms, etc.) and Food Processing business.  The are in the Shipbuilding and Shipping business (to transport Crude to their refineries from their offshore productions facilities).  They have large property holdings in major metropolitan centeres.  The list is almost endless, as to what kind of business empire the Irving family has created.
> 
> Irving Oil
> Irving Shipyards
> ...



Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores. 

 They create their own monopoly.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2007)

I won't answer the Irving example directly, since I don't have all the facts, but historical examples (such as the "Robber Baron" era in the United States) suggests that the Irving's have political influence to maintain their monopolies; in the form of regulations which discourage competitors from opening up shop in the Maritimes, favorable business contracts to supply government agencies and so on. High tax rates siphon capital which would otherwise be available for starting competing business (ever wonder why "Limosine Liberals" support socialism?). I suspect that the Irving conglomerate is pretty inbred and complacent, why should it be lean and mean without meaningful competition?

In fact, the widespread availability of "pogey" in the Maritimes also discourages meaningful competition, since the system is set up to penalize people who earn above a certain minimum, a blow against the working poor who are attempting to rise. For that they now have to go to Alberta.

Reccesoldier, you do raise good points, and for what it is worth, Libertarianism is a construct of failable humans (who ALWAYS look out for number one). The best thing about Libertarianism is it is an attempt to limit the arbitrary power of the State and suggests people really can live using the Rule of Law, cooperation and common sense as their guides, probably a better set of principles than invoking the power of the "State", the "People", the "Proletariat", "God", "god" or "The Gods", or any of the other arbitrary and unrestrained constructs of the past and present.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> But in the ideal libertarian society there would be significantly less law (and I would argue order) than there is today.  Imagine the actions and methods of drug dealers in Toronto in the absence of legislation.  Do you honestly believe that their methods would change if the drugs suddenly became legal.  Unfettered access to our children and no recourse for Joe and Jill six pack.



Actually many Libertarians argue that drug dealers exist _only _because the drugs are illegal.  The thinking goes like this: pretty much every demand in the market will be satisfied legally (when possible), or through a black market.  When goods are traded on the black market it creates huge price inflation for the sellers: buyers are willing to pay a risk premium to obtain the good which is the reason why many Dealers get rich.  Drug dealers have a monopoly that is regulated through violence, coercion and corruption (in the event of a contract dispute, there isn't really a court system to which one can appeal).  The lesson is that attempts to regulate social behaviour only lead to unintended consequences.

Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist: this was certainly the US experience with Prohibition in the 20th Century.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores.
> 
> They create their own monopoly.



 ???

Wal-Mart is in no way similar to the example I have given.   The Walton family stuck to Retail.  The Irvings covered everthing.  Everything the Irvings produced, they transported.  Every truck, ship or plane they operated was fueled by their products, from their refineries, and again transported by their own carriers.  The Irving empire was self sustaining and through its ownership of the media, able to control a large area of Northeastern North America.  We are not talking simply of a monopoly here.  We are talking about a whole empire, where everything in daily life is touched and controlled by one family.  They kept their costs down, by hiring their own to purchase, produce, transport and retail.  They controlled their markets by undercutting all others.  

Did they contribute to the widespread availability of "pogey" or not, is debatable.  They did have control of the markets and political scene, so that outside interests could not move in as competition.  They did stifle the creativity of other Northeasterners/Maritimers with their business practices.  

So FrenchAffair, we are not talking about a family that started out in retail and became a giant, but a family who started out with a gas station and expanded it into a gigantic conglomerate, incorporating a wide range of business and industry.  Not just a chain of stores, but a group of stores, gas stations, car dealerships, shipping lines, airlines, trucking, logging, farming, food packaging, refining, sawmills,................  There is no similarity between the two family enterprises, other than the wealth they have been able to generate through their business practices.

New Brunswick might as well be ruled by the Irving family (officially) as it pretty much is unofficially.  Do all have an equal share?  No.  It is right our of George Orwell:  "some are more equal than others."


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Apr 2007)

>Are you joking me. Walmart and Nike, two of the largest corporations in America, even the world run of sweatshops that practically enslave poor, uneducated people who would be put on the streets to starve (with their families) if they did not work in the horrible conditions for minimal pay.

Now I'm just laughing.  What do you think people did before the evil corporations arrived to provide jobs?  Do you suppose they all moved off affluent farms into the cities to work for sh!t wages?  Sweatshops, or sweatfields - I suppose the enslaved poor made a choice.

>Thanks George, now think of that kind of setup without government legislation (or in Libertarianeese interference)of any kind.

I can't imagine that kind of setup being created in the first place without "connections".  Do you think any powerful family or business in existence got where it is today by its own bootstraps, or by exactly the abuses of government power to which I object?  And do you think none of the big enterprises keep their fists firmly up the government's ass so they can control which direction it moves?  You're not using very strong nails to drive your point home.  The reality is that as conglomerations grow larger, their decision cycles lengthen and agility in the marketplace atrophies.  Then a new set of mammals drives out the dinosaurs and evolve themselves into giants, and the cycle repeats.  Government interference and protective legislative measures are the bastions that prop up empires that could not otherwise compete.

Back to FA:

>Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.
>a)   To improve the conditions and standards of living in 3rd world countries where they operate their factories, leading to workers demanding more rights and higher salaries
>Or
>b)   Keep the workers impoverished, uneducated and in a situation where they are forced to work for wages that do not meet their basic needs and in conditions that are substandard and hazardous to their health?

Examination has shown that (b) is not what happens.  The "race to the bottom" is a myth.  As peoples' economic situations improve, both governments and private organizations are driven to accomodate a virtuous cycle of improvements.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I do not understand how one can be so naïve.
> 
> Let me ask you a simple question, what is in any large corporations best interest.
> 
> ...



That sounds fairly naïve to me.  The mere fact that they now have an income, is probably a large step up from where they once were.  Do I think that their standard of living is going to improve overnight?  You really think I am that naïve?  Of course it is not.  It will take years.  Will they be treated as per your option b) is again a very naïve statement on your part.  Any business that hopes to become successful, will not last long using that option.  There are too many Ethical Funds starting up in the Stock Market and too many Business Ethics doctrines being implemented today to think that these practices will continue.  Will they try to get the cheapest labour and resources?  Of course they will.  It is business, but as I have pointed out, once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages, which they did not prior to this, then their standards of living will improve.

   
As for your comments against the possibility of Unions moving in and taking over:


			
				FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> No they can’t. Look at what Wal-Mart did when workers in *Quebec* unionized. They fired the workers and shut the store down. And that is in Quebec.
> 
> Workers in the 3rd world are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. If they try to create unions these corporations will just shut their factory down and move it somewhere else. Leavening these people with out any means at all.
> 
> ...



I think that you are the one who is delusional.  There is nothing utopian at all at play here.  I am sure you are aware of how Unions came into being.  Your examples of Wal-Mart, and should we include Michelin, and the Irvings, and a few others, are fine and dandy, but you are comparing apples to oranges.  Unions in Canada and the US are well past their prime.  The North American unionized worker is so highly paid, it is cost effective for these companies to close down their factories and move elsewhere.  However, if their 3rd World factories Unionize and strike, they will settle and still be saving.  What will a two or three cent hourly wage increase cost them there, compared to the ten or twenty dollar hourly wage increase being demanded here?  When you have the lowest paid workers around, you can afford to compromise with them in the case of a Strike.  They couldn't close down those factories, as there are few places left for them to go to find cheaper labour.  They are already moving into China.

You really don't think things out too well, do you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Wal-Mart started out as a single family owned store as well. We all see the monster it has transformed into. Your point does nothing to counter what he is saying. Once these corporations has established themselves, independent businesses have little ability to compete competitively against them. Wal-Mart is notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores.
> 
> They create their own monopoly.



Monster??....................you do realize you are quoting that word to many CF members who have seen what a "real monster" is capable of, don't you?

....and to answer your wildly wavering point,
independent "Mom and Pop" shops can do just fine, they just must prove to the locals that they are worth the slightly extra cost. The only reason I may go to a Wal-mart is because MOST of the time its the only place around that has stuff made in North America.

Quelle horreur.


----------



## TCBF (2 Apr 2007)

Envy is the root of all Communism.  The very idea that the rich CREATE wealth and employment is an anathema to those losers who think it is better that we all starve together rather than allowing some to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and begin to build a future for themselves and others.

Communism is, like, SO twentieth century, it's dead.  

Watch Africa and India over the next twenty years.  Small 'L' Libertarianism and capitalism are about to triple average wealth in a generation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

Just came across this at <a href="http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/01/29/ten-books-that-changed-my-life-2-atlas-shrugged/">*The Simple Dollar*</a>, about one of the seminal works in modern libertarian thought.



> *Ten Books That Changed My Life #2: Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist



 How would making drugs legal do anything to stop drug dealers? All it would do is allow them to operate out in the open. They would still use violence to maintain their grip on business, they would just set up store fronts and operate out in the open. 

 It would still be in their best interests to operate violent drug cartels forcing impoverished workers in the 3rd world to manufacture the drugs. All making it legal would do is eliminate their need to smuggle the drugs in, giving these drug lords even more money to maintain their criminal empires.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> Now I'm just laughing.  What do you think people did before the evil corporations arrived to provide jobs?  Do you suppose they all moved off affluent farms into the cities to work for sh!t wages?  Sweatshops, or sweatfields - I suppose the enslaved poor made a choice.



They have no choice, these corporations hold so much influence over these 3rd world governments that they are able to cause the government to enact policies and create circumstances where living their traditional way of life is no longer feasible.  These people are offered the choice of either having themselves and their family staving in the streets because the government seized their land for a new Nike plant, or working in despicable conditions, for 16 hours a day packed into factories that are dangerous to their health for wages that do not even provide enough money to provide their family with the minimal standards of living. 

 1/3rd of the world population is not living under the poverty line because corporations pay them to much and provide them with to many benefits. 



> Examination has shown that (b) is not what happens.  The "race to the bottom" is a myth.  As peoples' economic situations improve, both governments and private organizations are driven to accomodate a virtuous cycle of improvements.



 That is completely false, business is out only to make money. There is no money to be made by improving the conditions of the 3rd world that manufactures their goods and provides their labor. If there was no 3rd world countries these corporations would not be making the profit they are.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

:

I remember an old Health Canada commercial on this.  It involved an egg in a frying pan.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> Do I think that their standard of living is going to improve overnight?  You really think I am that naïve?  Of course it is not.  It will take years.



 Not if these corporations have their way. The quality of life in these nations exploited by corporations only increases for the select elite that profit off the exploitation of the poor workers, whose standard of living and quality of life is subjective to the profit margin of these corporations. 



> Any business that hopes to become successful, will not last long using that option.



 The major corporations that dominate our society today did not make it where they are by paying workers in south east Asia wages that would put them above the poverty line. 

 It is healthy to have a distrust in government, we all should. But I can not fathom how Libertarians can be so distrustful of government (who is accountable to the people) yet be willing to put complete blind faith in corporations (whose only interest is money) with no accountability. 



> once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages



 Do you not understand what the “poverty line” means? Sure these people are getting a pay check each week, but they are living under the poverty line. They do not make enough money to provide themselves and their family with the basic standards of life. How is their quality of life supposed to improve when they can not even provide for their families with what they make now. Add in the Libertarian social policies (no welfare, no public education, no public health care) there is absolutely no way that these families would be able to overcome poverty and improve their standard of living from generation to generation. Their children are being sent to work in factories at the age of 10 just so their family can feed itself. 

 Libertarian policy will do nothing other than create circumstance that will only cause a perpetual cycle of poverty for the vast majority of people. 


 The only reason the western world has the standard of living we do today is because of these social policies that our governments have instituted. Public access to health care, Public access to medical care, public welfare….. you would do away with these programs and thus ensure that any advances western society has made to improve the standard and quality of life of our citizens is reverted. 



> The North American unionized worker is so highly paid, it is cost effective for these companies to close down their factories and move elsewhere



 Which is why we need to implement policies to protect jobs in our nation by imposing tariffs on imported goods and imposing penalties on corporations that exploit workers in foreign countries. If there is no money to be made by exploiting 10 year old Asian workers, corporations won’t do it. 



> However, if their 3rd World factories Unionize and strike, they will settle and still be saving.



 Then how come they haven’t done this?

You are under the delusion that people in these nations at a) educated enough to know what, and implement unions and that b) the political situation allows for such action. 

 These corporations ensure that neither of those are possible.


----------



## JesseWZ (2 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Actually Jesse, I think that is a common misconception, but read Politics with more dimensions http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html to see how the one dimensional "left/right" divide distorts political thinking.
> 
> You might also like the thread on the Euston Manifesto http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42161.0.html which looks at quite a few competing ideas in the realm of politics and ideology. Many of our better posters participated in that one, and I thought it was a good debate.
> 
> Enjoy!


Seen, Off to go reading says I.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

> Monster??....................you do realize you are quoting that word to many CF members who have seen what a "real monster" is capable of, don't you?



 The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban.  

 Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban. 

 Evil takes on all forms in this world.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> How would making drugs legal do anything to stop drug dealers? All it would do is allow them to operate out in the open. They would still use violence to maintain their grip on business, they would just set up store fronts and operate out in the open.
> 
> It would still be in their best interests to operate violent drug cartels forcing impoverished workers in the 3rd world to manufacture the drugs. All making it legal would do is eliminate their need to smuggle the drugs in, giving these drug lords even more money to maintain their criminal empires.



You already answered that yourself (bulk shipping is cheaper than smuggling):





			
				FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Wal-Mart is _would become_ notorious for opening up stores in small towns and putting all the “mom and pop” stores _dealers_ out of business, due to the simple fact that Wal-Mart can offer prices lower than anything feasible by these smaller stores _dealers_.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban.
> 
> Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban.



How exactly does that work? Who is and how are they being forced to work?  And how does "enslaved" differ from being enslaved?


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> You already answered that yourself (bulk shipping is cheaper than smuggling):



Who do you think these drug dealers get it from? They already bulk ship it in, making it legal would just let them import even more drugs to pollute our population.


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> How exactly does that work? Who is and how are they being forced to work?  And how does "enslaved" differ from being enslaved?



Take a look at any 3rd world nation and the corporations breaking down the door to exploit the native population. And “enslaved” is different than enslaved in that being “enslaved” is slavery in everything but name and law.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Who do you think these drug dealers get it from? They already bulk ship it in, making it legal would just let them import even more drugs to pollute our population.



Yeah, in your world they send it Panalpina, right?  ROFLMAO!!!   :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

As I said before:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I remember an old Health Canada commercial on this.  It involved an egg in a frying pan.



You are painting a very psychedelic picture of yourself as you spread it over the floor on your way into that corner.   ;D

Are you sure you have made the correct career choices?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Take a look at any 3rd world nation and the corporations breaking down the door to exploit the native population. And “enslaved” is different than enslaved in that being “enslaved” is slavery in everything but name and law.



Define "exploited."
By what mechanism are these 3rd world nation native populations being enslaved?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said before:
> 
> You are painting a very psychedelic picture of yourself as you spread it over the floor on your way into that corner.   ;D
> 
> Are you sure you have made the correct career choices?



I just think that gangsterism is the bigger problem!


----------



## FrenchAffair (2 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Yeah, in your world they send it Panalpina, right?  ROFLMAO!!!   :rofl:



And the billions of dollars of drugs brought into this nation each year just magically appears? It obviously is not that hard to smuggle drugs in, they aren’t bring it over dime bag at a time buddy, the money is in bring over large amounts, and that is exactly what they do. 

Making drugs legal will do nothing to stop these criminal empires, it will just make it easier for them to operate. They have been able to survive the war on drugs, billions of dollars spent superficially at putting them out of business, how will opening the market up pose any more of a challenge than that?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Apr 2007)

That's why Al Capone is still running Chicago, right?  And they made Tony Montana a rum-runner?


----------



## FrenchAffair (3 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> That's why Al Capone is still running Chicago, right?  And they made Tony Montana a rum-runner?



Ending prohibition didn’t end organized crime. The Chicago syndicate (the criminal enterprise created by Al Capone) still exists today and is one of the most powerful organized crime in the country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2007)

Enough bullsh!t.  Read and learn.  This one sums it up pretty well:  http://danieldrezner.com/policy/RTBreview.doc

You can play ostrich if the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear, but the real world is no longer operating like Dickens's England.  Modern corporate governance bodies understand that they have interests in maintaining access to relatively healthy, educated, and motivated work forces, no matter how trivial the labour.  Even if we stipulate that all corporations are operated by decision makers who cleave to the most selfish perspective of the organizational entity, it is clear that there are countervailing mechanisms.  Your hypothesis is so weak that I can freely concede that corporations would be evil incarnate had they a free hand to do so, and still point to the empirical observation that the results of complex social and economic interactions in the long term amount to increasing improvements - because the corporations don't have that free hand.  It doesn't even matter much where the political cultures are notorious for bribery or "squeeze".

Criminals trade narcotics because the criminalization of narcotics makes narcotics trafficking profitable.  If all aspects of criminality were removed, the supply would surge to meet demand, prices would fall, and the criminals would turn to other, more profitable endeavours.  There would still be the social costs, of course.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Actually many Libertarians argue that drug dealers exist _only _because the drugs are illegal.



Riiiight, and bank robbers only exist because there are banks.  : ;D  



> Drug dealers have a monopoly that is regulated through violence, coercion and corruption (in the event of a contract dispute, there isn't really a court system to which one can appeal).  The lesson is that attempts to regulate social behaviour only lead to unintended consequences.Thus, if drugs were sold through legal channels, black market drug dealers (along with the strife and violence associated with them) would cease to exist: this was certainly the US experience with Prohibition in the 20th Century.



I disagree that drug dealers enjoy a monopoly, after all there are constant turf wars between rival drug dealers/gangs and human nature leads us to believe that their violent tendancies would certainly not change overnight if the drugs were legalized. To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can't imagine that kind of setup being created in the first place without "connections".  Do you think any powerful family or business in existence got where it is today by its own bootstraps, or by exactly the abuses of government power to which I object?  And do you think none of the big enterprises keep their fists firmly up the government's *** so they can control which direction it moves?



But Brad, your libertarian argument is that with less legislation there is less government, while I can agree that less government is a good idea does this also not mean that less people have to have "fists firmly up [their] asses" in order to control the governmental side of the equation?  You really wouldn't be lessening the overall power of government, just narrowing its focus.

I would also argue that the Irving empire and practically any other you could care to mention did indeed pull itself up by its own bootstraps in the beginning.  Now as time has gone on certainly the connections and control measures you speak of have been cultivated and nurtured but I would also argue that in ANY system, capitalist, communist, liberal, conservative, fascist or libertarian the players within it WILL find a way to manipulate the system for their benefit and to maintain a profitable status quo.  I can not see libertarianism being any different.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are too many Ethical Funds starting up in the Stock Market and too many Business Ethics doctrines being implemented today to think that these practices will continue.  Will they try to get the cheapest labour and resources?  Of course they will.  It is business, but as I have pointed out, once these impoverished people start gaining employment and earning wages, which they did not prior to this, then their standards of living will improve.



With all due respect George I think that you infer upon Ethical Funds a much more significant position within the stock market than they really command.  

Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I would also argue that the Irving empire and practically any other you could care to mention did indeed pull itself up by its own bootstraps in the beginning.  Now as time has gone on certainly the connections and control measures you speak of have been cultivated and nurtured but I would also argue that in ANY system, capitalist, communist, liberal, conservative, fascist or libertarian the players within it WILL find a way to manipulate the system for their benefit and to maintain a profitable status quo.  I can not see libertarianism being any different.



Well that is really the crux of the argument right there. I have no objections to people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps (indeed I hope to do so as well), what I object to is the mentality that once they have reached the commanding hights, they can then use the power of the State to subtly or unsubtly quash all potential competition.

Libertarians realize that people live to "manipulate the system", but take the realistic view that there is less overall harm if the system is small and fragmented, since players who take over parts of the system have far fewer resources in their hands. The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this, hence the principle of separation of powers. The ancient Greeks realized this also, and attempted to solve it through random selection (drawing juries by lot) and strict term limits.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Do you not understand what the “poverty line” means? Sure these people are getting a pay check each week, but they are living under the poverty line.



Who's poverty line?



> They do not make enough money to provide themselves and their family with the basic standards of life.



Who's standards?



> How is their quality of life supposed to improve when they can not even provide for their families with what they make now. Add in the Libertarian social policies (no welfare, no public education, no public health care) there is absolutely no way that these families would be able to overcome poverty and improve their standard of living from generation to generation.



Of course they do, the same way the western world did, through insurrection, revolution, civil disobedience and societal evolution.  

One must be very careful not to impose his own standards, prejudice or preference upon another people no matter how enlightened those standards- may be.  Can you say North American Indian, Aboriginal, Iraq, Africa... And the beat goes on.



> The only reason the western world has the standard of living we do today is because of these social policies that our governments have instituted. Public access to health care, Public access to medical care, public welfare….. you would do away with these programs and thus ensure that any advances western society has made to improve the standard and quality of life of our citizens is reverted.


  

While I agree on a certain level I would point out that our society has those things not because someone imposed them upon us but because they evolved out of *our* societal choices.  Who is to say what sort of path India will take due to its societal choices.  Societies evolve just as surely as animals and for the same reasons.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2007)

An interesting observation about the provision of "public goods" could be made about the Walkerton tainted water tragedy. Various levels of government agencies knew about the illegal well, poor "quality control" at the public water treatment facility and so on for up to a decade prior to everything going south, but there was no mechanism to compell anyone to do anything until there were actual deaths. One can only imagine how many Walkertons are out there unremarked because no one has died yet.

The people of Walkerton were able to drink thanks to private industry, however, which provided clean bottled water, water which must be clean and pure in order to maintain its share among consumers who choose to purchase it, and inexpensive enough to compete with tap water......the irony of it all is astounding


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I disagree that drug dealers enjoy a monopoly, after all there are constant turf wars between rival drug dealers/gangs and human nature leads us to believe that their violent tendancies would certainly not change overnight if the drugs were legalized. To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.



Cartels, not monopolies, though local monopolies do exist (sorry, I was thinking faster than I was typing) ... organized crime was created in the United States, for all intents and purposes, during the Prohibition era.  Crime grew dramatically and then declined when Prohibition was repealed.  Following the end of Prohibition, organized crime did  eventually turn to other black markets (notably gambling, labour racketeering and drug trafficking), which is why it continues to exist today ... with the increasing popularity of legally sanctioned gambling, it will be interesting to see what happens with that market in the coming years ...

More here (from the Cato Institute): <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html">*Policy Analysis: Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure*</a>


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Riiiight, and bank robbers only exist because there are banks.  : ;D



Apples and oranges ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.



Back in the real world: 
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2005/04/samizdata_quote_of_the_day_140.html


> *Samizdata quote of the day*
> April 16, 2005
> Samizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts)  Globalization/economics
> 
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Apr 2007)

If I had to choose sides in a dodgeball game between Progressives and Libertarians I would play with the Libertarians.  I would rather, however, watch them from the stands as they get head-shots. 

I do believe that people should be the master of their own destiny and that government does not know best.  I believe that people should be responsible for their actions.  I also believe that unfettered self-interest can lead to a break-down of the society in which individuals live, especially as those societies grow larger and become impersonal.  It can be argued that the West (read English speaking countries) avoided revolutions because of a compromise between free-will/free trade and some form of socialism.  The welfare state annoys me, but I also don't like the idea of a family being sunk if the bread-winner loses his job.  I don't come from a rich family, but my knee got fixed by the same guy that fixes NHL players and my folks didn't have to go into debt.  I don't want the governent to tell my how to raise my kids or decide what movies they can watch, but I do appreciate them checking on the safety of the foods that I eat and the hygiene of restaurants I eat in.  

Now, I do think that we've gone a little too far down the welfare state road.


----------



## Reccesoldier (3 Apr 2007)

Well said Red_Five.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2007)

>To use your analogy, organized crime did not disapear nor did it become less violent when prohibition was ended.

No, it did not, but how many organizations do you know of that are heavily into bootlegging (except perhaps where the taxes are very high)?


----------



## squealiox (3 Apr 2007)

did someone say libertarians are not utopians?
if that's the case, you should have no trouble naming a few libertarian countries then. 
you know, ones where the government does law enforcement and defence, and nothing else whatsoever.
just one? anybody?



ps -- the republic of sealand is out of the running since it caught fire and everybody went home


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> With all due respect George I think that you infer upon Ethical Funds a much more significant position within the stock market than they really command.
> 
> Business ethics also do not tend to extend too much into the forgotten backwaters of third world nations.  Of course once a company is exposed as an exploiter then they make a big show of "improving" but as you yourself pointed out, such improvements are very incrimental and likely as not, only affect those backwater suppliers that are linked to the company by the original complaint.



Just got back, and do agree with you.  Most don't pay much attention to these Funds or practices.  It is, however, interesting that they have made an appearance on the Stock Markets and also that Corporations are conducting training in "Ethics".  

It does give the appearance that there are changes/inroads being made in the higher echelons of 'Big Business'.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2007)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> if that's the case, you should have no trouble naming a few libertarian countries then.



Given the power and privilage available to the career politicians and permanent bureacracy with access to the powers of the State, I think it is pretty obvious why there are no Libertarian countries today.

Given the appaling record of career politicians and the permanent bureacracy using State power, there is a very good argument as to why there should be some......


----------



## FrenchAffair (3 Apr 2007)

*"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky*


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> *"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky*



Ah, Chomsky... The King nutbar of planet wing-bat.

Of course Chomsky's own brand of tyranny is extreme left wing.  He and his ilk spout off about human rights, freedom and liberty too without hesitating for a second to advocate the enforcement of leftist ideals on EVERYONE in society.

No, Libertarians do not have all the answers, nor is their solution THE solution, but their claim on perfection is no less tenuous than any other ideology either.

For those that think Libertarianism does have all the answers, step outside of the social/economic sphere and take a cold hard rational look at Libertarian ideals of Defence and foreign policy.  Implimenting just half of what Libertarians advocate in these areas would utterly destroy a nations credibility on the world stage.  Perhaps (and that is probably giving undue credit) it could work on a world filled with Libertarian nations but we are nowhere near the point where individual sovereignty trumps national sovereignty.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> *"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky*


*
"Matt Damon" -Matt Damon*


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Apr 2007)

>The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. 

A straw man constructed by Noam Chomsky is nonetheless a straw man.  Tyranny assumes the possibility of one person arbitrarily infringing the rights of another without consequences, which is antithetical to libertarianism.  Chomsky is writing or speaking of something else.  The defence and foreign policy of a libertarian state has already been summed up in classical liberal, republican terms: friends of liberty everywhere; guardians of our own.

The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state: the means by which some people live at the expense of others.


----------



## FrenchAffair (4 Apr 2007)

> Tyranny assumes the possibility of one person arbitrarily infringing the rights of another without consequences



Seeing as you are, or at least are arguing from a Libertarian point of view you should make perfectly clear that what Libertarians consider “rights” are not what most humans consider rights.

 Libertarians believe the only rights are that to Life and Property.

There is no right to education, health care, food, shelter, water, or any of the other things that we in the western world are afforded, and that humans everywhere should be entitled to. All thoses rights and more would be arbitrarily denyed to citizens of Canada with out consequences under Libertarian goverment.



> The defence and foreign policy of a libertarian state has already been summed up in classical liberal, republican terms: friends of liberty everywhere; guardians of our own



 In other words, a Canadian Libertarian would have had no issue with Nazi Germany taking over Europe and would have not deployed Canadian forces to fight against the evils of Nazi Germany and the holocaust. 



> The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state



 I would say it is more because most people are not heartless enough and not deluded enough to support the policies of Libertarianism. 

 I’m glad we live in a welfare state, because we are all better off for it.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The fact no libertarian state exists is because most people can't shake off their hope to profit by Bastiat's nation-state: the means by which some people live at the expense of others.





> author=FrenchAffair link=topic=45537/post-552853#msg552853 date=1175740000]
> I’m glad we live in a welfare state, because we are I am  all  better off for it.



Summed up quite nicely


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> ...
> Seeing as you are, or at least are arguing from a Libertarian point of view you should make perfectly clear that what Libertarians consider “rights” are not what most humans consider rights.
> 
> Libertarians believe the only rights are that to Life and Property.
> ...



I have been reluctant to join this debate because I’m not a _libertarian_ and I see many flaws with the way _organized_ and _institutionalized_ Libertarians see the world.  Rather, I would describe myself as a _classic liberal_, firmly rooted in the middle of the 19th century – I think pretty much all liberal values were established then and, except for Isaiah Berlin, not much was added to liberalism in the 20th century.

But, as to rights:

•	There are _natural_ rights – life, liberty, equality and property.  These reside with the individual and are _rights_ relative to all collectives – governments, churches and all other organizations which cater to intrusive, conservative busybodies; and

•	There are _legislated_ rights – health care, education, welfare, ‘special’ preferences and so on.  Look at the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see the inherent nonsense of _legislated_ rights.  The first 21 articles will not trouble any real liberals, even conservatives will only be modestly troubled by some (§17, for example).  It is the next five, §22 – 27, which render the Declaration and all legislated rights pure, simple, unadulterated rubbish.

A quick and dirty _test_ for natural rights would be: “Am I willing to fight and die, even send my sons to fight and die to defend these rights for strangers?”  If the answer is “Yes!” then it is a natural right; if the answer is “No!” then it is a *rubbish right*.  Is anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers really willing to send her son to fight for someone’s _*right*_ to enjoy the arts or participate in the cultural life of his community?  Anyone?  Anyone at all?  Step right up ...


Edit: typo - "will not trouble anyd real liberals"


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Apr 2007)

>There is no right to education, health care, food, shelter, water, or any of the other things that we in the western world are afforded, and that humans everywhere should be entitled to. All thoses rights and more would be arbitrarily denyed to citizens of Canada with out consequences under Libertarian goverment.

You misphrased the concept in your second sentence.  Let us leave aside the fact that libertarians are not philosophically restrained by principle from providing or receiving those services.  If I don't pay to educate and care for you, I have denied you nothing - you still have unlimited liberty to see to your own desires and needs.  I can only deny you education and health care if I restrain you from attending school or seeing a doctor.  A libertarian would do neither.  What you need to understand and accept is that many of the rights you cherish are privileges provided by others.  In the simplest terms, you have no natural power except tyranny (force or threat of force) to demand anything which must be granted or provided by another person.  The rights you claim above, you can have only three ways:
1) You provide the benefits for yourself.
2) Someone consents to provide you those benefits.
3) Someone is, effectively, enslaved (his productive work is confiscated) to provide you those benefits.  Slavery may be an overly crude way of describing it, but it helps to reinforce the blunt fact that the value of one person's time and labour are transferred to another by dictate and force, or threat of force.  It doesn't matter to me whether you (through the state) lay claim to ownership of two or twenty-four hours of each day of my finite life; both amount to slavery.


----------



## FrenchAffair (5 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Summed up quite nicely



“I” am part of the collective “we” I was referring to (Canadian Citizens) so yes, of course I am better off for it. Though not in the insulting way you are implying, my family is affluent upper middle class to be modest about it so no I am not on welfare. But being in the social position my family has afforded me I still benefit from the services and laws the government enacts to enhance the lives of all Canadians. 

 I benefit from our public education, I benefit from our public health system, I benefit from our roads, museums, parks and long list of other government programs and services. 

 I’ve lived in places that are as close to Libertarian governments that you will find in the western world (New Hampshire, center of the Libertarian party in America) and have come to realize that what our government provides us is invaluable. We all benefit from so many government institutions and programs, ones that we do not even realize and that I only appreciate that much more because I’ve had the opportunity to experience life with out them. 

 Even small things, like playing hockey. In New Hampshire for a child to play recreational hockey (like our house league) costs close to 4000$ a season for one child. That’s because the Arena there are not owned by the government, the ice time is not subsidized, the leagues are not funded by the government. That might not have been much of an issue to my family, but that is a large financial burden to most people. Compared to the 200$ fee you pay per child here in Canada for your child to play hockey. 

 That’s just one small example, you might not realize it but we all benefit from the small things like this that the government subsidizes, or helps pay for and no matter who we are, rich or poor we benefit from that. 

 Would we have more money in the bank under a Libertarian government, of course. My family pays the highest tax bracket in Canada possible, so under Libertarian policies I’m sure we would have more money, but I much rather pay those higher taxes, and be afforded all the benefits that our social democracy provides us, and that is far from an abstract ideology, according to the last Canadian federal election 99.98% of Canadians feel the same way I do to varying degrees. Because when it comes down to it I can either pay those slightly higher taxes and have that money collectively put into an origination that is accountable to me for them to use to the best interests and benefits of me and other Canadians, or I can be a Libertarian, get that extra tax break and have to pay for everything and pay more for it, to people who do not have my best interests in mind, but who are motivated only by their goal to get as much money from me as possible and make the largest profit possible.


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

> If I don't pay to educate and care for you, I have denied you nothing - you still have unlimited liberty to see to your own desires and needs.



 To sum it up, “Each man for himself”. The barbaric principles that not even western societies in the darkest times of our history abided by.



> In the simplest terms, you have no natural power except tyranny (force or threat of force) to demand anything which must be granted or provided by another person.



 So how do Libertarians propose to collect taxes? Just ask really nicely? 



> 1) You provide the benefits for yourself.



 So if someone can’t feed themselves they should starve in the streets?


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Apr 2007)

>To sum it up, “Each man for himself”. The barbaric principles that not even western societies in the darkest times of our history abided by.

The darkest times in our history were generally when governments of one stripe or another used some people to the benefit of others.  If you're going to keep making ridiculous assumptions that people can't or won't co-operate with something less than a welfare state holding a gun to their heads, you're not really criticising libertarian ideas.  You're criticising fiction.


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

> If you're going to keep making ridiculous assumptions that people can't or won't co-operate with something less than a welfare state holding a gun to their heads, you're not really criticising libertarian ideas.  You're criticising fiction.



 We could end world poverty and hunger with in a matter of months… easily. The western world possesses more than enough wealth and the logistical ability to do so. But we don’t…. 

 So what in that would ensure me that when Canadians are starving on the streets and in poverty that other Canadians out of their own altruism would provide enough to eliminate that?  

 There are plenty of people accost this great nation that would contribute as much as they could to charity, but it would fall short. A Libertarian nation would greatly increase the amount of poverty in this nation and there is no indication that it would increase the amount of charity. More people would end up on the streets and with out government programs to help them their situation would only get worse. 

 No institution will ever be able to combat poverty and ensure the minimum standard of living to all Canadians as well and effectively as the government can.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I benefit from our public education, I benefit from our public health system, I benefit from our roads, museums, parks and long list of other government programs and services.



At who's expense? So long as you refuse to acknowledge you are claiming the time and effort of others without their consent, then you will fail to understand why your so called arguments are so flimsy



			
				FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> No institution will ever be able to combat poverty and ensure the minimum standard of living to all Canadians as well and effectively as the government can.



Despite the untold billions of dollars spent on "eliminating poverty" through government programs, poverty remains a fact of life. If we are to believe the proponents of more government spending/intervention, the situation has gotten worse in spite of all the vast sums of money being spent. I see no empirical evidence to support ANY of your assertations, and lots to refute it. 

So long as people believe they can live at someone else's expense, then Libertarianism faces an uphill challenge. Perhaps Ayn Rand had the right idea with "Atlas Shrugged"; only when the people who are being imposed upon refuse to shoulder the unearned and unconsented claims on their time and energy will the system collapse and the parisitical and (as noted in the wording of French Affair's post) selfish philosophies behind welfare statism die out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2007)

_Quote from French Affair,
Even small things, like playing hockey. In New Hampshire for a child to play recreational hockey (like our house league) costs close to 4000$ a season for one child. That’s because the Arena there are not owned by the government, the ice time is not subsidized, the leagues are not funded by the government. That might not have been much of an issue to my family, but that is a large financial burden to most people. Compared to the 200$ fee you pay per child here in Canada for your child to play hockey._

                         MOD POST

French Affair, I have no dog in this fight but you WILL stop pulling things out of your ass to make an arguement. The above kife is simple and pure garbage, $200 doesn't even make a down payment on what a kid costs for hockey,........ so here it is, play with facts or don't play at all.


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

> French Affair, I have no dog in this fight but you WILL stop pulling things out of your *** to make an arguement. The above kife is simple and pure garbage, $200 doesn't even make a down payment on what a kid costs for hockey,........ so here it is, play with facts or don't play at all.



 Feel free to contact Sandy Hill or the Bytown Minor Hockey League.

_Sandy Hill Minor Hockey Association 
P.O. Box 74207, 
5 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, 
ON K1M 2H9 (dave@sandyhilhockey.ca)_

Last season for my younger brother, playing Atom “b” house league hockey required a $275 check at the beginning of the season and that was it to play from October to March. 

 Playing the same level of hockey in New Hampshire cost just short of $4000 American.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2007)

Off-topic but from thier website
ATOM  9 & 10    $400.00  
Holding the line on registration fees: The 2006-07 registration fee structure remains unchanged from last season.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Apr 2007)

What I don't get is how anyone can claim that it is fair that that people who have kids who don't play hockey (or don't have kids at all) have to subsidize the parents of kids who do play hockey: why can't they use their money on their own kids for a sport that their kids play?  Of course it's a great system *if* you happen to be the parent of kids that play hockey ...

Similarly, why is it that people who work after high school have to subsidize the tuitions of the other people that go to college/university (and tend to get higher-paying jobs as a result)?

Libertarianism is about being able to use your own resources to provide the best possible life for your family: socialism is about trying to steal other people's resources in order to provide the best possible life for your family.


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

Obviously part of that cost is subdiszed by Sandy Hill hockey association then. The fact remains, 200$ or 400$ that the cost is greatly less (10x at minimum) than that of the cost in a region where the government does not provide any funding.


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

> What I don't get is how anyone can claim that it is fair that that people who have kids who don't play hockey (or don't have kids at all) have to subsidize the parents of kids who do play hockey: why can't they use their money on their own kids for a sport that their kids play?



 Because having children (poor or rich) being able to participate in sports benefits all of Canadian society, not just those who have children.  

 You want a world where only children in well to do families are able to participate in organized sports. The children of the working class would not be able to participate in these organized sports and activities with out government subsidies on them. 

 Not only do not want to make it impossible for poor families to send their children to school, but you want to eliminate the ability for them to participate in these activities. 

 I suggest you take a look at the inner cities of large American cities. Situations there are very similar to what you are suggesting, and look what happens to the children there. With out these organized activities they join gangs, get involved in crime, drugs (which would be legal if up to you). 

 Maybe it is not “fair” that some individuals are forced to pay taxes, of which a portion will go towards programs that they will not directly participate it. But these programs benefit all of society and create better circumstances in our nation which we all benefit from. 



> Similarly, why is it that people who work after high school have to subsidize the tuitions of the other people that go to college/university (and tend to get higher-paying jobs as a result)?



 Because the more people in our nation that are college or university educated the higher the standard of living and quality of life in our nation will become and it will encourage individuals to achieve higher education which benefits all of society in too many ways to list. 



> Libertarianism is about being able to use your own resources to provide the best possible life for your family



 Which is why it is immoral and goes against the foundation that western society has been built upon. 

I am far from a socialist, but western society, the society we live in, that I benefit from and you benefit from was created from the fundamental principle of maintaining a standard of living and quality of life for our citizens. The welfare of the citizens of Canada is the responsibility of our government, that includes ensuring that they are able to provide the minimum standard for themselves and their family. If that requires that every citizen of Canada contributes portions of what they earn each year to help these people then so be it. If you don’t like that you are welcome to move. 

 But I for one will never support a government that would stand by and do nothing well millions of Canadian families lived in poverty and starvation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Obviously part of that cost is subdiszed by Sandy Hill hockey association then.


And where did they get their money from?



> The fact remains, 200$ or 400$ that the cost is greatly less (10x at minimum) than that of the cost in a region where the government does not provide any funding.


  The fact remains that the cost is less to the hockey Moms and Dads only: the cost to everyone else is infinitely higher.  Check out "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" *"The government" doesn't have any money to provide funding: "the government" extorts it from "the taxpayer."*


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Because having children (poor or rich) being able to participate in sports benefits all of Canadian society, not just those who have children.
> 
> You want a world where only children in well to do families are able to participate in organized sports. The children of the working class would not be able to participate in these organized sports and activities with out government subsidies on them.
> 
> ...


 If you are really believe this starry-eyed idealist B.S. notion that subsidies improve society, then provide a direct subsidy (i.e., tax break) to all parents and let them choose which sports to enroll their kids in: then kids who don't play hockey can enjoy the benefit of organized sports, too ... it ain't rocket science.  



> Because the more people in our nation that are college or university educated the higher the standard of living and quality of life in our nation will become and it will encourage individuals to achieve higher education which benefits all of society in too many ways to list.


Ah yes, the poor subsidizing the rich for the "benefit" of the poor: is it any wonder why socialism is always a disaster?


----------



## FrenchAffair (6 Apr 2007)

> If you are really believe this starry-eyed idealist B.S. notion that subsidies improve society, then provide a direct subsidy (i.e., tax break) to all parents and let them choose which sports to enroll their kids in: then kids who don't play hockey can enjoy the benefit of organized sports, too ... it ain't rocket science.



 So then only people who choose to have that tax break contribute to hockey should be allowed to use the facilities? Should we issue them special identification cards indicating that they contributed to the construction of the Arena and only they have access to it? 

 The government builds these facilities and every individual has the right to use them and take advantage of the benefits of them. 

 I’ve never had cause the call the police or require their services, should I be forced to pay for the police services provided to other people? 



> Ah yes, the poor subsidizing the rich for the "benefit" of the poor: is it any wonder why socialism is always a disaster?



 We live in a social democracy, big difference from socialism. And the subsidizing of education has been very successful in the western world. Each generation more and more people are able to attend post secondary education and the benefits of that to our society can easily been seen.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2007)

All your arguments can be parsed quite simply in the hockey example:

1. "I want to play hockey"
2. "I am unwilling to make any but the most notional sacrifice to fulfill my wants"
3. "I demand others contribute $3800 so I can play hockey"
4. "It does not matter that these contributers might have other uses for the $3800, or wants of their own; my wants are paramount"
5. "Since they might not wish to contribute to my playing hockey, I will invoke the armed power of the State to enfoce these contributions"

You can substitute any "legislated right" for hockey, the arguments are always the same, and have the same results. Stealing frrom others  is not a right, and using the power of the State to steal from legislatively disarmed people is moraly disgusting. In EVERY example you have thrown out, the true benefit of this theft goes to the individual who is able to receive the bounty of others. Saying "society benefits" is a hollow rationalization since the concept is so elastic as to be meaningless; you can arbitrarily include or exclude any person, group or institution in order to support your position.

The empirical evidence simply and totally contradicts everything you say; people are not better off, ouor standard of living is increasing at a far slower rate than more Libertarian jurisdictions, Health care standards are not only declining (i.e. wait times) but we now hear serious suggestions of rationing and arbitray discrimination to conserve the dwindling resources. You have certainly made our point, and out of your own mouth too.

Live your life, enjoy the benefits hard working people provide you. I suspect you will never break through that level of self involvemeent to either study the arguments or thank the hard working people on whom you feed, but there is always hope.


----------



## FrenchAffair (7 Apr 2007)

a_majoor, so you are saying that the state has no right to tax citizens?



> ouor standard of living is increasing at a far slower rate than more Libertarian jurisdictions



 Examples? 



> Live your life, enjoy the benefits hard working people provide you.



 It is incredibly likely that not only do I pay far more taxes than you do each year but that you use far more government services than I do.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Apr 2007)

>The government builds these facilities and every individual has the right to use them and take advantage of the benefits of them.

Access is irrelevant to someone who has no interest, and culture and leisure are exactly the last areas in which governments should be involved because in order to pay for one person's pleasure, another must be denied his own.

> I’ve never had cause the call the police or require their services, should I be forced to pay for the police services provided to other people?

Unless you manage to avoid using public roads - either your own vehicle or transit - you at least indirectly use police (traffic) services.  Public infrastructure is much the same, and those functions are why most people who might be sympathetic to riding on the libertarian bus get off at the stop marked "classical liberal" or not much further along. With respect to most infrastructure, the role of government boiled down to basics is to accept a risk or write-off that a private concern can not (because a private concern does not have the power to go door-to-door to demand payments).  Nearly all infrastructure can be operated privately; much of it is difficult to develop privately.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Apr 2007)

>We could end world poverty and hunger with in a matter of months… easily.

Yes, and we have governments of almost every conceivable type around the globe - including many welfare states - and the problem persists.  They've failed.  Time to try something else.


----------



## FrenchAffair (7 Apr 2007)

> Nearly all infrastructure can be operated privately



 At which time the chief concern stops being to benefit the people and begins to be making a profit, in which case access to infrastructure stops being nation wide and becomes restricted to the select few who can afford it.  



> Yes, and we have governments of almost every conceivable type around the globe - including many welfare states - and the problem persists.  They've failed.  Time to try something else.



 If anything the “welfare” states have succeeded. America was very close to your ideal nation pre 1930’s and that ended in the great depression which resulted in the implimation of social initiatives, which in turn brought board wide increases in the standard of living and quality of life, not to mention economic gains. 

 The states in which the government does not provide health care, education, welfare are the ones that are failing, the ones where people are starveling and in poverty. 

90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> a_majoor, so you are saying that the state has no right to tax citizens?
> 
> It is incredibly likely that not only do I pay far more taxes than you do each year but that you use far more government services than I do.



Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Someone assuming!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> At which time the chief concern stops being to benefit the people and begins to be making a profit,


 Yeah, the benefit of the people: how come everything that is for the "benefit of the people" begins with "you give us," then continues with "we pay ourselves and our friends," and ends with "then we'll give you.?"



> If anything the “welfare” states have succeeded. America was very close to your ideal nation pre 1930’s and that ended in the great depression which resulted in the implimation of social initiatives, which in turn brought board wide increases in the standard of living and quality of life, not to mention economic gains.


 The recession was caused by market forces; the _depression _was caused by tight monetary policy and exacerbated by the New Deal.



> The states in which the government does not provide health care, education, welfare are the ones that are failing, the ones where people are starveling and in poverty.


 Yeah, sure whatever you say ... 



> 90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.


 Just because something is popular, it isn't necessarily optimal: have you ever heard of national debt?  Do you have any understanding that the standard of living of my generation is lower than that of my parents?  Do you know why?  I'll tell you: the "me" generation went out and 'maxed their credit cards' in the name of the kind "social progress" you seem to think is such a wonderful thing: the problem is that they (well, the smarter ones among them) have already accumulated their wealth ... it is the younger taxpayer that will shoulder the burden of most of their benefits.  It happens over time, but is inevitable.  Where do you think the interests of your 50-something professors, who rely on the taxpayer for most of their salaries and their retirement pensions, lie?  Do you honestly think that they would try to convince you to shortchange their lifestyle for the benefit of yours?


----------



## FrenchAffair (7 Apr 2007)

> Ewwwwwwwwwwww!
> 
> Someone assuming!



I’m making an educated guess. If his given career in his profile is correct I can ensure you that I make more money a year than any sergeant in the Canadian forces does and that I and my family use far less social services than someone in the working class would. 




> Yeah, the benefit of the people: how come everything that is for the "benefit of the people" begins with "you give us," then continues with "we pay ourselves and our friends," and ends with "then we'll give you.?"



 Even if that was so, what we get in return from the government for the amount of money we pay each year is far in excess of what we would be able to buy with that same money in terms of private services. 



> The recession was caused by market forces; the depression was caused by tight monetary policy and exacerbated by the New Deal.



 The New Deal reversed the effects of the unregulated economy and brought the US back into a position of prosperity. The Depression started with the crash of the stock market in 1929, the New deal was implemented in 1933. With in a year the effects of it were felt accost the nation and world for that fact. 









> Yeah, sure whatever you say ...



 It is not an issue of what I am saying. It is an issue of world trends. The developed nations of this world are progressive social democracies, the nations with the highest standard of health care are the ones that provide universal health care to all it’s citizens, the nations with the highest levels of education are the ones who provide free public and post secondary education to it’s citizens, the nations that have the highest GDP are the ones that balance free markets with rational regulations to ensure workers rights and standards. 

 Nations in which the government does not provide these things (as Libertarians would have) are not developed nations. 




> Just because something is popular, it isn't necessarily optimal: have you ever heard of national debt?  Do you have any understanding that the standard of living of my generation is lower than that of my parents?  Do you know why?  I'll tell you: the "me" generation went out and 'maxed their credit cards' in the name of the kind "social progress" you seem to think is such a wonderful thing: the problem is that they (well, the smarter ones among them) have already accumulated their wealth ... it is the younger taxpayer that will shoulder the burden of most of their benefits.  It happens over time, but is inevitable.  Where do you think the interests of your 50-something professors, who rely on the taxpayer for most of their salaries and their retirement pensions, lie?  Do you honestly think that they would try to convince you to shortchange their lifestyle for the benefit of yours?



 I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.



Yet this sort of spending was for precisely the results you are arguing for, with precisely the results we are highlighting.


----------



## FrenchAffair (7 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Yet this sort of spending was for precisely the results you are arguing for, with precisely the results we are highlighting.



The ends do not justify the means. Just because they used the money they borrowed to bolster social institutions doesn’t mean that I support the ways they got that money.

 If someone robed a bank and gave all he money to starving children in Africa, of course giving money to those in need is something I support, but just because they used the money for good does not mean that I would support robbing banks to do that. 

 The Liberals subscribed to fiscal philosophies that were incorrect, borrowing large sums of money does not benefit the nation in the long run. Canada did not need to do that to institute the needed social reforms and to better both the lives of Canadians and our economy. It just provided for a convient source of large amounts of money effectively to buy them support. 

 Our nation generates more than enough income where a moderate tax rate will give our government more than enough funds to provide and sustain the social institutions required in a developed nation.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I’m making an educated guess. If his given career in his profile is correct I can ensure you that I make more money a year than any sergeant in the Canadian forces does and that I and my family use far less social services than someone in the working class would.



Shall i run and get the measuring tape now so you can feel superior about your apendage or are you just naturaly this arrogant ?

want a cookie ?


----------



## FrenchAffair (7 Apr 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Shall i run and get the measuring tape now so you can feel superior about your apendage or are you just naturaly this arrogant ?
> 
> want a cookie ?



I wasn’t the one who brought it up. If he wants to accuse me of being on welfare, benefiting off the hard earned wages of others and wanting to cheat the “rich” our of their money I will simply state the very simple fact that I was born into a family which is better off (financially) than 95% of this nation and that unless he is the head of the Canadian Armed forces I both make, and pay more taxes than he does and as result of that use up far less social services and benefit far less off these government institutions. 

 If I wanted to gloat about the position I was born into it would have been the first thing I mentioned when writing in this thread. It wasn’t, because really I think it is irrelevant, that is irrelevant in till these people accuse me of only supporting the political philosophy I do because “I am poor and like to benefit at the expense of others”. Such accusations will not stand and in such a case I will simply point out that if anyone is benefiting off anyone, it is others off me. Something I have absolutely no issue with as I fully support reasonable distribution of wealth to ensure that all Canadians are able to provide for their families and enjoy a lifestyle demanded of a developed nation.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> The ends do not justify the means. Just because they used the money they borrowed to bolster social institutions doesn’t mean that I support the ways they got that money.



Funny, that's exactly what we are saying. How many times can you sum yourself up, I wonder?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (8 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Even if that was so, what we get in return from the government for the amount of money we pay each year is far in excess of what we would be able to buy with that same money in terms of private services.


 Depends on who you are referring to when you say "we": if you mean the population as a whole, you are definitely wrong: the opposite is true.



> The New Deal reversed the effects of the unregulated economy and brought the US back into a position of prosperity. The Depression started with the crash of the stock market in 1929, the New deal was implemented in 1933. With in a year the effects of it were felt accost the nation and world for that fact.


And how has every nation managed to recover from every other recession without a New Deal?  The economy recovered despite the New Deal, not because of it: the New Deal slowed and reduced the degree of recovery.



> It is not an issue of what I am saying. It is an issue of world trends. The developed nations of this world are progressive social democracies, the nations with the highest standard of health care are the ones that provide universal health care to all it’s citizens, the nations with the highest levels of education are the ones who provide free public and post secondary education to it’s citizens, the nations that have the highest GDP are the ones that balance free markets with rational regulations to ensure workers rights and standards.


 Sure and all of the various Asian economic miracles occurred because they increased their minimum wages and and social program spending while we reduced ours, right?  Think a little before you write such absurdities ...



> I don’t support deficit spending. Our national debt was racked up by Liberal ministers back in the 70’s. It is not my idea of intelligent finical policy.


Uh, but I thought that was the reason for our economic 'miracle'  ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2007)

>90% of the world wealth exists in these “welfare states”, combined with the highest standards of living in the world so obviously we are doing something right.

Modern welfare states were prosperous and on track to more prosperity long before the welfare part was grafted on.  Check the time lines.  A prosperous state is a prerequisite for a bountiful welfare state.  There are several states which provide education, health care, welfare, etc but that has not helped them to become prosperous.  The key to prosperity is relatively unbridled human ingenuity and industriousness.  All a welfare state does is trade gross opportunity costs to obtain specific outcomes.  In most cases it appears that the wealth lost to the transaction costs of a public bureaucracy far outweigh the wealth "lost" to the profits of a private undertaking.  Otherwise, fewer public corporations should fail or be threatened with failure in a competitive environment when their funding and legislative advantages are removed.


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Apr 2007)

Liberal:  Anything which the _elected majority_* deems as being for the betterment of the whole should be done and any legal coercion applied by the Liberal welfare state is justifiable to that end.

_Elected Majority_* = The votes that elect a particular party: due to FPTP, a plurality only and 99.9% of the time less than a majority of the population.

Libertarian:  Nothing which infringes on individual freedom of choice or market autonomy should ever be legislated by government.  All civil legislation must be in accordance with the harm principal.

My question.  Is there a way of compromising?  

Take Health Care for example. 

Libertarianism refutes the need for public health care.  They want the right to provide for and pay it free of the interference of the state in an open and free market.

Liberalism calls health care a right and demands not only that EVERYONE pay for it but that ANYONE who circumvents the system or operates outside of the system is in contravention of the legislation and liable to be prosecuted either legally or in the court of public opinion.

There is an ideological blindness at work here. The Liberal can not see where the welfare state begins to intrude on the private lives of citizens and the Libertarians can not see where the state should intrude for the good of citizens.  

I can see both.

Is there no room for a system under which as a citizen you could be able to choose whether you want to have your personal health care and those of your legal dependents provided for either through a publicly funded health insurance program or a private one?  

Under the ‘public’ system all participants would pay a percentage of their wages toward the service.  Ex.  In the public system Bob earns $1000/month and 10% ($100) goes toward healthcare. Jim earns $10,000/month and 10% ($1000) goes toward healthcare.  If either Jim or Bob get sick they both get exactly the same care.  Bob and Jim would use publicly funded facilities and services, if they wanted better service they would have to pay for it or if the services they needed weren’t covered they would have to pay more for it.

Under the private system a participant could pay a market price for what he thinks he needs or comes up with another plan. Ex. Randy earns $1000/month but can, if he decides, pay 25% toward a health insurance plan of his own, put a portion of his pay in the bank to save in case of a health emergency or do nothing and hope he doesn’t get sick.  Randy would go to private facilities and his health care would cover whatever he paid for.  If he decided not to save Randy would still be treated under the principals of the Hippocratic Oath but would be on the hook for the actual cost of treatment once he recovered or his estate would be garnished in the case of his death

What is wrong with this idea?  If the only point that can be argued is that the public system would not be able to support providing health care then:
a.	It’s administration is ineffective and should be changed to become effective
b.	It tries to provide too much service for to little money and the participants must pay more or expect less
c.	The citizenry is not willing to support the ‘public’ system and it should be dismantled

For anyone to argue that EVERYONE must pay into a system, in spite of the obvious failure of that system, just to notionally satisfy the ideological imperative of equality of opportunity is a few fries short of a happy meal.

So this offers the citizen the choice, it also offers governments the opportunity to provide services and develop a ‘just society’.  

In the ‘public’ provision of healthcare, the citizen becomes a willing participant in the system.  This would be a rational choice made of their own free will.  For a middle class or upper class citizen it would speak to their moral citizenship as it would directly benefit the poorer in a society.  Of course for the poor it would be (or could be) a no brainer.

I believe that this sort of compromise could be applied to any of these ideological differences, the trick would be to ensure that the government could not/would not renege on the voluntary nature of both the public and private solutions.

As I said before, moderation in all things.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2007)

The story so far:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which asserts that people are sovereign over their own persons, and should conduct transactions between themselves and governments by mutual consent, rather than coersion or force. Libertarianism is a development of classical liberalism, as espoused by enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke. Libertarian philosophers include economists such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, and philosophers such as  Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard. Libertarians may be subdivided into two groups: consequentialists and rights theorists. Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. (Definitions from Wikipedia)

As a practical matter, the increasing personal and economic freedoms available as societies approach the Libertarian ideal result in increases in wealth and (generally) cultural achievements. Looking at historical examples ranging from Classical Greece, Republican Venice, Elizabethan England, the United States and the growth of the Tiger economies in Asia all show that these societies, having greater personal, political and economic freedoms than their rivals, outperformed them despite great disparities in population and access to resources.

While Libertarianism is a philosophy which teaches self reliance and mutual respect, opposing philosophies such as Socialism have taken firm root in the body politic. The primary reason is Socialism taps the deep rooted human emotion of greed: people support the idea of the State in their desire to live at the expense of others. (Market incentives always work). This also explains the appeal of Socialism to "Limosine Liberals", the costs to poor and middle class people are hightened opportunity costs, foregone opportunities and narrowing of options, results which allow "Limosine Liberals" to maintain their position in society. Libertarians thus have to overcome deep seated human emotions in order to convince people of the efficiency and desirability of their cause.


----------



## FrenchAffair (8 Apr 2007)

> Libertarianism is a development of classical liberalism, as espoused by enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke.



*The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.  - Adam Smith*


And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> *The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.  - Adam Smith*
> 
> 
> And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?



You have taken this quote so wildly out of context that it is essentially meaningless.  Adam Smith believed that the only legitimate functions of government are national defense, justice, education and roads and communications: because the rich have more to gain or lose by government function, they should pay proportionately more.  He also felt that the only fair means of levying taxes is by way of consumption (like the GST, although Smith felt it should apply to luxury goods only) and property taxes.  One of the (many) BIG LIES of socialism is that progressive taxation redistributes wealth ... it doesn't: it redistributes _income_ from the productive to the unproductive, thereby preserving wealth.  I'm sure any economic historian with two brain cells to rub together would tell you that the notion of progressive income taxes would be anathema to Mr. Smith's ideals

Once again, you completely misunderstand (or are purposely ignoring) the fundamental difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy/lawlessness. Anarchism argues that all forms of state are immoral: Libertarians feel that  individual choice is the highest priority and that mechanisms (such as a constitution and attached bill of rights, a functioning justice system, and an army for national defense) must be in place to protect fundamental rights and freedoms from those that would take them away.  Taxes (income taxes particularly) are morally wrong, but a necessary evil (usually in the form of land or consumption taxes), in order to *ensure proper functioning of government*.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Apr 2007)

>And you have still yet to answer my question, in a Libertarian nation how would the government collect taxes?

The same way it does today.  Libertarianism isn't required to have only the purest possible incarnation if it is to have any at all, any more than any other -ism.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2007)

For people interested in finding out more about Libertarianism (or better yet; helping out!) you can start here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page
http://www.libertarian.ca/
http://www.libertarian.ca/english/writings/article-kempster-power.html

The vast number of links in the Wikipedia article are a source of inspiration, obviously a great many people ARE giving thought to the problems of governance and see incrimental changes to the present situation are unlikely to generate a better society for all of us. There is hope for us and our children yet........


----------



## FrenchAffair (9 Apr 2007)

> You have taken this quote so wildly out of context that it is essentially meaningless.



 You know this for a fact or are you just saying what works to your advantage best? Do you even know where this quote is from?



> Adam Smith believed that the only legitimate functions of government are national defense, justice, education and roads and communications



I suggest you read Adam Smiths "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and of course his collected essays "Essays on Philosophical Subjects". 

 Maybe after reading these you will have a better undstanding of what Adam Smith actually wrote and belived (even though he does controdict himself quite often). 

 Libertarians have long hijacked his teachings picking and chooseing which parts of his belifs to public on their website and which party to deny even exist. 

*All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. - Adam Smith*

 Adam Smith was a supported of the free market, there is no secret in that. But he supported regulations on businesses, he supported the right of the goverment to use taxes to support social insitutions. If Adam Smith was alive today he would see that his ideals have suceffully been insituted in nations like Canada, the US or other western nations that ballance the free market with resonable regulations and social insitutions. 




> One of the (many) BIG LIES of socialism is that progressive taxation redistributes wealth



 I agree, flat tax rates seem far more rational than progressive taxation.



> Taxes (income taxes particularly) are morally wrong, but a necessary evil (usually in the form of land or consumption taxes), in order to ensure proper functioning of government.



 So you as a Libertarian still support the goverment puting a gun to the heads of the citizens and robbing them of their money to support the goverment?


----------



## edgar (10 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> The conditions forced upon these workers is one of the most despicable acts in the world. These corporations commit atrocities and commit crimes just as bad as the Taliban.
> 
> Tens of millions of people around this world are “enslaved” by these corporations, thousands die each day because of cooperate greed and their motives are no less selfish, evil and barbaric than the Taliban.
> 
> Evil takes on all forms in this world.


Yeah, I remember when Walmart fired mortars into a schoolyard full of little girls. I did my christmas shopping there anyway because they got the lowest prices eh?

-Pop! goes the credibility.


----------



## KwaiLo (10 Apr 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> -Pop! goes the credibility.



I haven't taken much of what FrenchAffair has said in this thread with less that a sea full of salt, but this is one that to my mind is close to reality.  Corporations around the world have, as far back as they have existed, tried to make profits at any cost.  That cost is often paid for in lives.  That is not to say that all companies do this, or that all countries allow it to happen, either within their borders, or without.

Below are a few examples, some that make a mortar seem humane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_Mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars       (specifically the East India Trading Co.)

Obviously there are many more examples out there, and I hope that just as obviously there are examples of corporations working to make money while looking after the lives of their stakeholders.

The idea of a corporation as a person under the US 14th amendment has certainly not helped corporations stay honourable, bu that might be best left to a different thread.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2007)

Corporations, like people, work to maximize their advantages. There is NOTHING WRONG with this, so long as they do not use force or fraud in order to do so. Most of your examples are perfect illustrations of corporations using force or fraud, and thus would be considered in an equally bad light in a Libertarian society. You note that government regulation failed to stop any of this, indeed for a long time it wasn't clear that Enron had broken any rules, since the company specialized in working where various regulations overlapped.

A blogger provides another example of how government programs work in counterintuative ways:

mostlyfree.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-tattoos-and-liberty



> Monday, April 09, 2007
> on tattoos and liberty
> 
> I'm considering getting a tattoo of ama-gi, the earliest known writing of the word "freedom" and was trying to find out if the Ontario tattoo industry was regulated or not, since if it was I would go to Michigan, where the industry is unregulated.
> ...


----------



## KwaiLo (10 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You note that government regulation failed to stop any of this



I am not trying to make a comment about how a corporation would handle itself in a Libertarian run state, I was showing a few examples of how corporations fired analogous mortars into schoolyards.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> You know this for a fact or are you just saying what works to your advantage best? Do you even know where this quote is from?
> 
> I suggest you read Adam Smiths "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and of course his collected essays "Essays on Philosophical Subjects".
> 
> ...



*sigh*


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Apr 2007)

Three quotes taken from the Adam Smith Institute's website (although I suspect you are going to tell us they have hijacked and twisted his memory, too: funnily enough, they list Hayek and Friedman as the "ASI Heroes") http://www.adamsmith.org/ ... they are all from _The Wealth of Nations_, which if you want people to think you are knowledgeable on the subject, you should probably learn is alternatively known as "The Wealth of Nations" or just "Wealth of Nations" but never "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," except in history books):





> According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...
> 
> The Wealth of Nations Book IV Chapter ix





> [Public officials], as they themselves produce nothing, are all maintained by the produce of other men’s labour… Those unproductive hands… may consume so great a share of their whole revenue, and thereby oblige so great a number to encroach upon their capitals, upon the funds destined for the maintenance of productive labour, that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.
> 
> The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III





> It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.
> 
> The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III


----------



## FrenchAffair (10 Apr 2007)

> the Adam Smith Institute's website (although I suspect you are going to tell us they have hijacked and twisted his memory, too



 Adam Smith died in the late 18th century. Just because a "Free market think tank" has taken it upon themselves to use his name in their title does not mean that they represent what Adam Smith himself expressed in whole in his lifetime. His views changed quite a bit and he refuted and contridicted what he wrote in many of his eairlyer works with what he wrote in his later works. 



> funnily enough, they list Hayek and Friedman as the "ASI Heroes"



 What does that have to do with Adam Smith? Both these men were born a good 100 years after the death of Adam Smith. He never knew their philosophys, let alone their existance. Adam Smith never endorced either of these men. 



> The Wealth of Nations, which if you want people to think you are knowledgeable on the subject, you should probably learn is alternatively known as "The Wealth of Nations" or just "Wealth of Nations" but never "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," except in history books



 Well call it what you want, but the title of the book i have sitting beside me, the title of the book i read and the title Adam Smith gave the book is "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". If you were to cite the book "Wealth of Nations" on any paper the professor would deduct marks for not properly sourceing the title of the book. 



> According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, *the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it,* or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of *erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions* which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...
> 
> The Wealth of Nations Book IV Chapter ix



 Includeing corpreations. 

 And your own quote illistrates that he supports public insitutions.


----------



## TCBF (10 Apr 2007)

The elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement [of money]. It was not produced by the failure of private enterprise. 
Milton Friedman

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Apr 2007)

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."
    Daniel J. Boorstin


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 Apr 2007)

I’ve been reconsidering my position vis a vis Libertarianism and especially this comment 





> That said, there are fantastic ideas in it [libertarianism], it's just that these ideas must be separated from the rabid selfishness that permeates so much of the libertarian message.



I now realize that this is wrong.  There is nothing within Libertarianism that could or would prevent someone, anyone from acting in favor of true Liberal ideals.  If freedom is the yardstick by which we measure the success of our society then Libertarianism beats all comers hands down.

I can not fully support the libertarian ideology on other matters but as far as the institutions of the welfare state are concerned I’m all in.

Some may ask how I could say such a thing.  After all, Libertarians would dismantle a social safety net upon which hundreds of thousands, possibly millions in this country rely.  But would they really?  

Let’s use healthcare as an example.

Certainly a libertarian government would eliminate government involvement in healthcare but consider this, all the money paid through taxes to the government to administer the healthcare system (including provincial and federal duplication of effort) would no longer be required, giving each and every taxpaying Canadian more money in his pocket.  So what does that mean?  Well business would take over the healthcare system.  From the administration to the hospitals, from Doctor to insurer, the private system would cover it all. And we would have to pay for it if we wanted it.

This is where the lovers of the nanny state remind us (and rightly so) about those in our society who cannot afford to pay.   They claim that these people will be forgotten, cast aside by a system that cares only about money.  But within that argument lies the fallacy of liberal thought.  

If a company only wants to create wealth for itself and its shareholders then they will, out of that imperative attempt to expand their market to reach as wide a consumer base as possible.  Business has proven time and again that it will seek to lower costs, and provide any product as long as there is a market for it.

Also, in keeping with the libertarian ideal of the harm principal refusing medical treatment would most likely be illegal under a libertarian system.

But let’s get back to the business portion.  Now Libertarians would not, actually could not prevent any business, or citizens group from developing a healthcare insurance system under which all the members paid what they could afford, however little, and were covered equally.  Now before you discount the possibility of this developing I would like to remind you of the stock markets so called “ethical funds” which have been mentioned here before.  There are people; good decent people who would as a matter of charity, morality or pure kindness enter into such a scheme within a private system and do so willingly.

Now let’s look at the current healthcare scheme.  The SCC already made it abundantly clear that our current system is flawed.  As a matter of fact it goes further than that, and the SCC statement that “Access to a waiting list is not healthcare” implies, flawed has turned to broken.

Within our current system we all pay for this non-healthcare, but when a human being is forced by the system to wait for 9 painful months for a hip replacement then it is not helping it is hurting.  Our provincial and federal governments will not or cannot invest sufficient money into the system to fix it.  The infrastructure is dilapidated or non existent, there are not enough doctors, and our hospitals are reduced to administering lotteries and charity events to fund new vital equipment which our public monies can not or will not be spared to purchase.  Some people, in spite of the money they are forced to contribute to the system spend even more to circumvent the system and travel to a place where they can purchase prompt and effective private care.  

Is this right?  Is it right for an insurer (in this case the government) to take your hard earned money to provide a service and fail to provide that service in a timely fashion?  It’s worse than that though, the “public” system has more of a Mafioso tendency to it because we pay for the protection of the system but when it fails us we as individuals have little or no recourse.   Yes if we have the time and money we can sue the government for failing to provide the service but most of us do not and even if we could, a promise for change from a bureaucracy so large isn’t worth the paper it is written on.  

However, take the same scenario and apply it to a company and see what happens.  Bad press is nothing for a government; we as citizens cannot refuse to pay our taxes because the government does not live up to its commitments nor can we take our business elsewhere.  For a business on the other hand, such a situation could very well mean the loss of revenue, market share, consumer confidence and possibly costly legal battles.

To (finally) sum this up the Liberal ideal is that everyone must pay for one system, regardless of if they want to or not.  Liberals tout this as the realization of their principal of equality of opportunity, but what is achieved is actually not equality of opportunity but communism’s equality of outcome, and with similarly poor results I might add.

The Libertarian ideal gives the power to the individual, not the state.  It allows any permutation an individual can imagine in order to allow that individual to achieve his aims.  It doesn’t download the responsibility for action, choice or the final outcome on anyone but the individual and thereby ensures that the individual continues to look after his own best interests.

Unfortunately even after all this I know there are some who will not, or can not, see the difference between best interest and selfishness.  However, even if you can’t you aught to at least be able to see the difference between Libertarianism’s intended outcomes of; individual liberty, freedom of choice and human equality, and the pale comparisons of the liberal welfare state namely; legislated rights, mandatory participation and equality of outcome.


----------



## FrenchAffair (12 Apr 2007)

Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2007)

Between Medicare and Medicaid most Americans are covered. A great many young and healthy Americans choose not to purchase private health insurance since they consider the odds work in their favor (i.e. they can save and invest more for their other interests if they do not spend the money on health care premiums). Charitable institutions also cover a lot of medical treatments.

The reason the American health care system is in such disarray can be traced back to government medical insurance. The analogy is people are being invited to a restaurant with someone else picking up the cheque, so consumers of public health care splurge on more tests, more procedures, more everything. HMO's distort the market further, since the consumer never directly pays for their own health care. A cartel of insurance companies "wargames" the system to maximize premiums and government payments while minimizing payouts. Since consumers are usually not in a position to shop under a cartel (the efficient market theory requires transparency of information and free movement of capital), costs are not constrained in the usual way. Throw in an aggressive and predatory tort law system, and you have the makings of a disaster. BTW "full service" American institutions like the VA hospital system resemble the Canadian health care system (long waits, dreadful service and much of the money is siphoned into administration), so be careful what you ask for.

IMO, the best solution would be to eliminate the middleman and have consumers pay their doctors directly. No one seems to think this concept is wrong when you pay for any other goods or services. A Registered Medical Savings Plan (similar to an RRSP) would allow the consumer to set aside monies for health care, pay for services rendered and invest for long term care later in their lives as they age (using monies they didn't expend on health care in the here and now). The consumer has incentives to shop for the most cost effective medical services, and indeed to take steps to maintain their healthy lifestyle (in order to maximize the RMSP's value).

There will still be a market for catastrophic care insurance, and Reccesoldier has pointed out there will be lots of alternative avenues for care as well. One thing this scheme does not cover is stupid or insensitive people who believe they can take risks with their lives and offload the resulting costs on you and I. You are free to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or eat excessive amounts of junk food, just don't ask me to clean up your mess.


----------



## edgar (12 Apr 2007)

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) requires American emergency rooms to treat people without insurance. This means free health care for even the most squalid American proletarian, paid for by the those who do have insurance. It distorts their free enterprise system much the way our system does, even to include closing hospitals, and all because the evil heartless libertarian capitalists don't like to see people suffer either.

Adam Smith is an intellectual hero, but he probably wrote his treatise with a quill pen under the bright clear light of a whale oil lamp. Things are different now. We'll keep him in mind as we move along.

Let's put Libertarianism in its proper place by demoting it from an ideology to a principle. 
"The central claim of a libertarian philosophy is that the state has no role to play in the conduct of the lives of individuals." 
  -Jeremy Stangroom, The Little Book of Big Ideas: Philosophy. A & C Black, 2006.  

It is impossible to conceive of a government that plays no role, it wouldn't be a government. This is even less likely to work than true communism. It's never been done, and it never will be. Instead, let us include the principle of libertarianism as we debate the legislation which sanctions each fresh intrusion into our lives. Example questions include: Is this the best way to solve this social/financial/moral problem? Is there actually a problem? Is the problem serious enough to justify limiting freedoms? Will this regulation be politically marketable, in terms of the self interest of enough Canadians, to get me reelected? 
This is exactly what does happen, come to think of it. 

I don't think freedoms are zero sum win/lose things. In WW2 Britons submitted to food rationing. Many, if not most of them actually had their standard of living raised by this (according to Calvocoressi, Wint, and Pritchard in the Penguin History of the Second World War). Only the wealthy felt their freedom was curtailed. So the freedoms of the wealthy were sacrificed to the poor, but it created the society which destroyed fascism. A big plus for libertarians you should agree.


----------



## TCBF (12 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?



- B.S. :  In the USA, your employer funds your healthcare.  If your poor, you get Medicare. This "1/3" is pure statist propaganda.


----------



## edgar (13 Apr 2007)

KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I haven't taken much of what FrenchAffair has said in this thread with less that a sea full of salt, but this is one that to my mind is close to reality.  Corporations around the world have, as far back as they have existed, tried to make profits at any cost.  That cost is often paid for in lives.  That is not to say that all companies do this, or that all countries allow it to happen, either within their borders, or without.
> 
> Below are a few examples, some that make a mortar seem humane.
> 
> ...



Let's nail down the disagreement here. FrenchAffair claims that shitty labour relations among WalMart suppliers is morally equivalent to Taliban violations of every human right. You support the claim, stating that there is a moral equivalence between the negligence and evasion of responsibility of modern corporations, and the warlike nature of the imperial age, with the terrorism of the Taliban. 

This is not _close_ to reality. It's just plain false. Don't make me get all Boolean on your ass. It wasn't the lack of a safety culture that caused those school children to die. Union Carbide is now owned by Dow (boycott accordingly), and if the compensations and punishments were inadequate, it is because democratic governments in India and the US failed to protect the Indian people (vote accordingly). Enron was a ripoff, not a mass murder. If you hope to recruit me for your Walmart hatefest by tales of atrocities, you need to do better than this. Consider tales of Walmart managers throwing babies out so they can sell the incubators. 

I've noticed that brands available at Walmart are also available at Canadian Tire, the Bay etc, only not quite as cheaply. Are the Chinese factory workers oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt? Walmart has better management and logistics, and as a result your material quality of life is improved. 

On a related note, farming in Saskatchewan has killed 330 people since 1983, including 62 children. You obviously need to stop eating bread and drinking beer else you are complicit in this murderous corporate rampage. 

The reason corporations have limited liability is so a businessman doesn't lose his house and go to debtors prison leaving his children destitute when his business fails, as he did in Adam Smith's day. If this loophole is abused, vote accordingly.

By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle. STFU.


----------



## FrenchAffair (13 Apr 2007)

> - B.S. :  In the USA, your employer funds your healthcare.  If your poor, you get Medicare. This "1/3" is pure statist propaganda.



Only certain companies provide health care for their workers. For example walmart, they only provide limited (Very limited) health care for 46% of their workers. That means over 775,000 individuals who work for Wal-Mart alone have no health care. 

 Then to add insult to injury, for the ones who are given health care pay 7 to 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, for family coverage it becomes 20-40% of their income to cover premiums and deductibles. 

 And of course, you still have to pay out of pocket for prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles.

In 2005 18% of companies in the US did not provide any health insurance.


----------



## FrenchAffair (13 Apr 2007)

> you need to do better than this. Consider tales of Walmart managers throwing babies out so they can sell the incubators.



 There is no excuse for murder, it is morally reprehensible.

Just as the enslavement of the working poor both here and around the world is morally reprehensible.  

 Hundreds of thousands of children die each year as result of cooperate greed. 



> By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle.



 How do you figure that?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Apr 2007)

Lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of health care.

The beef about health care seems to centre on whether routine care should be covered by insurance.  The common sense answer would be "No" except for the fact that even routine health care can be costly for people on very low incomes.  Otherwise, paying your routine care costs would be as uncontroversial as paying your routine housing and transportation costs.  In the process of paying for health care, people would become educated shoppers.  As things stand, medical care is not much different than legal assistance: to the layman it's a black art managed by the guild keepers, and most people have no real clue whether they need what they're buying or whether it's worth what they're paying.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> In 2005 18% of companies in the US did not provide any health insurance.



So what does that say about the 82% that do?


----------



## KwaiLo (14 Apr 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> Let's nail down the disagreement here. FrenchAffair claims that shitty labour relations among WalMart suppliers is morally equivalent to Taliban violations of every human right. You support the claim, stating that there is a moral equivalence between the negligence and evasion of responsibility of modern corporations, and the warlike nature of the imperial age, with the terrorism of the Taliban.



I don't support any claim that there is an equivalence between corporate manslaughter and terrorism.  I wanted to point out, and I think that I managed to do so, that corporations have killed.



			
				edgar said:
			
		

> , and if the compensations and punishments were inadequate, it is because democratic governments in India and the US failed to protect the Indian people (vote accordingly).



I am not an American, or an Indian, so I cannot 'vote accordingly'.  There are things that are legal in various places around the world, that aren't legal in Canada.  I am not going to ignore them when they happen, even though I personally may not be able to do anything about them, either with my ballot, or through force or arms.



			
				edgar said:
			
		

> I've noticed that brands available at Walmart are also available at Canadian Tire, the Bay etc, only not quite as cheaply. Are the Chinese factory workers oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt? Walmart has better management and logistics, and as a result your material quality of life is improved.



I am not sure that this one was directed to me, but of course Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc workers are not 'oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt?'  Walmart may well have better management and logistics, they also pay less than Canadian Tire and The Bay.  There are buying power issues, political leverage issues, environmental, discrimination.  My material quality of life isn't affected by Walmart, not in a large way.  Though it isn't always possible, I try to buy Cambridge first, then Ontario, then Canada, then American, then European, then rotw.



			
				edgar said:
			
		

> On a related note, farming in Saskatchewan has killed 330 people since 1983, including 62 children. You obviously need to stop eating bread and drinking beer else you are complicit in this murderous corporate rampage.



Here is what the Government of Saskatchewan is trying to do to help prevent the unnecessary deaths.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/index.htm
One thing to note from those 330 deaths however, is that most of them appear to have happened on family run farms.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/fatalities.htm



			
				edgar said:
			
		

> The reason corporations have limited liability is so a businessman doesn't lose his house and go to debtors prison leaving his children destitute when his business fails, as he did in Adam Smith's day. If this loophole is abused, vote accordingly.



I agree that this is one of the reasons that corporations have limited liability, stating that it is 'The reason' is far too black and white.  Corporations have evolved a great deal over the past 250 years, and a good number of the laws written by all countries are to promote, limit and govern their actions.

Once again though, I will say that I cannot 'vote accordingly' in most of these cases, as I live in Canada.  Thankfully we have worked through most of the problems that countries around the world are facing.



			
				edgar said:
			
		

> By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle. STFU.



Again, I don't believe that corporations are close to the same level as terrorists.  I don't see anything in the post that you quoted that would lead you to believe this.  I do believe that if a decision is made to commit acts outside your borders where there would be criminal or civil punishments were you to do the same at home, you are a criminal.  Of course it is left to the courts to decide this, and I hope that you would agree most courts around the world are not to Canadian standards.

I offer no support to terrorists, that I am aware of at least.  Perhaps some of the goods that I buy legally are funding them?  

I am not anti-corporate at all, I just don't believe that there should be a lesser standard for a corporation that for a person, it should be a higher one.

And please don't tell me to STFU, it isn't polite.  Even in disagreement, this thread has been civil with that exception.


----------



## FrenchAffair (14 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> So what does that say about the 82% that do?



82% provide some form. That could be they only provide it to their upper management, they provide limited coverage that costs too much for the average worker to afford, they provide policies (like WalMart) in which employees have to pay upwards of 20% of their yearly income just to cover premiums and deductibles. 

 All private health care does it give the small percentage of people at the top end of the income spectrum access to better and faster service, and costs the average citizens more money, giving them lower quality care.


----------



## Donut (15 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> All private health care does it give the small percentage of people at the top end of the income spectrum access to better and faster service, and costs the average citizens more money, giving them lower quality care.



It might also allow health care proffesionals to bill what they feel their time is worth, in a competitive and increasingly efficient manner, as opposed to having wages and schedules dictated to them by a beaurocracy that consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the health care budget.  

PMT


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?



As has already been pointed out a good deal of that 1/3rd do have some form of health care and as for the rest how many of them choose not to play?  

I mean, by my own reckoning, a healthy young man or woman who does not engage in dangerous past times, does nothing more dangerous in the average work day than rock back in and balance in his/her chair, for these people you could reasonably expect a number of them to NOT pay because THEY don't want to.  

Is it responsible?  Who is to say, my mom wouldn't think so but I know when I was living in Red Deer after graduation I wouldn't have paid for healthcare, not necessarily because I couldn't but because I was young and "It will never happen to me" _*was*_ my mantra.


----------



## edgar (17 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of health care.
> 
> The beef about health care seems to centre on whether routine care should be covered by insurance...



That's a good point. Proactive or preventive care is important too and that's what they don't get. Ideally we all have a family doctor who becomes an expert on us as individuals. I don't have one either. We libertarians must fall back on the argument that the average lifespan of Americans continues to increase. I wonder how health care works in Japan? Do they have public health care or is it just all the fish that keeps them healthy?

The Medical Association is a union, self interested as the Steelworkers. They are the worst people to regulate health care, except for all those other people who know nothing about medicine. Wanna buy some Ephedra? It's natural!


----------



## edgar (17 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> There is no excuse for murder, it is morally reprehensible.
> 
> Just as the enslavement of the working poor both here and around the world is morally reprehensible.
> 
> ...



You tell me that Walmart kills people. You tell me that the working poor are slaves. I don't think anything you read here will change your opinion. Americans can get busted for smoking Cuban cigars in BC. I don't think they will get away with murder. If you have evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Walmart, such as murder or enslavement, talk to the man: http://www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/index.html


----------



## edgar (17 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> How do you figure that?



If the behavior of Walmart and the Taliban are morally equivalent, then
A. Walmart is murderous; or
B. Taliban are OK guys.

I've put you in the same basket as the people who said bringing down the twin towers was a reasonable thing to do in light of the rapacious behavior of the corporations headquartered within. The Taliban are then the poster boys for your struggle. If i misunderstood your position, sorry bout that. If you care to clarify your opinion, that's what we are here for. If I fail to reply however, it's not because you won the argument, it's because I realize it is a waste of time.


----------



## edgar (17 Apr 2007)

KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I don't support any claim that there is an equivalence between corporate manslaughter and terrorism.  I wanted to point out, and I think that I managed to do so, that corporations have killed.
> 
> I am not an American, or an Indian, so I cannot 'vote accordingly'.  There are things that are legal in various places around the world, that aren't legal in Canada.  I am not going to ignore them when they happen, even though I personally may not be able to do anything about them, either with my ballot, or through force or arms.
> 
> I am not sure that this one was directed to me, but of course Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc workers are not 'oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt?'  Walmart may well have better management and logistics, they also pay less than Canadian Tire and The Bay.  There are buying power issues, political leverage issues, environmental, discrimination.  My material quality of life isn't affected by Walmart, not in a large way.  Though it isn't always possible, I try to buy Cambridge first, then Ontario, then Canada, then American, then European, then rotw.



Most of my vitriol was actually directed at your fellow traveller. If some of it splashed on you, sorry bout that. 
No one is forced to sell their products to Walmart. Similarly, my farm went belly up because it wasn't run efficiently enough, not because the price of wheat was too low. The modern economy is all about choices, and I chose to join the army. What do you call your acquisition strategy? Nationalism? Isn't that shameful these days, like racism? It certainly isn't any more economically efficient. By the way, I disown that goddamn plane/train/skier. I want my money back.



			
				KwaiLo said:
			
		

> Here is what the Government of Saskatchewan is trying to do to help prevent the unnecessary deaths.
> http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/index.htm
> One thing to note from those 330 deaths however, is that most of them appear to have happened on family run farms.
> http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/fatalities.htm


Contrast this with third world governments. That's the point. We care and we try real hard, and still there is literally blood on the food you eat. Don't forget, a family farm is a business. Just like Walmart only smaller.



			
				KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I agree that this is one of the reasons that corporations have limited liability, stating that it is 'The reason' is far too black and white.  Corporations have evolved a great deal over the past 250 years, and a good number of the laws written by all countries are to promote, limit and govern their actions.
> 
> Once again though, I will say that I cannot 'vote accordingly' in most of these cases, as I live in Canada.  Thankfully we have worked through most of the problems that countries around the world are facing.
> 
> Again, I don't believe that corporations are close to the same level as terrorists.  I don't see anything in the post that you quoted that would lead you to believe this.  I do believe that if a decision is made to commit acts outside your borders where there would be criminal or civil punishments were you to do the same at home, you are a criminal.  Of course it is left to the courts to decide this, and I hope that you would agree most courts around the world are not to Canadian standards.



That is, just plain, "the Reason". Limited Liability means you only lose the money that you put in. That's also why your pension fund can't be grabbed when Big Tobacco loses another lawsuit, even if the fund shares ownership of the RJ Reynolds. They only lose the value of their shares, not all the money they have. Come to think of it, we can sidestep our disagreement by using the tobacco industry as our example. The don't "murder" people, but we can all agree that they are evil bastards who should be held personally responsible for the leading cause of death. They are 90% as evil as the Taliban, and we can agree that _is _a problem our system needs to fix.



			
				KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I offer no support to terrorists, that I am aware of at least.  Perhaps some of the goods that I buy legally are funding them?


See my reply to the other guy. You jump in the fight in support of a guy, I'm gonna beat you with the same stick as him.



			
				KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I am not anti-corporate at all, I just don't believe that there should be a lesser standard for a corporation that for a person, it should be a higher one.


 How does that work exactly? Corporations being composed of people and all, the pieces are individually held to the "person" standard. 
I'm not really much of a Libertarian either, but people make that mistake sometimes.

Life and death in the third world is much the same as it was here 100 or more years ago. People don't know enough history. People still die at work. The difference between them and us, is our corporations:
A. exist;
B. function efficiently;
C. are accountable in courts of law.
Because our government permits. This is what raised us out of the nasty, brutish and short livestyle of 100 years ago.


			
				KwaiLo said:
			
		

> And please don't tell me to STFU, it isn't polite.  Even in disagreement, this thread has been civil with that exception.


I make no apology. First, falsely accusing people of murder is offensive. Second, speaking to me in person is like watching an episode of Trailer Park Boys. Where I come from, STFU is polite and civil. I must ask you to respect my culture and heritage.


----------



## FrenchAffair (18 Apr 2007)

> It might also allow health care proffesionals to bill what they feel their time is worth, in a competitive and increasingly efficient manner, as opposed to having wages and schedules dictated to them by a beaurocracy that consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the health care budget.



A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.


----------



## FrenchAffair (18 Apr 2007)

> Is it responsible?  Who is to say, my mom wouldn't think so but I know when I was living in Red Deer after graduation I wouldn't have paid for healthcare, not necessarily because I couldn't but because I was young and "It will never happen to me" was my mantra.



And then when you or someone under your care gets diagnosed with cancer you have no way to pay for it. You won’t be able to get insurance because it is a pre-existing condition, treatment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no public service to pay for it for you. You will end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (if you can even get the loans) just so you can be given the treatment that is needed to (maybe) save your life. 

 I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life.


----------



## FrenchAffair (18 Apr 2007)

> I don't have one either. We libertarians must fall back on the argument that the average lifespan of Americans continues to increase. I wonder how health care works in Japan? Do they have public health care or is it just all the fish that keeps them healthy?



*” Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee.”*

Japan spends almost 9% of their national GDP on health care.

And statically the US has one of the worst health care systems in the developed world. 

In 1960 the US was 12th in the world in infant mortality, now they are 23rd
In 1945 the US was 1st in womens life expectancy, now they are 20th
In 1945 the US was 1st in mens life expectancy, now they are 21st

The US also currently ranks 67th in the world in immunization, right behind Botswana. 

So thank you for demonstrating 2 excellent points supporting universal health care.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> And then when you or someone under your care gets diagnosed with cancer you have no way to pay for it. You won’t be able to get insurance because it is a pre-existing condition, treatment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no public service to pay for it for you. You will end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (if you can even get the loans) just so you can be given the treatment that is needed to (maybe) save your life.



People take chances all the time, and should reap the rewards or consequences of their actions. When you are faced with the consequences of your actions you tend to take the prudent course. In your world view the person who takes the risk is allowed to  escape the consequences at the expense of others. I notice that no where do you say that you, personally will defray the cost of someone else's thoughtless actions.



> I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life.



Then you are in a minority. Check your insurance policies closely some day.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.



Denistry seems to work well.....


----------



## Donut (19 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.


http://www.northernlife.ca/News/LocalNews/2007/04-18-07-docsUSA.asp?NLStory=04-18-07-docsUSA

Please note the exodus of physicians from Canada coincided with the implementation of the Canada health act...but it may just be a coincidence.   :


Doesn't matter who pays the bills, if there's no one willing to stick around and do the work for peanuts.


----------



## FrenchAffair (19 Apr 2007)

I agree completely, in on way should doctors in Canada be denied the benefits of the free market. They should get competitive wages, have access to top of the line equipment and be able to work in conditions typical for a developed nation. 

  But the cost of that should not be transferred only to the individuals who use their services, it should be absorbed by the government and paid by though taxes.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I agree completely, in on way should doctors in Canada be denied the benefits of the free market. They should get competitive wages, have access to top of the line equipment and be able to work in conditions typical for a developed nation.
> 
> But the cost of that should not be transferred only to the individuals who use their services, it should be absorbed by the government and paid by though taxes.



Since Dentists charge market prices directly to consumers or their insurers without government intervention and there is no Dental crisis in Canada, (or for that matter in any other profession which is not extensively regulated or run by a government bureacracy) your argument is 100% refuted. 

In fact, going over this thread I can see no instance where you have ever demonstrated by fact or historical example how government regulation has "improved" things, while multiple posters have brought up examples in many areas of life where intervention has made things worse (or even far worse). Perhaps before you expound on the virtues of Socialism you should spend some time studying the historical record of such places as National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc. etc. to see where the end point of your argument really lies.

Even at the half way points, look at the economic and political stagnation of the EU (especially compared to more Libertarian parts of the world like the four "tigers" of Asia or the United States) before you decide what is better for all of us. If you want to live that way that is your right (and as a Libertarian I have no quarrel with that), but it is my right to make my own choices and live with the consequences as well.


----------



## FrenchAffair (19 Apr 2007)

What does dentistry have to do with health care? 

 A person does not die from bad teeth, and any kind of infection or disease in the mouth that is serious of life threatening any Canadian goes to the emergency room and is treated (for free) there. 

 Nothing is refuted as the two are not related at all. 



> In fact, going over this thread I can see no instance where you have ever demonstrated by fact or historical example how government regulation has "improved" things



 In terms of health care developed nations with universal health care, the health of the citizens of those nations are far improved. The only developed nation with out some form of universal health care is the US, which has statically has the worst over all health care system in the developed world. 



> Perhaps before you expound on the virtues of Socialism you should spend some time studying the historical record of such places as National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc. etc. to see where the end point of your argument really lies.



 So now I am a Socialist because I support universal health care?



> Even at the half way points, look at the economic and political stagnation of the EU (especially compared to more Libertarian parts of the world like the four "tigers" of Asia or the United States)



 “More Libertarian”…. You mean Social Democracies. None of those nations are even close to Libertarian, if anything the political and economic success of the “four tigers” refutes Libertarian policies. All those nations have extensive social programs, ranging from developed welfare systems, government housing, workplace regulations, universal health care…… ect.

Oh, and Taiwan and South Korea rank 37 and 45th respectively in the Indices of Economic Freedom

 That means the European nations of: Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, UK, Estonia, Denmark, New Zealand (western), Australia (western), Canada (western), Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Cyprus, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Belgium, Lithuania, Malta, Armenia, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia and Israel all have more economic freedoms then these two nations you are claiming are so successful. 

So if all these European nations have freer and more open economies…. But are “economically and politically stanting” what’s that mean? 

 Maybe they should regulate the economy more and provide more social institutions like Taiwan and South Korea so they can match their political and economic success.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> What does dentistry have to do with health care?
> 
> A person does not die from bad teeth, and any kind of infection or disease in the mouth that is serious of life threatening any Canadian goes to the emergency room and is treated (for free) there.
> 
> Nothing is refuted as the two are not related at all.


Yes, because health care only deals with life-threatening conditions. 



> In terms of health care developed nations with universal health care, the health of the citizens of those nations are far improved. The only developed nation with out some form of universal health care is the US, which has statically has the worst over all health care system in the developed world.


And where do the vast majority of advances in medical research come from?  And in which country is/are almost all of the world's pre-eminent research and facilites?



> So now I am a Socialist because I support universal health care?


Is universal healthcare a Libertarian policy?



> “More Libertarian”…. You mean Social Democracies. None of those nations are even close to Libertarian, if anything the political and economic success of the “four tigers” refutes Libertarian policies. All those nations have extensive social programs, ranging from developed welfare systems, government housing, workplace regulations, universal health care…… ect.


There are more than four tigers and their common characteristic is they developed very rapidly by leveraging their best resource (human capital), allowing people to work for wages that have been characterized as "enslavement."



> Oh, and Taiwan and South Korea rank 37 and 45th respectively in the Indices of Economic Freedom
> 
> That means the European nations of: Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, UK, Estonia, Denmark, New Zealand (western), Australia (western), Canada (western), Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Cyprus, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Czech Republic, Belgium, Lithuania, Malta, Armenia, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia and Israel all have more economic freedoms then these two nations you are claiming are so successful.


What on earth is your point?  The simple fact remains that countries that have deregulated their economies (most of SE Asia, Chile, Ireland, most of Eastern Europe) have developed much more quickly than the ones that haven't.  Most economists today debate the speed at which economies should be deregulated (ever heard of Shanghai?): deregulation is considered to be an inherently 'good' thing.


----------



## FrenchAffair (19 Apr 2007)

> Yes, because health care only deals with life-threatening conditions.



Wow, another flip answer from a Libertarian….how surprising. 

 There still fails to be any valid point here, what does private dentists have to do with the right to free medical treatment?



> And where do the vast majority of advances in medical research come from?  And in which country is/are almost all of the world's pre-eminent research and facilites?



The Nation with the most money in the world. 

Unfortunately all those advances in medical research, all those billions of dollars invested in to research and facilities dose not translate into a high level of health care accost the board for American citizens. 

Pre-ww2 citizens of the US had the best standard of health in the world, they lived the longest, were on average the healthiest…. But ever since the developed world started adopting universal health care the faults of the profit oriented system have been exposed. The US now accost the board has fallen behind every developed nation that has established universal health care. 



> Is universal healthcare a Libertarian policy?



 So if you are not a Libertarian you are a socialist?



> There are more than four tigers and their common characteristic is they developed very rapidly by leveraging their best resource (human capital), allowing people to work for wages that have been characterized as "enslavement."



 “The four Asian tigers”…. I fail to see how there could be more then four. 

 And you are right in a way, these four nations did developed quickly by creating export based economy’s. But in that sense they are the exception, because there are dozens of other nations that try to leverage human capital, that allow people to work for low wages, with out regulated economy’s or workers rights and where are they….. the 3rd world nations of this earth. 

 These Asian nations developed at the rate they did because as soon as they started making money they took that money and put it back into education, health care, social welfare, improving the wages and conditions of workers. No nation will ever become a developed and modern society with out welfare, health care, public education… it is simply impossible and history proves that fact very clearly. 

 The success of these nations, as much as Libertarians wish, is not because of any implication of “Libertarian” policies. It is far more complex then that, a combination of effective authoritarian governments, US support and aid and convient timing in the world economy. 

 If these nations had followed Libertarian principles only a select minority of these nations would be reaping the benefits, not the entire populist. 



> What on earth is your point?  The simple fact remains that countries that have deregulated their economies (most of SE Asia, Chile, Ireland, most of Eastern Europe) have developed much more quickly than the ones that haven't.  Most economists today debate the speed at which economies should be deregulated (ever heard of Shanghai?): deregulation is considered to be an inherently 'good' thing.



 Over-regulation is obviously a bad thing, just as under regulation is. The success of these economy’s is not by eliminating all regulations (as Libertarians propose) it is in finding the appropriate medium where they are not over-regulating and choking off business but not under-regulating and depriving workers of their rights. 

 Any developed nation, or nation moving into that status are the ones which don’t subscribe to Libertarian principles and provide social welfare to it’s citizens. It is the Social Democracy that provides success, both political and economical.


----------



## TCBF (20 Apr 2007)

"I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life."

-  Wait until you turn eighty, and your doctor tells you that you do not fit the prefered patient profile for the life saving surgery you need - translation:  might as well write DNR on your forehead, because operating on you is no longer considered cost effective.

- With a two tier system, you could at least then decide to spend your own money to save your own life.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> What does dentistry have to do with health care?



To be polite, I will believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Dentists operate under the free market, and it is relatively simple to find a dentist and get any sort of dental care you may need or desire. London ON is full of dental offices, and almost all have the cheerful "New Patients accepted" sign on the door.

London, ON also has a severe shortage of medical doctors, despite having five hospitals and a school of medicine located in the geographical boundaries. No family doctor will accept new patients, and the number of doctors continues to decline, despite the vast amount of government money and bureaucracy associated with medicine. I invite you to contemplate a thought experiment where doctors work under the same rules and conditions as Dentists. Would there be a similar outcome? Now reverse the experiment: Dentists must provide "universal dental care". Since both dentists and doctors are humans who react to incentives the same way (indeed the same way everyone else does), the outcomes are almost pre determined. If doctors were treated like dentists, there would be a large incentive to join the medical profession, while if dentists were treated like doctors, we would be suffering a shortage of dentists and have horrible dental care.

Frankly, what you fail to (or refuse to) see is the only people being offered incentives under this system are the bureaucrats. Libertarianism takes them out of the equation, and allows people to make their own decisions. It also limits the powers of governments to affect everyone with the poor decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> And then when you or someone under your care gets diagnosed with cancer you have no way to pay for it. You won’t be able to get insurance because it is a pre-existing condition, treatment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no public service to pay for it for you. You will end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (if you can even get the loans) just so you can be given the treatment that is needed to (maybe) save your life.



Another silly all or nothing argument.  Remember even in the US where there is no universal heath care, treatment can not be refused because a person can not pay.  Will the person be forced into a payment schedule once he/she is able?  Of course, why shouldn't they.



> I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life.



Spoken like a Liberal back bencher with his recipe card of talking points still in hand.  Tugging on heart strings with platitudes won't win you any votes in here.  Use facts not rhetoric.


----------



## FrenchAffair (21 Apr 2007)

> Dentists operate under the free market, and it is relatively simple to find a dentist and get any sort of dental care you may need or desire. London ON is full of dental offices, and almost all have the cheerful "New Patients accepted" sign on the door.



 Again, irrelevant. The issue is not the ready availability of doctors, the current issue we are speaking of is how the payment of healthcare should be handled. There is no denying a shortage of doctors in Canada and there is no denying that if we have a completely free market system for doctors more would likely choose to stay here. 

 But that is not the issue; the issue here is universal access to free health care. The issue of doctors moving south of the border simply means that our current health care system needs to work to maintain competitive wages for our doctors to encourage them to stay here. 

 The dentistry profession has nothing to do with the fundamental right of all Canadians (and humans for that fact) to free health care. 



> Now reverse the experiment: Dentists must provide "universal dental care".



 When it is an issue of life and death, of course. But beyond that dental work is more or less cosmetic. Not a necessity for life and not something that will act severally to the detriment of an individuals quality of life if they don’t go see a dentist.



> Libertarianism takes them out of the equation, and allows people to make their own decisions.



 Because people “choose” to get sick of course.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2007)

Stop it right now with "free health care"........that is a lie of the largest magnitude.


----------



## FrenchAffair (21 Apr 2007)

> Remember even in the US where there is no universal heath care, treatment can not be refused because a person can not pay.  Will the person be forced into a payment schedule once he/she is able?  Of course, why shouldn't they.



Treatment can’t be “refused” at emergency rooms if it is a life threatening condition. Doesn’t mean that the person doesn’t get the bill in the mail. 

 And payment schedule? Being Canadians we really do not comprehend or understand the true cost of health care. In the US at an average hospital to get 20 stitches costs $700. That’s for 20 minuets of some interns life, some string and an injection. You really think that any average person is capable of realistically paying for complex and prolonged medical treatment?  

 Aggressive cancer treatment can cost upwards of $20,000 a month. 

When a working class individual or family is struck with tragedy it is practically impossible for them to pay these bills. They are given the choice of either going into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and ruining their lives or letting their family member die. A choice that no one should have to make. 




> Spoken like a Liberal back bencher with his recipe card of talking points still in hand.  Tugging on heart strings with platitudes won't win you any votes in here.



 Odd, never voted for anyone but the conservatives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2007)

>In 1960 the US was 12th in the world in infant mortality, now they are 23rd
>In 1945 the US was 1st in womens life expectancy, now they are 20th
>In 1945 the US was 1st in mens life expectancy, now they are 21st

The anti-US-healthcare lobby is going to have to come up with some better metrics.  I keep seeing "infant mortality" and "life expectancy" and even "average height" in print as if they meant something profound about health care delivery.

Here is my interpretation: since 1945 and 1960 much of the rest of the world has raised its general standard of living to close the gap which existed between them and the US in 1945 and 1960.  Therefore factors such as population genetics and cultural habits such as diet and exercise now dominate the cited outcomes.  All of those lie entirely outside the health care system as we know it, and one factor (genetics) is not really within our power to control.

There is also the question of how numbers are reported.  The US follows the strictest (WHO) definition of what constitutes an infant death (ie. uses the most generous definition of "live birth" versus "stillbirth").  Some nations pad their infant mortality statistics (reduce the counts) by helpfully including some post-birth deaths as "stillbirth".  Without a common base of measurement, the statistics are not garbage but they certainly are also not unimpeachable.

Few people seriously propose that catastrophic health care (accidents, major illness) should not be covered by a public insurer.

As I quoted in the "ATM" thread from the CBC a while back:

"Some doctors are scaling back their family practices to perform cosmetic procedures, spurring critics to ask whether the move will make current health-care waiting lists even longer"

...

"While a provincial health plan may pay a doctor $60 to do a 30-minute physical or $12 to remove a mole, patients pay more than $200 for a cosmetic procedure such as Botox that takes 10 minutes."

That's one response to the "guidance" (incentives) provided by our public health care system.  How should we deal with it?  Restrain doctors, or remove the limitations on who and how they bill?


----------



## FrenchAffair (21 Apr 2007)

> Here is my interpretation: since 1945 and 1960 much of the rest of the world has raised its general standard of living to close the gap which existed between them and the US in 1945 and 1960.



Exactly, by providing universal health care. 



> Few people seriously propose that catastrophic health care (accidents, major illness) should not be covered by a public insurer.



 And one group of these “few people” are Libertarians. 



> How should we deal with it?  Restrain doctors, or remove the limitations on who and how they bill?



 Make government provided wages more competitive.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

This is getting tiresome, so I will close out with some observations:

Smugness, cliches and avoiding or ignoring the point are not arguments. If you are going to a debate bring something relevant.

People like Brad, John Galt, Edward Campbell, Reccesoldier, Bruce Monkhouse and myself have served under conditions where we sometimes have to make life or death decisions based on observing and understanding the evidence. We also have extensive experience in multiple nations observing what people do, and also have education in various disciplines, so if we tear your statements into confetti it is because we have the education, experience and understanding of what we are talking about, something conspicuously lacking in your responses.

I will close off by observing that in Canada and the United States, people of the Liberal/Left persuasion have fewer (and often no) children, so after 2020 we will see a wave of socially conservative families becoming the larger part of the population. Since they are already disposed more towards the Libertarian world view, it seems that we will only have to wait for a generation before the Liberal/Left mindset becomes a historical curiosity. While this may not presage the ultimate victory of Libertarianism, it certainly makes for a better tomorrow for my children, and I look forward to that time while working to make it happen.


----------



## FrenchAffair (21 Apr 2007)

> If you are going to a debate bring something relevant.



You mean like the record setting 3,002 votes the Libertarian party got in the past federal election? 11,000 less than the communist party I might add. 

 I think it is clear that Canadians don’t support the outlandish fantasy Libertarians propose as “government”. 



> While this may not presage the ultimate victory of Libertarianism



 Lol, well if believing this makes you feel better hold on to that. But the “Libertarian” world of limited government, no regulations has past. The world was like that 200 years ago, and people didn’t like it. It didn’t create a better standard of life for the average citizen, it didn’t create circumstances where peoples children were better off than they were and most of all it did not provide people what they wanted from a government, which in a democracy is the most important thing. 

 The world, especially in the west has seen a dirastic step away from the “Libertarian” mindset into what we have today, a world in which no developed nation is not a Social Democracy. Sorry to ruin your fantasy but Canada is not moving toward an extreme conservative mindset. Canadians have worked too hard to give us the benefits and advantages of our current government and we will not revert back to the way things were in the dark ages. Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but the west is in a very nice political medium, we are not going to shift far either way. Power will remain in the centralist, at most shifting slightly to the left or right… just like we have seen for the past 60 years.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2007)

People did not raise their standards of living with health care.  They did so with potable water, sewers and waste water treatment, improved hygiene, improved nutrition and so forth.  I assume you are not as stupid as your ridiculous one-line attempt at rebuttal sounds.

The current experiment with social democracy will run its course until the producers tire of supporting the consumers, particularly where too many of the consumers are recent arrivals and not of the producers in-groups.  (Social cohesion and heterogeneity does matter.)  Then we will have change, which will not necessarily be pleasant.  It would be foolish and somewhat arrogant to believe we've found the sweet spot for governing people, since we have several centuries during which succeeding generations have learned to expect more freedom in all respects than their predecessors enjoyed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2007)

OK,...this thread has passed its 'best before' date unless we have someone with something new to say.

My finger is hovering over the lock button if we continue on the 'he said, she said' thread.


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Odd, never voted for anyone but the conservatives.



You mean in all _two_ federal elections which you were eligible to vote?  Wow!  I'm not worthy!


----------



## FrenchAffair (22 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> You mean in all _two_ federal elections which you were eligible to vote?  Wow!  I'm not worthy!



One actually, but lucky the Conservative Party of Canada holds true to Canadian values and supports a strong system of universal health care, comprehensive welfare institutions and believes the roll of the government is not to sit back and watch society descend into anarchy but help better the lives of all Canadians no matter what tax bracket they are in. Really in terms of Canada they are the party that comes closest to representing the ideal values of a Social Democracy, we can be happy that even Canadian who voted for them realised that.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The current experiment with social democracy will run its course until the producers tire of supporting the consumers, ......



I think you may have already reached that point out your neck of the woods Brad.  I note that Vancouver has decided to raise residential property taxes 8% rather than 4% because the few businesses left in Vancouver have rebelled and said that they can't support any more taxes.

This is the effect of Vancouver chasing businesses away from the waterfront in favour of condos,  of making it harder for businesses to move goods and people around increasingly congested streets and placing the tax burden on said businesses.  

The net effect has been the move of businesses to Roberts Bank, Delta Port, (Prince Rupert soon), Surrey, Langley, Aldergrove and Chilliwack with the resultant move in population.  Vancouver's response has been to expand the GVRD so as to increase the tax base while continuing to focus services from those taxes on the denizens of Stanley Park and environs and the inhabitants of the DownTownEastSideTM


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2007)

Too true Kirkhill!

Something very similar has happened to London ON and primary industry is flowing out to the smaller urban centres in SW Ontario. It seems paying for other people's entertainment isn't in many business plans! In an effort to attract taxpayers back to the London, City council has decided to adopt a plan called "Creative Cities". However since it just changes who gets the goodies, it has been a dismal failure in the United States and will cause no end of grief here as well. Winnipeg has also adopted a variation of the plan despite the lack of empirical evidence that this will have any positive impact.

For more about Creative Accounting Cities read: http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_curse.html


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2007)

The Ontario Freedom Party runs on a Libertarian platform, and their leader has some interesting things to say.

aworski.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-do-you-have-to-believe-to-be.



> *Monday, April 23, 2007*
> What do you have to believe to be a libertarian?
> As I write this, I'm listening and sort of watching, Paul McKeever talk about the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand). Paul explains why libertarians are wrong about a lot of things. In particular, libertarians don't hold the right metaphysical, epistemological and ethical views. More specifically, libertarians "don't have a single philosophy" and are too broad. They try, according to McKeever, to be a "big tent" and capture whoever believes in liberty. Hippies, radish-worshippers, druggies, and so on. Just so long as someone claims that they like liberty, that's enough, according to McKeever. But a "true" defence of liberty requires "the right" ethics, "the right" epistemology, and "the right" metaphysical views. In fact, these views logically precede our political philosophy.
> 
> ...


----------



## FrenchAffair (24 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Ontario Freedom Party runs on a Libertarian platform



and how many votes did they get?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> and how many votes did they get?



You've repeated this strawman argument so many times I think you've probably already qualified for some kind of agricultural subsidy*: the simple fact of the matter is that many people consider who consider themselves libertarian are very pragmatic (which is the reason they are libertarians, but that's another matter).  As pragmatists, many self-described libertarians vote for mainstream parties in order to effect incremental change in (what they perceive as) the right direction, rather than allow status quo, or change in a more statist direction.  In the US, IIRC the split is something like 75% Republican / 25% Democrat (Republicans tend to be more economically libertarian, where Democrats are seen as more socially liberal); I don't know the split in Canada, but I suspect it is heavily weighted towards the Conservative party (esp. in the post-Red Tory landscape).  Of course many other libertarians don't vote at all.

Your statistics are meaningless, as are many of your opinions (which don't even qualify as arguments).

----------------------------------
*stolen from another <a href="http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/04/samizdata_putdo.html">*poster on Samizdata.net*</a>


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Ontario Freedom Party runs on a Libertarian platform, and their leader has some interesting things to say.



They also have a National Party. http://www.freedomparty.ca/htm/en/home.htm

They seem much more focused and less fractious than the Libertarian Party of Canada


----------



## FrenchAffair (24 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> You've repeated this strawman argument so many times I think you've probably already qualified for some kind of agricultural subsidy*



http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Please, do us all a favor. If you are going to constantly accuse people of using this logical fallacy at least know what it is and use it only in applicable situations. 

Accusing people of using logical fallacies, when one is not used is a logical fallacy in itself.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2007)

Don't push it anymore, lad.....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
> 
> Please, do us all a favor. If you are going to constantly accuse people of using this logical fallacy at least know what it is and use it only in applicable situations.
> 
> Accusing people of using logical fallacies, when one is not used is a logical fallacy in itself.



Example:





			
				FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> You mean like the record setting 3,002 votes the Libertarian party got in the past federal election? 11,000 less than the communist party I might add.



From your link: 





> The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent.



As with several of your "points," no one (except you) is arguing about the popularity of libertarianism in Canada: you seem to think that a(supposed) lack of popularity somehow supports your idea that libertarianism is wrong/evil/stupid/whatever.  That is about as clear of an example of a strawman argument that I can imagine.  Moreover, your "evidence" of its lack of popularity is misinformed, as I pointed out in my last post.  Your posts only serve to further illustrate your complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

*OUT*.


----------



## FrenchAffair (24 Apr 2007)

I have a feeling this is the wrong place for this argument, but nice try. How ever illustrating the fact of the Libertarian parties (and political parties which hold Libertarian ideals) lack of any form of success in Canadian politics is not a straw man argument. It is simply, stating a fact.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I have a feeling this is the wrong place for this argument, but nice try. How ever illustrating the fact of the Libertarian parties (and political parties which hold Libertarian ideals) lack of any form of success in Canadian politics is not a straw man argument. It is simply, stating a fact.



Do you not ever give up? No one can "debate" with you. You are always right. You don't listen to the other side, and have sure as heck been there and done it all for a mere 20 year old. I too call BS on your profile. Your credibility here continues to slide....rapidly.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2007)

From the Libertarian Party:





> Sunday, April 29, 2007
> *Why Government is Not the Solution by Jim McIntosh
> *
> From the federal Libertarian Party's April newsletter:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2007)

Another view:

http://mrerl.blogspot.com/2007/05/socialists-love-taxes



> Socialists love Taxes!
> 
> Taxes. Everyone hates them. What's that?...You say you don't? Stop lying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 May 2007)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15mitra.html?ex=1313294400&en=29fcef4345e00740&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Can China teach the west a thing or two about capitalism?


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15mitra.html?ex=1313294400&en=29fcef4345e00740&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> 
> Can China teach the west a thing or two about capitalism?



No.

China is operating a cartel system where access to capital and resources is controlled by the State. There are very few other sources of available capital (even foreign investment is essentially steered into areas the Chinese Government wants supported). While this is good for existing Chinese business which already has connections to the State, it also means China cannot create new industries the way a real Capitalist society can. Consider that personal computers did not exist prior to 1981, but are now a global multi-billion dollar industrial sector today. Certainly no Communist, Fascist or Socialist  society could have imagined such a thing happening, much less devoted resources to such a project during it's infancy. They copied and mostly still copy the American computer industry. (BTW, the French Minitel system anticipate the Internet by about a decade, but because it was aState project, a "closed" technology and under no compulsion to innovate, it was largely overtaken and superceded by the internet in the 1990's. I don't know if it even operates anymore).

Another telling example of how this sort of cartel mentality stifles innovation can be seen in National Socialist Germany during WW II. While many weird and wonderful innovations came out in the final years of the war, many of them (jet aircraft, long range rockets, nuclear energy, advanced submarines) had been proposed years earlier, but no State funding (the only large scale source of funding) was made available for a variety of reasons. The mad scramble to create some sort of wonder weapon in 1944-45 was in vain as there were not enough time or resources available at that point to create a usable product, enough wonder weapons or train a user community to operate these weapons. One can only imagine what would have happened if the German military had access to the results of civilian jet transport technology or high speed shipping based on competative private enterprise.

While it is true that even in the West government money supported a lot of military R&D which eventually came into the commercial world, that force feeding has been reversed in many technology fields; the military now looks at how to adapt civilian technology since the R&D and product cycles in the civilian market move so much faster.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

Skimming the channels the other night I came across Sacha Trudeau being interviewed.  Given the subject of the interview I didn't dawdle long but I stayed long enough to catch some interesting comments about Young Trudea Minor's views on the Red Giant.

While he admits that China has some "challenges" with respect to human rights violations, the environment, bellicosity, cronyism and wealth distribution,  and that it seems to be straying from communism towards capitalism he found that he was optimistic about China's future.

The reason:  Because it is a well ordered, rational, managed society.

While that may be well and good, and indeed true and welcome as far as the international community is concerned it puts him squarely at odds with the "disorder" of a well-functioning "liberal democracy".

It seems that he is indeed his father's son, and, I might suggest, a son of Quebec.  Order is more important than freedom.

Apparently another individual with similar inclinations is Hillary Clinton.



> ...In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it's time to replace President Bush's "ownership society," which she called an "on your own" society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
> 
> Clinton said she prefers a "we're all in it together" society: "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
> 
> Doesn't such a society already exist elsewhere? It's called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. ...


  By Cal Thomas of Tribune Media Services.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/it_takes_a_socialist_village.html


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (31 May 2007)

It takes a village.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

But does the village need a chief, or just a council of elders?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But does the village need a chief, or just a council of elders?



Dunno if it really needs either, but every village seems to have at least one idiot.   :


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

Gaa rong teed.


----------



## canadianblue (1 Jun 2007)

> While that may be well and good, and indeed true and welcome as far as the international community is concerned it puts him squarely at odds with the "disorder" of a well-functioning "liberal democracy".
> 
> It seems that he is indeed his father's son, and, I might suggest, a son of Quebec.  Order is more important than freedom.



How are we less free because we are taxed more. In all honesty if I had to choose between paying less taxes or spending more money on health care/education/social service, I would always pick the latter simply because I find that more important than my own self interests. Not to mention that nation's which have social safety nets tend to have a better society overall. 

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=31&articleID=000AF3D5-6DC9-152E-A9F183414B7F0000



> Apparently another individual with similar inclinations is Hillary Clinton.
> 
> 
> Quote
> ...



I read your link, but it seemed to be more of a knee jerk reaction than anything. I don't see why people think that the government is something evil that needs to be taken away, the government is made up of and elected by the people to serve everyone. If we had no intervention from government we'd be nothing more than an anarchist state. 

I have a few issues with the article:



> Doesn't such a society already exist elsewhere? It's called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn't defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?



Wouldn't FDR also be considered a socialist than. In my own opinion the best government is one which adopts a middle road approach to the economy, encouraging business yet at the same time bringing in some regulations in order to make for a healthy society. To compare communism to things such as universal health care, welfare, etc. is a fallable argument. I live in a province with a social democratic government and have yet to be waiting two hours in line at a government supply store trying to get bread. 



> Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."



This is ridiculous, it assumes that any nation which supports more social programs or a national healthcare program will turn into a socialist dictatorship. Sure it sells on the extreme right but I doubt that American's who are in the middle class or the working poor will agree with it. 



> I am not robbed by people who have more money than me. I am robbed by a government that wants to penalize my industry and give increasing portions of what I earn to people who do not emulate my principles, morals and ethics.



The problem is that is not a democracy, some people do not believe in having a military, should we get rid of that as well. 



> What have we come to? We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions, chastity before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue - not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor). We now teach them entitlement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people's money. When one robs a bank, it's a crime. When government takes our money, it's called a tax. Same result.



Those virtues aren't necessarily true, even if you work hard it doesn't garauntee success. As for the class envy and taking other peoples money, if your born into a family living in poverty your not going to have the same advantages as a rich family and shouldn't be unable to have an education/health care because of it, which I find is the biggest flaw with libertarianism. It assumes equality, however a person will be considered more equal simply out of luck. When government takes your money its called democracy, that is unfortunately the downside of living in a society. We recognize the need to pay for things such as health care, education, and welfare, because they all contribute to making a healthier society. 

I find danger in any extreme ideology, if we lived in a perfect libertarian society or perfect communist society life would be perfect, but that isn't feasible. Most developed nations have found a good middle ground and we should stick with what has worked, I don't mind living in this country, and I don't mind paying taxes to help someone else out.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jun 2007)

> if I had to choose between paying less taxes or spending more money on health care/education/social service, I would always pick the latter simply because I find that more important than my own self interests. Not to mention that nation's which have social safety nets tend to have a better society overall.



A reasonable enough position - wanting to spend more money on health care/education/social service, and wanting to defray costs while spreading benefits is an equally laudable goal.  Hence we have lived for centuries with the benefits of Church run hospitals and schools and more recently with Mutual Life Insurance funds along with Widows and Orphan funds and Cooperative Societies.  Those "Club" run services are the precursors to your "National" services.   The Nation is nothing more than another Club.  And an exclusive one at that.  One that denies entry on the basis of National origin to those that would voluntarily wish to pay their "dues" in order to receive the "benefits".

Does your sense of Universality extend beyond your National borders?

The advantage of a Transnational Corporation is that the underlying contract is available to all on a voluntary basis.  No compulsion is required.

Like yourself I recoil from extremes - extremes of any sort - including extreme nationalism and extreme socialism.

Your continued good health Young Fella.

Cheers.


----------



## canadianblue (1 Jun 2007)

> A reasonable enough position - wanting to spend more money on health care/education/social service, and wanting to defray costs while spreading benefits is an equally laudable goal.  Hence we have lived for centuries with the benefits of Church run hospitals and schools and more recently with Mutual Life Insurance funds along with Widows and Orphan funds and Cooperative Societies.  Those "Club" run services are the precursors to your "National" services.   The Nation is nothing more than another Club.  And an exclusive one at that.  One that denies entry on the basis of National origin to those that would voluntarily wish to pay their "dues" in order to receive the "benefits".



I think that the Social Gospel had an influence on the creation of some of the regulations we now have with regards to labour and poverty, as well as the creation of some social programs. A society is in a way an exclusive club, however its necessary at a national level in order to be able to respond to any problems or issues which may occur.



> Does your sense of Universality extend beyond your National borders?



Depends, I think Canada overall aims to improve the quality of life for people outside of our borders.



> The advantage of a Transnational Corporation is that the underlying contract is available to all on a voluntary basis.  No compulsion is required.



I'm somewhat split on globalization, I can see the benefits of it, but at the same time I know that their are downsides to it and it can be used to take advantaged of the less fortunate in other countries. It can have a negative effect on a fully developed country, especially when manufacturing jobs are lost to a country with fewer regulations. I'd say I'm more in favour of fair trade while at the same time maintaining policies that ensure countries we do business with respect human rights and attempt to improve the quality of life of their citizens.



> Like yourself I recoil from extremes - extremes of any sort - including extreme nationalism and extreme socialism.



Agreed...


----------



## Reccesoldier (10 Jun 2007)

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"



He's not the only one saying that.

Daniel Etounga-Manguelle, an engineer, author and lecturer from Cameroon, suggests that Africa needs a _cultural adjustment_ before it can make any progress at all.  In _Culture Matters_* he says:



> _The Community Dominates the Individual_
> 
> If we had to cite a single characteristic of the African culture, the subordination of the individual by the community would surely be the reference point to remember.  African thought rejects any view of the individual as an autonomous and responsible being.  The African is vertically rooted in his family, in the vital ancestor, if not in God; horizontally he is linked to his group, to society, to the cosmos.  The fruit of a family-individual, society-individual dynamic, all linked to the universe, the African can only develop and bloom through social and family life ...
> 
> The concept of individual responsibility does not exist in our [African] hyper-centralized traditional societies.  In Cameroon the word “responsible” translates as “chief.”  Telling peasants that they are all responsible for a group initiative is to tell them therefore that they are all chiefs – which inevitably leads to endless interpersonal conflicts.



Some members may recall that, some time ago, I complained/explained that during my time in Africa I became frustrated because most of the people with whom I was assigned to work had little if any concept of their responsibility to the larger, national community.  They were preoccupied with their local (family/clan/village) issues.  That's what Etounga-Manguelle is saying:  Africa is _*culturally* unequipped_ to understand, much less function in a modern, _liberal_ society – where the rights and duties of the _sovereign_ individual dominate the social, economic and political systems.  I think (and so I've been told by some Asian colleagues and acquaintances) that *the African* (to continue with Etounga-Manguelle's overly broad generalization) is equally unprepared to deal with a modern conservative society.

Etounga-Manguelle proposes four 'revolutions' – initiated, led and controlled by Africans, in:

1. Education

2. Politics

3. Economics

4.Social Life

In short he proposes that, through great effort and accepting great hardship, Africans must spurn Western _help_ and, instead, put themselves through a _crash course_ (probably requiring generation*s*) in _enlightenment_ – while still retaining the _humanism_ which is a hallmark of African culture.

It's quite a proposal.  I suspect that something that radical *is* required. 


----------
* Lawrence E Harrison & Samuel P Huntington (editors), New York, 2000


----------



## canadianblue (10 Jun 2007)

I don't have much depth in the whole issue with foreign aid so forgive my ignorance, but I'm wondering if we have any say or knowledge of where that money goes to. In my own opinion we should stop with this notion that throwing money at a problem will make it go away, and find more innovative solutions when dealing with developing nations. If a nation wants our help then we should give it to them under the condition that the money will go towards something productive such as education/health care/infrastructure. I would prefer an emphasis on education simply due to the fact that the more doctors, engineers, lawyers, and educators, a country has the better off it will be for later generations.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I don't have much depth in the whole issue with foreign aid so forgive my ignorance, but I'm wondering if we have any say or knowledge of where that money goes to. In my own opinion we should stop with this notion that throwing money at a problem will make it go away, and find more innovative solutions when dealing with developing nations. If a nation wants our help then we should give it to them under the condition that the money will go towards something productive such as education/health care/infrastructure. I would prefer an emphasis on education simply due to the fact that the more doctors, engineers, lawyers, and educators, a country has the better off it will be for later generations.



I would suspect that our aid dollars would go to creat a flourishing education bureacracy rather than actually educating doctors, engineers etc. This is even the case here in Canada (in most fields, not just education), where our tax dollars fuel vast government offices but children are not noticably better educated, health care is falling apart, infrastructure is neglected........

I would support giving scholarships to individual candidates to be trained and educated here, so they not only receive quality education (at least a quality that is unobtainable in a third world nation), but are also exposed to the sort of cultural influences that Edward is talking about; Freedom of association and expression, property rights and the Rule of Law. I suspect that if a critical mass of people are exposed to and indoctrinated in the education and cultural values of the West then the social revolution that Edward is speaking of will finally happen in Africa. For a precient look at some of these issues, try Robert Kaplan's article "The Coming Anarchy" http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199402/anarchy

This is also the fatall weakness of "our" nation building efforts in SW Asia (Iraq and Afghanistan); there is not only a vast population of illiterate or poorly educated people to work with, but their cultural norms are not aligned with our concepts of individual rights, freedom of association and the Rule of Law either. We will have to work on cultural engineering if we want to achieve long term success.


----------



## GAP (11 Jun 2007)

Have not the British done this over the last 50-60 years....university educated the African elite, only to have them either disappear into the ether or come home to become dictators?


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Have not the British done this over the last 50-60 years....university educated the African elite, only to have them either disappear into the ether or come home to become dictators?



You are correct in that regard, but maybe we are looking at the wrong "niche" to fill. The British (and to a large extent both Western and Communist powers) concentrated on educating government bureacrats and leaders in the belief that "government" makes things happen. Libertarians believe just the opposite, and I should have been more clear in my post that we should be educating individual candidates to become doctors, engineers, technicians, and so on rather than the "civil servent" class.

In the book "The coming of the French Revolution", the author makes the point that while there were rebellions all through history against the ruling class, at the time of the French Revolution there was a middle class with sufficient size and power to actually enter the arena in force and fight for their own political and economic rights. (In essence they fought for their economic/property rights but came to realize that these were derived from their political rights).

By creating the foundation of a middle class of professionals (and backing them with economic and perhaps even military help under certain conditions) we can provide a nucleus for the social revolution to take place. A critical mass of people with the belief in freedom of speech and association and the Rule of Law is needed. In the United States, this was accomplished because the initial settlers shared certain values unique to that time and place (Ideas about common and natural law and Dissenting Protestantism common in the 16 and 1700's), someone has to recreate these conditions if we want to see similar results in Africa or SW Asia.


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> initiated, led and controlled by Africans, in:
> 
> 1. Education
> 
> ...



I don't hold out much hope that any of these 'revolutions' will happen before Africa weans itself, or is weaned off the teat of international aid.


----------



## DBA (12 Jun 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I don't hold out much hope that any of these 'revolutions' will happen before Africa weans itself, or is weaned off the teat of international aid.



As the article in SPIEGEL Magazine "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" states:

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Makes me wonder if the current push for increased aide will just make things worse which will then be blamed on global warming and demands made for even more aide.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2007)

The key thing to remember about Aid organizations and NGO's in general is they are also business entities, and their income is derived from donations, which in turn are derived from alerting "us" to the problem of (insert cause here).

You will notice this gives incentives to overstate the problems, as well as a perverse incentive to ensure the problem never gets solved (what would they do and whyere would their income come from when [insert cause here] is no longer a problem?). I would suggest that potential donors carefully research their causes, and shy away from those which have high percentages of their donations going to internal administration, fundraising and so on. 

Frankly, the best organizations in my experience are local churches, since the donations come from the congregation, the project is usually small scale and focused (and run by one or more parishioners) and (most important) the congregation knows the project manager in person and can assess the probable success or failure for themselves, rather than donating to an impersonal and bureaucratic NGO or sending tax dollars to the government bureaucracy where there is little or no accountability.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2007)

The arbitrary nature of Socialism vs private spending

http://mostlyfree.blogspot.com/2007/06/public-service-announcement.html



> Wednesday, June 20, 2007
> *public service announcement.*
> 
> A quick lesson in semantics for all you spinners out there, as appparently you continue to be confused about a fairly simple topic:
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Jun 2007)

This]=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/20/streetracing-cars-seize.html]This is the kind of suspension of basic legal principal that socialisism/reform liberalism leads to.

Innocent till proven suspicious is all these people need.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2007)

The entire thread is in vain if that is what you think; Libertarianism is ALL ABOUT the Rule of Law; Laws limited in scale and scope, and people being held accountable for their actions.

If a person is intent on helping themselves to your person or property, then no law will stop them (the seeming intent of regulations like the Gun Registry); rather the law delimits the areas of freedom (i.e. the principle that "your rights end at the tip of my nose"), and provides the tools to protect your person and their property (police and the courts of law).

Since force is the ultimate guarantor of your rights (you have the right to self defence, and the Police and Armed Forces are the agents of the State to provide your protection from threats you cannot deal with in person), it is appropriate that severe limitations are placed on the scale, scope and use of State power, otherwise the State becomes tyranny.


----------



## canadianblue (23 Jun 2007)

I've actually read alot of material on libertarianism when I was in high school, I guess I'd be described as libertarian since I wanted less government intervention in all walks of life; however since then I've moved more towards being a progressive. However I'm just wondering what some of the libertarians on here think about the issues of today.

In the presidential election in 2008, would you support Ron Paul who is one of the most libertarian candidate in the United States, or is a more moderate libertarian preferable? 

In your view would libertarianism ever support intervention in foreign conflicts such as Vietnam, Iraq, Korean War, Afghanistan, Rwanda, or is it better for a country to simply not interfere? 

Another question I have is if we are a libertarian society and we are hit by a recession, and if their is a large gap between the rich and the poor won't that create more instability in a society with no social safety net? 

As well how would a libertarian deal with social problems like child abuse, crime, poverty, suicide, etc? Could the free market in Canada possibly serve all Canadian's, or would some people simply remain marginalized due to the fact they do not have the financial means in order to have proper health care, and get a proper education. 

In my own view at the very least we need to ensure that every person in Canada regardless of their financial situation should at the very least have access to education from Kindergarten to Grade 12, as well as basic health care. I personally don't see a free market being able to fill all of those needs for 100% of the population.


----------



## Reccesoldier (23 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The entire thread is in vain if that is what you think; Libertarianism is ALL ABOUT the Rule of Law; Laws limited in scale and scope, and people being held accountable for their actions.



You completely misinterpreted what I was getting at.

The acceptance of the social interference of the left is what has made it possible for the Government of Ontario to willfully ignore the most basic of our Legal rights (innocent till proven guilty) in the name of "protecting society". 

My argument is that this kind of social engineering is detrimental to a free society, unless I have it wrong and the glorious revolution was designed to replace the divine right of kings with the divine right of socialists.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jun 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This]=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/20/streetracing-cars-seize.html]This is the kind of suspension of basic legal principal that socialisism/reform liberalism leads to.
> 
> Innocent till proven suspicious is all these people need.



Sorry Reccesoldier, I misunderstood what you were getting at in the highlighted portion. In fact, I thought you were conflating Socialism with Libertarianism. One serving of crow, lightly salted for me, please......



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I've actually read alot of material on libertarianism when I was in high school, I guess I'd be described as libertarian since I wanted less government intervention in all walks of life; however since then I've moved more towards being a progressive. However I'm just wondering what some of the libertarians on here think about the issues of today.
> 
> In the presidential election in 2008, would you support Ron Paul who is one of the most libertarian candidate in the United States, or is a more moderate libertarian preferable?



The President is only one part of the equation. A more Libertarian Congress would be needed to ensure spending is brought down and under control (and of course the President would need to be able to work with the Congress to sponsor his own bills or pass legislation). Perhaps more practical, if less ambitious, would be to work at electing city councillors, aldermen, and other local government reps (up to the Provincial/State level). If local governments were to deal with their own levels of responsibility and cut spending and taxes accordingly, much of the Libertarian program could be achieved.



> In your view would libertarianism ever support intervention in foreign conflicts such as Vietnam, Iraq, Korean War, Afghanistan, Rwanda, or is it better for a country to simply not interfere?



Unless very compelling national interests are being served, the use of Armed Force should be strictly limited. A true Libertarian State would resemble Switzerland or Sweden in its Armed Forces. Still, most of your examples can (and should be) debated on their relative merits and proximity to national interests as understood _at the time_.



> Another question I have is if we are a libertarian society and we are hit by a recession, and if their is a large gap between the rich and the poor won't that create more instability in a society with no social safety net?



This question is based on the premise that governments can solve recessions. This is a debatable proposition at best, and many economists could make the case that government intervention in the economy _causes_ recessions. Non government safety nets exist, mostly in religious charity groups. They have the distinct advantage in that the donor has access to the people being helped, rather than being insulated from the recipients by a remote and indifferent bureaucracy.



> As well how would a libertarian deal with social problems like child abuse, crime, poverty, suicide, etc? Could the free market in Canada possibly serve all Canadian's, or would some people simply remain marginalized due to the fact they do not have the financial means in order to have proper health care, and get a proper education.
> 
> In my own view at the very least we need to ensure that every person in Canada regardless of their financial situation should at the very least have access to education from Kindergarten to Grade 12, as well as basic health care. I personally don't see a free market being able to fill all of those needs for 100% of the population.



Since the current system of governmental delivery of these services results in many people not being served, or being marginalized, you could make the argument that a Libertarian system being decentralized, flexible and responsive will be able to serve more needs for more people. Even if it only results in delivering similar amounts of "service" the elimination of bureaucratic overhead will save vast amounts of resources (and the economic argument is that freeing these resources will result in greater opportunities for all the people, hence the superiority of a Libertarian society. In history, societies closer to the Libertarian ideal outperformed their competitors, often despite great disparities in manpower and resources).


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2007)

Some educated guesses: 

1) You have to choose from among the available actual candidates.  If the presidential ballot names Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani, then either pick one or do not vote.  There is always a better candidate that one might imagine.

2) Since libertarianism includes rule of law, there's no principle preventing a country from intervening where there is a manifest defensive imperative (ie. a just cause).  What one should also expect from a libertarian government is a marked disinclination to start its own conflicts or interfere where all parties to the conflict have weak claims to fighting a just cause (eg. most of what happened in the Balkans recently).

3) A large gap between rich and poor isn't the source of instability during economic crunches.  Comparing the propensity of parts of Europe to devolve to extremism against what happened in the US during the '30s, I surmise there are other characteristics of a society which determine how well it weathers a fiscal crisis.  I speculate that the more independent-minded the people (as individuals and families), the better they weather adversity. 

4) Child abuse is a crime against a person, and crimes are a matter of law.  I am not sure any political structure except a remarkably paternalistic/maternalistic egalitarian one can resolve poverty.   The people capable of rising out of poverty mostly don't need heavy-handed assistance to do so; the people who need heavy-handed assistance arguably can get it right now and it doesn't help very much.  People living on the streets with mental illness are still there.  The question to be wrestled with is: by what criteria is a biologically adult person deemed unfit to be the judge of his own life?

5) A completely unfettered free market can provide health care and education or nearly anything else people want.  What a free market does not do is ensure everyone has the means to pay.  If pricing for health care and public education were allowed to float on a free market, I would expect the price of the former to rise and the latter to fall.  It is certainly possible to separate private provision from public funding (eg. single insurer or payer).  The free market can also provide enough child care, but many parents are not willing to pay a price high enough to attract more child care workers.  The problem with these "goods" is that people want them, but want to pay chickenshit prices (and ultimately to the workers, chickenshit wages).


----------



## canadianblue (24 Jun 2007)

But how far do we go in a libertarian society, do we get rid of child labour laws, the minimum wage, university loans, workplace safety and health regulations. As well if you're born poor then you are already at a disadvantage as compared to those in the higher class, if you can't pay for health care or education you don't have many options in life. As for the churches taking over all of the social services, they are still limited in what they can do simply because they may not have the manpower or resources to provide counselling, food, clothing, etc. to the poor and disadvantaged. 

I myself think that in a perfect libertarian society everything would be great, one could say the same thing about communism if it was run perfectly, however in the end I don't think its practical or realistic to believe that a completely free market is capable of filling all of societies needs.


----------



## Reccesoldier (24 Jun 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> In your view would libertarianism ever support intervention in foreign conflicts such as Vietnam, Iraq, Korean War, Afghanistan, Rwanda, or is it better for a country to simply not interfere?



In my opinion foreign policy is one of the places where libertarianism falls down and hard.

Previously posted at http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/2007/05/divergence-of-thought.html



> A Divergence of Thought
> 
> Although I do not ascribe my political ideology to anything as rigid as a political party it is quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention that my tendency is toward Classic Liberalism. This would seem to call into question my support for Canada’s role in the war in Afghanistan, indeed my acceptance and support of the “War on Terror” in general, but Foreign Affairs and Defence issues are where Libertarianism and I diverge.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2007)

>There would not even be scope within the Libertarian ideal for most peacekeeping missions, as those missions are usually focused on enforcing the will of the wider world upon the warring factions within a given territory.

"Peacekeeping" implies there is a peace to be kept and that the mission has the consent of the belligerent parties.  A libertarian government with a (presumably) volunteer army should not find any irreconcilable contradiction in serving as a peace broker and monitor.

So consider instead "peacemaking", which has this problem: that the cost of intervention will not necessarily be less than the cost of letting the belligerents sort out their own differences, and determined belligerents can easily make even the most powerful nation regret a choice to intervene.  I should not have to cite the contemporary examples.

Regardless, it would be unlikely for a hockey sock of nations to all suddenly turn libertarian.  There would be other ways for a libertarian nation to have influence, not the least of which would be to serve as a good example.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2007)

>But how far do we go in a libertarian society

How far I would go would certainly end well short of subsidizing the preferences of people manifestly able to serve their own needs.  There is plenty of public spending and governmental interference to trim before we risk eroding the protections of the truly desperate among us.

There are some things that can reasonably be argued on the grounds of compassion - public catastrophic health insurance for example - and some that can not - such as use of aforementioned public health insurance as an excuse to regulate risks people may or may not take with their own lives.


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Jun 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >There would not even be scope within the Libertarian ideal for most peacekeeping missions, as those missions are usually focused on enforcing the will of the wider world upon the warring factions within a given territory.
> 
> "Peacekeeping" implies there is a peace to be kept and that the mission has the consent of the belligerent parties.  A libertarian government with a (presumably) volunteer army should not find any irreconcilable contradiction in serving as a peace broker and monitor.
> 
> ...



Brad, while i understand your argument the ideal and reality of peacekeeping are the same as the complaint often voiced by communist idealists that "it's not supposed to work that way"  That fact that does not change the reality that it is often exactly that way.  A libertarian government never would have stayed in Bosnia for 10 years monitoring a "ceasefire" that was never a ceasefire.  A libertarian government would not have sat on the green line for 30+ years to monitor two factions who although not actively fighting can not reach a lasting peace.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2007)

For either of those to be likely, I would have to believe that the libertarian government would either 1) not be a UN member state; or 2) be a highly indifferent UN member state.  We can't rule out the latter but it would make that libertarian state no worse than many of the so-called progressive states.  I see no reason why a libertarian state should have to meet a higher standard of international participation than most of the Eurozone.  As a point of persuasion against libertarian government, to me it doesn't wash.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2008)

Some of the more unpleasant ways the "progressives" try to frame the debate:

http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-to-argue-with-libertarian.html



> *How To Argue With A Libertarian* Wednesday, June 07, 2006
> 
> This list is based on my own observation of the most astute critics of libertarianism.
> 
> ...


----------



## evil drunken-fool (5 Jun 2008)

Guys, I know I am quite late to this debate but this is a topic that really interest me and I don't see the point of starting a new topic.

I read through the whole thread and I had a question to ask. I have just really started to get interested in politics, and the philosophy around it.  So I have been doing some reading and have basically come the conclusion that I think I am somewhere around a Left-Libertarian.  However, I am not sure if I really anywhere in that area.

The thing is I have been having a hard time grasping an economic policy that would fit my views.  I started reading up on views such as those as economic egalitarianism.  However, it seems as though that system is its purest form takes it way too far. Maybe I can explain my view and if there is another name for it then just tell me. The thing is that if you take a company that pays taxes, then in theory that goes to say ACOA, to pay for start-up of a company that is their competitor.  It is like shooting themselves in the foot, or well handing someone the gun and saying, ""Hey you don't mind shooting my foot do you?"  It seems so stupid in principle, but to me, it gives everyone the equal the opportunity to their own choice.  I mean, without things like ACOA, some people may not have the opportunity to start a business.  I know some people will say go to a bank or what not, but this institutions have shown their worth in my opinion.  Now, I have heard of some cases where people simply went to ACOA to just get a cheap loan for a new boat, truck, or what have you, with no intentions of starting a business, but as I say, to me these things, when run properly have their worth.  They breed competitions, which is good for the market.

The thing is without competition you get monopolies. Now in this thread there were references to windows, wal-mart, and some Atlantic Canadian companies, such as those of the Irvings to name a few.  The thing is, I think that people look at the market too quickly, I can still remember the many small mom and pop stores here and there.  Then the big box stores came in and everyone was like, "oh no", they basically destroyed a lot of these smaller stores.  The thing is I have seen a resurgence in a lot of these smaller stores lately.  I will take a small ski shop that I know well.  A couple big box sports stores came in the man city in the region, say about 50,000 in the area, and everyone thought it would kill the little store.  I am sure at first everyone enjoyed the cheap prices, but the big stores lacked customer service and high quality products, choosing to stock the more cheap products that sold much better.  However the small ski shop started to pick up on this and started increasing their sales by adding excellent customer service and quality products.  You take windows for example, the market is starting to go towards Mac now finally.  Wal-mart has had some easy times, but the internet is just getting started and will cut into there sales. Logistics are so much better then they were before that companies can get products to your door for almost the same cost as sending a truck pack to the top with 10,000 of the same thing.  My point is the market has been changing ever since the industrial revolution at a ridiculous pace.  Nobody really knows where it is going, I think the government should still be the grand overseer of the market and adjust interest rates and what not to control the market. Free trade is another area that countries don't play fair with each other, so the government must protect its citizen in making sure that trade deals will not cause a drain of jobs away and leave the economy in shambles.  However, when it comes to the individual local markets, let supply and demand run the show.

Then there is the foreign affairs. My thoughts are simple on this, obviously, in the World we live in there are countries much poorer then ours.  I feel that foreign aid is very important to help these countries out.  Though, I think were possible we should not just hand money out as a giveaway but as a way for country to grow.  For example, you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day.  If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime.  We shouldn't be running all around the world doing this though.  It should be cases where we are asked, and want to go into.  Then there is the issue of the military.  Obviously for self protection of the nation, this to me includes such things as Afghanistan, as we went there with the intention to protect our nation.  Oh how some have forgot that.  What we shouldn't being doing is running around the world playing police man, unless as with the aid issue, if we are called in and wish to go in on our own accord.

Anyway, after reading through the posts in this topic, I really thought I could relate to what was said in the post below.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I do believe that people should be the master of their own destiny and that government does not know best.  I believe that people should be responsible for their actions.  I also believe that unfettered self-interest can lead to a break-down of the society in which individuals live, especially as those societies grow larger and become impersonal.  It can be argued that the West (read English speaking countries) avoided revolutions because of a compromise between free-will/free trade and some form of socialism.  The welfare state annoys me, but I also don't like the idea of a family being sunk if the bread-winner loses his job.  I don't come from a rich family, but my knee got fixed by the same guy that fixes NHL players and my folks didn't have to go into debt.  I don't want the governent to tell my how to raise my kids or decide what movies they can watch, but I do appreciate them checking on the safety of the foods that I eat and the hygiene of restaurants I eat in.
> 
> Now, I do think that we've gone a little too far down the welfare state road.




As I said earlier with foreign aid, "you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day.  If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime."  I think our state, and even the organizations such as the UN have decided the way to go is with hand outs.  It only benefits people in the short run.  Welfare should only be there for worst case scenarios, leaving in Newfoundland, I can tell you this is by no means the case.

I have to say that all-in-all, I like the way *most* of the government is structured in theory.  From what I have seen, many of the social programs are good in principle and should stay in place.  My thought of the whole situation is that if you have more then enough, then you should be taxed to spread some of the wealth and give the poor a fair shake at things.  Obviously everyone should pay something to the nation for the cost of infrastructure, police, military and any required government services.  I don't think health care should be touched, it would be absolutely crazy at this point in history for anyone to touch, in fact I think we pay too much for it as it is now.  For example, I had to pay for physiotherapy recently, it is crazy to think that without insurance I would have never received this.  My thoughts are also, that education should be free in trade school and university. Again, as I say, it gives everyone a fair shake at things in the end.

Then there are the touchy subjects such as homosexuality, which I have a liberal view on, abortion, I like the libertarians for life view on this.  I see no point for the government to be dealing with killing people as is the case with the death penalty.  However, there should be a  jail system that rehabilitates those who will eventually rejoin society and keeps those locked away who are deemed a threat to public safety and cannot be rehabilitated.  I don't feel the need to regulate such things as drugs (to a certain extent), prostitution and other issues such as this which are crimes that do not hurt anyone, other then possibly the parties involved, but who do this on their own accord.  These are the things that waste valuable government agencies time and resources.


I guess to sum things up, I feel as though as long as the government takes a little off the top of those that have a lot to give to those who do not, then all my other views are somewhat libertarian in nature.  Then again, some might be all over the place.  Remember, I am still just figuring things out and I found this thread very interesting to read, expect for one poster who seemed to want to start a war.

Again, sorry for digging this up but I noticed that most of the main posters, still post regularly on this form and might be able to give me some insight into what I have said and set me straight on anything that I have said that is out of place, or out their in left-field.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2008)

Welcome aboard Steel horse, you will be in for an interesting ride!



			
				Steel Horse said:
			
		

> The thing is I have been having a hard time grasping an economic policy that would fit my views.  I started reading up on views such as those as economic egalitarianism.  However, it seems as though that system is its purest form takes it way too far. Maybe I can explain my view and if there is another name for it then just tell me. The thing is that if you take a company that pays taxes, then in theory that goes to say ACOA, to pay for start-up of a company that is their competitor.  It is like shooting themselves in the foot, or well handing someone the gun and saying, ""Hey you don't mind shooting my foot do you?"  It seems so stupid in principle, but to me, it gives everyone the equal the opportunity to their own choice.  I mean, without things like ACOA, some people may not have the opportunity to start a business.  I know some people will say go to a bank or what not, but this institutions have shown their worth in my opinion.  Now, I have heard of some cases where people simply went to ACOA to just get a cheap loan for a new boat, truck, or what have you, with no intentions of starting a business, but as I say, to me these things, when run properly have their worth.  They breed competitions, which is good for the market.



The idea that you can be forced to subsidize your competitors is completely against the views of libertarians. The active element is the *use of force * (i.e. State power compelling you through taxation) to subsidize anything that is counter to your interests. As for providing funds for start ups, you could suggest that the reason more people don't have the resources to start their own business is their wages and savings are heavily taxed to begin with (the vicious circle argument). Most start up business in the United States are the beneficiaries of "angel" investors, private individuals who provide start up funding from their own resources in the expectation they will have a good return on their investments, so government or private institutions are not the only source of capital.



> The thing is without competition you get monopolies. Now in this thread there were references to windows, wal-mart, and some Atlantic Canadian companies, such as those of the Irvings to name a few.  The thing is, I think that people look at the market too quickly, I can still remember the many small mom and pop stores here and there.  Then the big box stores came in and everyone was like, "oh no", they basically destroyed a lot of these smaller stores.  The thing is I have seen a resurgence in a lot of these smaller stores lately.  I will take a small ski shop that I know well.  A couple big box sports stores came in the man city in the region, say about 50,000 in the area, and everyone thought it would kill the little store.  I am sure at first everyone enjoyed the cheap prices, but the big stores lacked customer service and high quality products, choosing to stock the more cheap products that sold much better.  However the small ski shop started to pick up on this and started increasing their sales by adding excellent customer service and quality products.  You take windows for example, the market is starting to go towards Mac now finally.  Wal-mart has had some easy times, but the internet is just getting started and will cut into there sales. Logistics are so much better then they were before that companies can get products to your door for almost the same cost as sending a truck pack to the top with 10,000 of the same thing.  My point is the market has been changing ever since the industrial revolution at a ridiculous pace.  Nobody really knows where it is going, I think the government should still be the grand overseer of the market and adjust interest rates and what not to control the market. Free trade is another area that countries don't play fair with each other, so the government must protect its citizen in making sure that trade deals will not cause a drain of jobs away and leave the economy in shambles.  However, when it comes to the individual local markets, let supply and demand run the show.



At least you have an understanding of how markets work. One thing which many people find difficult to understand is the market is much bigger than your neighbourhood or even city, so the establishment of monopolies without the sanction and backing of State power is almost impossible; there is always a competitor somewhere! The State should primarily serve as an equal arbitrator in disputes (i.e. the enforcement of contracts) so competition does run smoothly.



> I guess to sum things up, I feel as though as long as the government takes a little off the top of those that have a lot to give to those who do not, then all my other views are somewhat libertarian in nature.  Then again, some might be all over the place.  Remember, I am still just figuring things out and I found this thread very interesting to read, expect for one poster who seemed to want to start a war.



The major failing of your thinking is the idea that it is the responsibility or duty of governments to redistribute wealth. The primary difference between that and a home invasion is the people helping themselves to your property and wealth work for the State! There is nothing at all in the philosophy of Libertarianism that prevents you or other civic minded individuals and groups from providing assistance or charity to the less fortunate, and many of the community groups and aid societies that exist today spring from that very purpose, although many are now corrupted to seek funding for their projects from the State as opposed to their neighbours. Similarly with business start-ups and patronage of companies, you are a much faster and better arbitrator of what is good and right than some uninvolved bureaucrat.

There are issues which are difficult or even impossible to solve in the libertarian context of small scale association, hence the need for some form of government, the trick is to strictly define and limit the powers of government so it does not encroach on your rights and liberties. "Progressives" have managed to discover the formula of inverting and perverting language and meaning; so "human rights" become the cover for grotesque political show trials here in Canada (see the current "hearing" by the BCHRC against McLean's magazine and Mark Styen, Ezra Levant's reporting is astonishing to read as the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the process is laid out for the public to see), while "progressive" taxation punishes hard work and effort, to cite two examples.

Re read the posts, and if you believe that the libertarian philosophy is worth persuing and implementing, then you can begin to work towards implementing it.


**Fixed quotes for you Thucydides


----------



## evil drunken-fool (5 Jun 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The idea that you can be forced to subsidize your competitors is completely against the views of libertarians. The active element is the *use of force * (i.e. State power compelling you through taxation) to subsidize anything that is counter to your interests. As for providing funds for start ups, you could suggest that the reason more people don't have the resources to start their own business is their wages and savings are heavily taxed to begin with (the vicious circle argument). Most start up business in the United States are the beneficiaries of "angel" investors, private individuals who provide start up funding from their own resources in the expectation they will have a good return on their investments, so government or private institutions are not the only source of capital.



The more and more I have thought about this over the past couple of days, I think I am starting to see the light.  I like the vicious circle argument you mention, seems to make a lot of sense to me.  The government should get its hand out of the back pocket of all citizens, just so one individual or group can start a business with my tax dollars and I see none of the return directly back to me.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The major failing of your thinking is the idea that it is the responsibility or duty of governments to redistribute wealth. The primary difference between that and a home invasion is the people helping themselves to your property and wealth work for the State! There is nothing at all in the philosophy of Libertarianism that prevents you or other civic minded individuals and groups from providing assistance or charity to the less fortunate, and many of the community groups and aid societies that exist today spring from that very purpose, although many are now corrupted to seek funding for their projects from the State as opposed to their neighbours. Similarly with business start-ups and patronage of companies, you are a much faster and better arbitrator of what is good and right than some uninvolved bureaucrat.



Maybe I went to far with this point, I think what I am getting at is that I believe in free schooling, health care, snow clearing, etc...
These are all government provided services, that *should* benefit all equally and should not be privatized.  I guess my idea would be how do we pay for these services.  Would a true Libertarian agree that a flat tax or a regressive tax would be best?  I just cannot agree to that, maybe a proportional tax, but I think I would have to side with those who agree to a progressive tax.  Then again it all depends on the circumstances.  For example, on a local level (snow clearing, water and sewer, etc...), I think a flat tax, or something close too, might be best.  Whereas, with the progressive tax, I would agree to that on a national level.  Then another thought I have if what if a company, without government backing, finds a huge oil deposit and makes a large amount of money on it.  I mean they are entitled to some of the profits, but I feel I own this country just as much as the next person and I think I deserve my share, as the profit was made with natural resources from my country (I believe this last statement has lead to some debate between Libertarians and it all depends on your viewpoint).  I look at it as the company paying me for taking something from what everyone and I own. However, that opens up another can of worms, because I then basically say that I should pay to live on the land I own because I impede others from using it.  There seems to be a thousand different ways to view this whole argument, so I will leave it at that until I do some more research and get a bit more insight into the whole issue. 

As for charity, my thoughts are in principle it works.  However, there are certain cases where a recipient may not receive the necessary funds to meet their needs to survive.  I think people deserve a safety net for when they fall on hard times, however, the whole "welfare state" thing has gone too far in my opinion.  It handicaps the whole economic system.

I just can't see a system where there isn't a little bit of redistribution of wealth.  I think Canada has done well for itself in obtaining a high standard of living while not diving too far into the whole socialism system.  I think we currently have one of the best set-ups out there, but it could be better.


Again, thanks for the quick reply and I am going to start reading up on a few more things.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Jun 2008)

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> Then another thought I have if what if a company, without government backing, finds a huge oil deposit and makes a large amount of money on it.  I mean they are entitled to some of the profits, but I feel I own this country just as much as the next person and I think I deserve my share, as the profit was made with natural resources from my country (I believe this last statement has lead to some debate between Libertarians and it all depends on your viewpoint).  I look at it as the company paying me for taking something from what everyone and I own.



Actually, the company will have already paid the Crown for that resource through royalties.  Timber companies pay for Crown timber by paying stumpage, and oil and gas companies pay for rights to drill for oil by paying royalties.  Governments make huge sums of money by issuing tenures to companies to develop Crown resouces.  That oil deposit in your example is owned by the Crown, and the Crown sells the rights to develop that oil to the company.

In Canada, most sub-surface resources (oil, gas, minerals) are owned by the Crown.  There are a few instances where land owners own the sub-surface rights, but that is rare.  In those rare cases, companies would enter into an agreement with the owner to develop those resources at a price agreeable to the owner.

The companies *DO* pay for the profits in developing resources.  They can't just develop raw resources without paying the owner (i.e The Crown) for them.


----------



## evil drunken-fool (6 Jun 2008)

I should have clarified my point more.  I did realize there was payouts in the form of royalties but after a quick look on the royalties paid out to Alberta I was wrong on the actual percentage of revenue that is paid out to the province.

Sorry about that.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2008)

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> Maybe I went to far with this point, I think what I am getting at is that I believe in free schooling, health care, snow clearing, etc...
> These are all government provided services, that *should* benefit all equally and should not be privatized.



Besides emotional attachment, is there any empirical data demonstrating that government provided services are better or more efficient than free enterprise delivery of the same? As a military instructor, I have had the misfortune to teach the products of our educational establishments (and I have taught national level courses, so I see students from all over Canada), and the bulk of them are bright and hard working, but have been poorly prepared to deal with real world issues like literacy and numeracy, much less more esoteric subjects like Canadian history....My own children have been sent to private school, and on one to one comparisons with their public school educated peers, they are way ahead. (Personal bias aside, people like their coaches, music teachers etc. say the same thing).

Public service delivery of services falls under Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: 



> Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.



A real life example:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/06/02/the_bankruptcy_of_mass_transit

So do you really want to turn over your (and your familiy's) health, education and saftey entirely over to the State? As Mark Styen notes in "America Alone", the FAA runs the closest thing to a European nanny state in America, taking total control of the passenger, their saftey and welfare. On September 11, 2001, three aircraft's collective crews and passengers waited for some sort of response by the State (in the form of the FAA in this case) and were immolated along with 3000 other human beings.

The fourth plane broke the mold: the individual passengers took action and at the cost of their own lives saved countless of their fellow human beings on the ground.

We can agree that there are certain sets of problems that might be better dealt with through pooling resources, but in many cases we find that when *we* pool and direct our own resources (through the formation of charities, groups, organizations, corporations, co-ops etc.) we can gets results faster and with the expenditure of fewer resources than turning things over to impersonal bureaucratic State power. The subset of problems that _really_ need the application of State power to provide protection or act as an impartial arbitrator are quite limited, given the choice between having the streets plowed or patrolled by the police, I will choose the police and shovel my own snow, thanks.

Once again, the arguments regarding unequal access are entirely false; there is nothing at all to prevent *you* from lending a helping hand, volunteering etc. to assist the less fortunate in getting better educations, healthcare or even plowed streets, should you feel strongly enough to take positive action.

*Freedom is a self help project.*


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2008)

The economic meltdown, and especially the politician's roles behind it have triggered a wave of dissatisfaction among many people. Perhaps the most extreme position (short of armed revolt) is this proposed response to a putative Obama administration. Many Canadians have already answered this question in the affirmative over the years by relocating to the United States, but where could Americans go to to escape? Read the comments at the link as well:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-is-it-time-to-go-john-galt/



> As Ayn Rand foresaw, productive Americans are fed up with supporting the unproductive and may not take it anymore.
> 
> *Ask Dr. Helen: Is It Time to ‘Go John Galt’?*
> October 15, 2008 - by Helen Smith
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2008)

Libertarians now have a hard two to four years work ahead of them in the United States. Libertarians need to be thinking along these lines here as well, since the "C" on CPC is rather indistinct...

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225992400



> *Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?*
> [Ilya Somin, November 6, 2008 at 12:18am] Trackbacks
> 
> It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.
> ...


----------



## evil drunken-fool (9 Nov 2008)

The United States badly needs a third party.  It seems as though the religious right has grown its roots deep into the Republican Party.  It really grinds my gears to see people who tell others how to live their lives have such a prominent role in the country's political system.

I mean to throw a name out there like Mike Huckabee is just crazy, he seems like a nice guy but I don't like where he would lead things, I mean his roots are in the religious right. I just think it is time to
stop trying to always patch things up and start a new party that cares a lot less about how people live their own lives and gets government out of controlling the business systems as much as it has been.

My hope for now is that when Obama gets in and realizes the situation the country is in, that he will look to cut a lot more than he first thought he would.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2008)

There is a Libertarian party in the United States, but like its Canadian counterpart, it is very small and has little influence in the general election.

Based on what I know of the US system (and I hope an American poster can correct me here), Libertarians would have to start organizing from the "bottom up" at the precinct level, convincing people to join, soliciting donations and registering voters. Once they reached some sort of critical mass of registered voters, their presence would begin to be felt as a known political force, having the ability to split the vote and otherwise affect elections (although initially in a "negative" way, much like Ross Perot split the vote in the elections he contested).

From a practical point of view, Libertarians (in any nation) should start to organize and contest elections at every level of government, concentrating on cities, towns and counties initially; given the lower "cost of entry" to these races. This would begin the learning curve as a party to contest larger elections, as well as demonstrate to voters there is a workable alternative and create a pool of potential candidates for higher office. Sarah Palin ran for and became Mayor before she ran for and became Governor, so although she is not a Libertarian, she is an example that this is indeed possible.

The real difficulty is Libertarians as a whole are about as easy to organize as a bunch of cats, and indeed the philosophy of Libertarianism isn't conducive to this sort of thing.  The voluntary association of like minded people is often interpreted as a market, where "we" associate to exchange resources and ideas on an individual basis; the sort of voluntary association that is good to deal with short term goals and immediate problems (think of a market transaction where you buy groceries; you solve todays problem [what's for dinner], the grocer solves his short term problem [meeting the payroll], the suppliers solve their short term problems and so on up the supply chain).

This isn't to say it is impossible; Libertarians need to think of themselves more as the volunteer fire department rather than only individual consumers. Steel Horse; that might be your calling: volunteer "fire captain" of the Libertarians in your area!


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2008)

Libertarianism in action: holding the line against the New Deal

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130054.html



> Reason Magazine
> *Progressive Insurance*
> Why libertarianism matters more than ever in Obama's America
> 
> ...


----------



## evil drunken-fool (18 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real difficulty is Libertarians as a whole are about as easy to organize as a bunch of cats, and indeed the philosophy of Libertarianism isn't conducive to this sort of thing.  The voluntary association of like minded people is often interpreted as a market, where "we" associate to exchange resources and ideas on an individual basis; the sort of voluntary association that is good to deal with short term goals and immediate problems (think of a market transaction where you buy groceries; you solve todays problem [what's for dinner], the grocer solves his short term problem [meeting the payroll], the suppliers solve their short term problems and so on up the supply chain).
> 
> This isn't to say it is impossible; Libertarians need to think of themselves more as the volunteer fire department rather than only individual consumers. Steel Horse; that might be your calling: volunteer "fire captain" of the Libertarians in your area!



I think we had a discussion recently about exactly where I stood in the political spectrum.  After some long thought and research, I don't think I fall under the heading of a true Libertarian.  My big things are public education and healthcare, I just feel as though, these are what I consider essential services in any developed nation. I mean most "Libertarians" adhere to the "Night Watchman" principle (Though I may have a very broad range of what the "Night Watchman" principle can include).  However, there are those still still considered to be in the realm of a "Libertarian" that have some of the same views as I do.

Though, I consider myself to be all ears open if someone can explain to me a viable way that the free market can supply everyone with what I consider to be essential services.

I think one of the big problems is that we as a society don't know how to live our lives as individuals, we look to government to do way too much for us.  People look to government to do everything for them, people need to start taking control of their own lives. The problem with this is we see people migrate mostly to bigger government ideology. I think, and maybe this comes from my business background, we should get government out of the business world and let the market run itself. I like to say that government has it's hand way too far in the cookie jar.

With all that said, I still don't see where I fit in the whole political spectrum, maybe I am a Libertarian, maybe not, I know a lot of my friends are politically active, within the conservative and liberal parties and I do not see eye to eye with most of them.  I feel government should stay out of my life as much as possible, though it is there almost every step of the way.

But yeah, I feel as though I finally have a clear path in front of me, something I can pass on to others to start some sort of "grass roots" movement.

Ha, maybe I am rambling a bit, but I am all open to any suggestions.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2008)

WRT "public" education, look at Alberta's experience with charter schools, where the educational bureaucracy is pushed aside and parents run the schools. Charter schools are also popular in the United States, where there is a huge waiting list for places (Since teacher's unions in many States have forced governments to place caps on the number of charter schools). Educational vouchers is a related concept where the money is directly attached to the student (through vouchers to the parents), who may use the voucher to pay for the type of education they think appropriate (Montessouri, Waldorf, Performing arts school, traditional, parochial....). Ontario offered a tax credit for parents who sent their children to private school, but the McGuinty government axed it as one payoff to the teacher's unions.

Parents want their children to be educated, and will go to great lengths to do so.

Medical services should be payed for through a combination of Medical Registered Savings Plans (where you accumulate the unused portion tax free) and disaster/catastrophy insurance for major accidents and diseases. It should be noted that even in the United States, victims often receive assistence from charities to offset medical bills. 

The issue with "public" provision of services is the "service providers" see the public as an unlimited resivour of funds. See:http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_blue_america.html


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Nov 2008)

Steel Horse my question for you is this.  Can you think of a single service that you and most other people want but is not provided by private industry?

From babysitters to poop scoopers if people need it someone will find a way to do it and make money at it. 

Most people consider the government run school system as being the best, when you ask them why they point to standards and the fact that all children are treated equally.  Most answers come back to some form of "Well the poor kids get the same education/opportunity as the richer ones"  But is it true?

If you look at separate "public" schools one in a middle class neighbourhood and one in a poorer neighbourhood I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the school in middle class Canada is better, has overall better teachers and better resources than the school in lower class Canada.  Is that equality?  

Paying an equal share of what it costs to put your kid in school does not guarantee equality of conditions.  It only ensures that they both get a "public" education, however widely divergent the experiences of the kids in those two different schools.

Now lets look at the truly rich, they pay their school taxes as well but because they can afford to a good number of them don't send their kids to that public school, they go to private schools, because they have the money and they want a better education for their kids (and rightfully so).  They have a choice, and in spite of the public system they exercise it.

On the other hand without a good reason you child, by virtue of his residence goes to the school in a particular catchment area.  There is no choice.  You can't in most cases say I'm going to send Johnny to "Ohmygodwhatagreat Public School" because you live in the catchment area for "Institutionalizedconcretejail Public School".

What about what your kids are being taught?  How much say do you have?  I remember being appalled by the amount of Canadian History my daughters were taught in Ontario, but with a top down provincially mandated curriculum there was diddly squat I could do about it.  Parent teacher meetings almost always were reduced to "I'm sorry Mr. Zip, we don't have the time to teach that sort of thing because we have to teach X,Y and Z first."

In a private school system you would have the ability to decide which school your kid goes to.  And if that school didn't provide a proper education then you could vote with your cash and send him/her to another one.  Good schools would get good teachers, and perhaps good teachers would be paid in proportion to their ability and not some egalitarian union wage that lumps them in with the ones who destroy many more young minds than they nurture. The opposite is also true. Bad schools would go out of business as people refused to send their kids to them.  

Whether the education received would be any better on average than what our kids get today is a question that hasn't been answered but I believe that everyone would be served at least as well as they are now, and without a single dime taken in Taxes.

Hmmm,anyone know just how much of the taxes you spend on schools goes into the schools themselves, not to mention teaching your kids?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2008)

It is interesting to see how "Conservatives" see Libertarians:

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/mike-huckabee-and-libertarians



> *Mike Huckabee and libertarians*
> View What links here by Jon Henke | November 20, 2008 at 3:36 AM
> 
> We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).
> ...


----------



## evil drunken-fool (21 Nov 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> Steel Horse my question for you is this.  Can you think of a single service that you and most other people want but is not provided by private industry?


  

I mean there are services out there that are only provided by the government, but the question is, could they be provided by a private operator, and I think the answer is yes.


I have to agree with what you are saying, don't think that I do not.  I guess it just becomes the idea of how do we get from point A to point B.  I mean, I don't think we can just jump from one to the other. There is a road that has to be taken that is not a straightforward path, it has twist and curves and it becomes a bit overwhelming to think of the task at hand.

And I understand about the school system as well as the high school I was slated to go to is one of the 5 worst in the province, I have seen my cousin have a hard time with his studies, and almost fail core courses. Where as we moved before I was able to go to that particular institution and I ended up in a school that was in the top 5 in the province. I wonder sometimes if I would have had the opportunity to go to university if I had still lived in the the other school's catchment area.

The task ahead seems very daunting sometimes, though I think I have my foot stuck in the door and I want in.  We need to start making fundamental changes in the way we run things, that is one thing I know for sure.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2008)

"Join with us Steel Horse, and together we can rule the Universe...."

You are politically aware, and now you want to take the next step, which is to become politically active. Good on you (and wake up the rest of you slackers! Join this young man and change the world).

There are many different things you can do, research and join an existing organization (political activist group, advocacy group, etc.), found your own to concentrate on an area that isn't being studied and commented on, join an existing political party and attempt to work from within (the Libertarian Party and Freedom Party deal directly with issues and ideas of Libertarianism, while the CPC, provincial conservative parties and the "Wild Rose Alliance" and Saskatchewan Party out west are aligned with Libertarian ideas, but often drift away in search of greater pragmatic appeal to voters), or go out and fight the culture wars by promoting people, blogs, media etc. that are pro Libertarian. Even writing letters to the editor to decry State intervention of any sort (and propose free market counters) helps the cause.

Give me a PM and we'll plot the takeover....


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Nov 2008)

Just to add to Thucydides post, the Freedom Party of Ontario/Canada is the brain child of Paul McKeever, an Objectivist.  He's got tons of videos on Youtube and his website on a variety of political subjects, check them out.

Political activism isn't for everyone, but it is in all of us to refuse the status quo without thought, and to encourage those closest to us to do the same.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2008)

One thing Libertarians (and everyone else for that matter) needs to to do is prevent others from framing the debate. Obviously the Republican party is in need of a major overhaul; some people are already trying to make sure Libertarians are regulated to the back of the bus:

http://notweighingourmerits.blogspot.com/2008/11/libertarians-or-libertines.html



> *Libertarians or Libertines?*
> 
> David Boaz of the Cato Institute takes on folks questioning whether there can be a political alignment when self-professed conservatives so outnumber liberals in the electorate, calling the liberal/moderate/conservative spectrum a "crude and one-dimensional view of the political spectrum". Libertarians, you see, don't fit within any one of those categories; in the Cato Institute's preferred formulation libertarians are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". Wait a second, David. Didn't you just tell us that the liberal/conservative distinction was crude and one-dimensional? How does it suddenly become more sophisticated when it is applied to the whole grand tableau of social policy? The fact is that principled libertarians do not find themselves wholly on either side of the social liberal/conservative divide. Yes, on abortion and drugs libertarians find themselves aligned against conservatives. But as Matt Barnum notes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Nov 2008)

> On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians find themselves aligned on matters such as gun control, affirmative action, political speech (i.e. campaign finance reform), environmental regulations, education policy (generally), health regulations (i.e. smoking and fatty food bans), and freedom of association.



To quote Col Sherman T. Potter... "Horse Hockey!"

Affirmative action is a construct of the progressive camp.  It has little or nothing to do with merit or any real sense of liberty and equality but is an apologist action for the sins of the father.

Education policy is not shared by conservatives and libertarians either.  When was the last time you heard a conservative call for the dismantling of the Government education system?

The problem with the Left - Right spectrum is that it disallows choosing the classic liberal stance which is on one hand is almost as far Left as you can go (absolute personal freedom in private matters) and on the other is as far right as you can go in economic terms (Laissez Faire Capitalism).


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

A view that the Libertarian revolution happened after all, only no one noticed: The Libertarian Moment

A long article, but well worth reading. One key paragraph:



> We are in fact living at the cusp of what should be called the Libertarian Moment, the dawning not of some fabled, clichéd, and loosey-goosey Age of Aquarius but a time of increasingly hyper-individualized, hyper-expanded choice over every aspect of our lives, from 401(k)s to hot and cold running coffee drinks, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to online dating services. This is now a world where it’s more possible than ever to live your life on your own terms; it’s an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick’s glimmering “utopia of utopias.” Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky. If you don’t believe it, ask your gay friends, or simply look who’s running for the White House in 2008.



and 



> The generation raised on the Internet has essentially been raised libertarian, even if they’ve never even heard of the word. Native netizens now entering college exhibit a kind of broad-based tolerance toward every manner of ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation grouping in a way that would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. The products and activities they enjoy and co-opt most, from filesharing to flying discount airlines to facebooking, are excrescences of the free-market ideas of deregulation and decontrol. Generations X, Y, and those even younger swim in markets—that is, in choices among competing alternatives—the way those of us who grew up in the ’70s frolicked on Slip ’n Slides.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2009)

Libertarians have long been associated with the Republicans/Conservatives since many of the basic principles are similar (the Classical Liberal tradition of Free Speech, Property Rights and Rule of Law are the foundation for all these groups). In today's climate, Libertarians may well have to strike out more forcefully on their own.

http://reason.com/blog/show/131670.html



> "*Liberaltarianism" in the Age of Obama*
> Matt Welch | February 12, 2009, 9:50pm
> 
> The National Review's Jonah Goldberg takes a look at the stimulus/bailout/econ debate and is moved to ask, "Whatever happened to liberaltarianism?"
> ...


_
_


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2009)

More on the idea of a Libertarian social movement rather than a political one:

http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2009/02/the-libertarian-culture.html



> *The Libertarian Culture*
> By
> Mike Brock
> on February 24, 2009 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
> ...


----------



## PanaEng (25 Feb 2009)

Didn't libertarianism suffer a great setback in the aftermath of 9-11 and continues to this day at the hands of conservatives (and many democrats) in the US and here in Canada as well. 
Individual privacy is being eroded every day and what do we get from the conservative crowd: "well, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned"
But it has also taken a monetary dimension. Many of the rules coming out to control what goes on on the internet are to protect old businesses with an archaic model. Why should my access to p2p services be curtailed? I don't engage in piracy or distribute obscene material. Only to support the exploitative music business and some software giants. It is like banning guns because some have been used to commit crimes...

just my little rant


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2009)

More discussion about the Libertarian philosophy:

http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2009/02/seeing-it-their-way-why-im-not-your.html



> *Seeing It Their Way / Why I'm Not Your Kind of Libertarian*
> Thursday, February 26, 2009
> 
> I seldom pay attention to left wing blogs but from time to time the comments there can be eye opening. Take, for example, the following:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2009)

These arguments are ultimately about philosophy:

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/42634



> *The Case For Small Government*
> 
> 13 Mar 2009 12:40 pm
> That was the subject, broadly speaking, of Charles Murray's address at the annual AEI dinner, and like Jonah Goldberg and John Miller I found a lot to like in the speech, but some things to raise an eyebrow at as well. At bottom, I think the argument suffers from a problem that's common to both sides in the debates over the desirability of European-style social democracy - namely, the hope that what's ultimately a philosophical and moral controversy can have a tidy empirical resolution. So long as Murray's speech is making the philosophical case for limited government - that human existence in the shadow of a nanny state doesn't conduce to "Aristotelian happiness," as he puts it, because it strips human beings of the deeper sorts of agency and responsibility that ought to be involved in a life well lived - he's on firm (if obviously arguable) ground. But when he segues into the possibility that the emerging science of human nature will "prove" the limits of welfare-statism, and force liberals to give ground, I think he's indulging in a conservative version of Jon Chait's famous argument that liberals support bigger government because they're rigorous empiricists, whereas conservatives oppose it because they're hidebound dogmatists. *In both cases, there's an unwarranted hope that the right facts and figures can settle a debate that ultimately depends on the philosophical assumptions that you bring to it*.
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Mar 2009)

Wow.  Just like that this article goes from talking about "limited government" to a debate not on whether the welfare state should exist but how big it should be to giving us dumb schmucks who couldn't follow the right shell two choices, modern European socialism or American neo-conservatism.

As long as it is so easy for shell games like that to be played on the ignorant masses (that's all of us BTW) we will never see or even learn about what a libertarian/laissez faire solution could offer.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2009)

New tools break the centralization of power. Look for more and more attacks against the Internet, "Great Firewalls", political harassment of bloggers, "Friekorps" trying to drive bloggers off the net through massive spamming or harassing the individual in real space [sending threats to employers is an apparently common tactic against right wing university professors] and so on as Authoratarians try to hang on:





> *Influential nobodies*
> 
> By Stabroek staff | April 4, 2009 in Editorial
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (7 Apr 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...an apparently common tactic against right wing university professors



 ???  Hang on, there are _right_-wing university professors??


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???  Hang on, there are _right_-wing university professors??



For example Salim Mansur at UWO, who has mentioned attempts by the progressive "Freikorps" to intimidate and harass him by writing to his department and complaining about alleged "racist" and "hate" speech in his columns.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2009)

If you can't reform the state from within, go out and found your own! I suspect the established States would take pretty ruthless action to prevent this:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1239074395



> *Patri Friedman on "Seasteading" and the Supposed Failure of Libertarian Political Activism*:
> 
> In the current Cato Unbound, Patri Friedman (grandson of Milton Friedman), argues that libertarians have failed in their efforts to promote a libertarian society through political activism, in large part because the system is stacked in favor of statism. Instead of seeking to reform existing states, he claims that libertarians should establish new states of their own. Such efforts have failed miserably in the past, but Friedman argues that the new technology of "seasteading" (establishing large, habitable platforms in the ocean) might make this strategy more viable. At the very least he claims that it's better than what he considers the hopeless task of trying to promote libertarianism within existing states:
> _
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Apr 2009)

While re-runs of Sealab 2021 run through my head, I can't help but wonder what would actually happen on a "seastead." No doubt they would all start off happy and free, but sooner or later they would need to organize services and perhaps even defend themselves against mutant sharks and pirates on jet-skis. They would need some form of law enforcement. How do they plan to provide healthcare? If their group was larger than one or two families I can't help but think that their little society would follow the same basic path that every other society has taken with some form of government that provides these things and in turn taxes them. Barring that I wager that their seastead would end up run like a cult compound with one authoritarian figure.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2009)

And, T2B, in addition you add in the generational effect that results in kids doing the opposite to their parents.  As a result the grandkids have to relearn everything their grandparents experienced.

Thus the new found interest in Ayn Rand.  The Russian Emigre was clearly understandable to people of her time. The next generation denied her reality as a figment of their parents' imagination.  The current generation gets to rediscover her reality all over again.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> While re-runs of Sealab 2021 run through my head, I can't help but wonder what would actually happen on a "seastead." No doubt they would all start off happy and free, but sooner or later they would need to organize services and perhaps even defend themselves against mutant sharks and pirates on jet-skis. They would need some form of law enforcement. How do they plan to provide healthcare? If their group was larger than one or two families I can't help but think that their little society would follow the same basic path that every other society has taken with some form of government that provides these things and in turn taxes them. Barring that I wager that their seastead would end up run like a cult compound with one authoritarian figure.



Libertarianism is not the absence of government; most liberatarians would agree that law enforcement, a neutral arbitrator for disputes and some form of protection form outside agression is needed. (Getting them to agree how this is to be done would be something else entirely!).

Early Americans imported a system from England where communities were organized into "hundreds"; the theory being one hundred people could organize themselves for community protection (this would encompass what we would think of today as the militia, police and fire brigade, although as Kirkhill points out, the distinctions are relatively modern.) We still can find rural locations in the United States marked as "hundreds", although the meaning has long since passed. The local magistrate would ride by on a schedule to hear cases (hence the term "Circuit court"), and people could found schools, medical and dental practices and other business wherever they felt there was enough business to support them.

Business services are paid for as they are now (the buyer and seller come to an agreement), while the neutral third party services of protection and courts can be paid for by poll tax or sales tax; either means being far less intrusive or detrimental ti individual liberties than income tax. (Individual protection services like private security guards can still be bought and paid for, if you have the means and are willing to pay the price, but competing "gangs" of private security providers need to be overawed by the State's security providers; the actual foundation of State militaries and police forces is based on this need to ensure sovereignty).

I suspect seasteads would have the difficult problem of raising forces to defend themselves against the armed power of States rather than mutant sea bass; a rather lopsided contest and one reason that centralized States are the dominent political organization of this age.

Protecting against authoratarian figures or charismatic demagogues is far more difficult, but various societies have tried different means to protect themselves. The ancient Greeks had term limits and random selection of juries, the Americans use separation of powers, maybe the Internet will spawn some new means.


----------



## mediocre1 (9 Apr 2009)

Zip said:
			
		

> Wow.  Just like that this article goes from talking about "limited government" to a debate not on whether the welfare state should exist but how big it should be to giving us dumb schmucks who couldn't follow the right shell two choices, modern European socialism or American neo-conservatism.
> 
> As long as it is so easy for shell games like that to be played on the ignorant masses (that's all of us BTW) we will never see or even learn about what a libertarian/laissez faire solution could offer.



With due respect to everyone here, my concept of libertarianism is to allow one to engage in any enterprise, the right to choose whether to be employed or be an employer, the right to join or refuse to join trade unions, freedom to become a member of any right wing political party, left-lib political party, or the communist party. The freedom to propagate anarchism is libertarianism. You can only find these kinds of freedom in America. 

When Emma Goldman attempted to propagate her brand of anarchism in the Soviet Union during the time of Lenin, she was deported.

At present, here in Canada, you cannot be deported under the law for being a member of the Anarchist Party of Canada. I know of members who have never been harrassed or provoked. Canadian and American democracy is the ideal model of libertarianism.

I believe that  if the Anarchist Party of Canada succeeds to subvert all our Canadian democratic institutions, there is no chance of going back to where freedom reigns, Canadian parliamentary democracy.


----------



## mediocre1 (9 Apr 2009)

Zip said:
			
		

> In my opinion foreign policy is one of the places where libertarianism falls down and hard.
> 
> Previously posted at http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/2007/05/divergence-of-thought.html



Emma Goldman the goddess of liberianism had  her dream come true. She was able to organize anarchist-organized farms, factory collectives, militia. Her libertarianism was founded on Anarchist literature. You cannot saay that foreign policy is one of the places where libertarianism falls donw hard. The war in Spain between Franco and the Anarchist was heavily influenced by Emma Goldman and  her anarchist views. She was able to persuade Lenin into a pictorial  (or Lenin persuading her into it)after she was deported from USA then later on from the Soviet Union.


----------



## Tom_Swift (12 Apr 2009)

Emma Goldman was I believe a Social Libertarian/Anarchist, I think the best example of a real Libertarian or Libertarians in power would be the founding fathers of the United States. Thomas Jefferson was a "Liberal" in traditional sense but today would be labeled as a Libertarian.

The main difference between Libertarian and Anarchist is how the law is enforced, Libertarians believe in well funded Police and Military as well as a well armed People. Where as an Anarcho-Capitalist would have private military and police organizations enforce the law with also the people being well armed, I believe there was even a study stating private enforcement could work without being corrupt.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2009)

The issue with private enforcement is that enforcement is an issue of sovereignty. What would happen if "my" cops came to arrest you for an alleged offense and "your" cops objected?

Actually this was the state of affairs during the Middle Ages in Europe, with every Duke, Baron and petty lord able to enforce his personal sovereignty over their small territories, and warring with others as the relative balances of power shifted.....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The issue with private enforcement is that enforcement is an issue of sovereignty. What would happen if "my" cops came to arrest you for an alleged offense and "your" cops objected?
> 
> Actually this was the state of affairs during the Middle Ages  Cold War  in Europe, with every Duke, Baron and petty lord the USSR and the US able to enforce his personal  sovereignty over their small territories, and warring with >each< others as the relative balances  of power shifted.....



Two or many, the game is the same.

As Graymatters said - who's in charge.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2009)

What you are talking about is a matter of scale. Internally, the USSR and United States had unquestioned sovereignty within their territories, but there is little discussion that either place is/was Libertarian. 

I suspect that most people who believe Libertarianism is impractical or impossible are more concerned with the limited reach of a Libertarian State reducing their personal security to something like pre-Westphallian Europe, with bands of brigands contesting with local warlords for control of people and resources.

I would suggest they look deeper into the past; Classical Greece of the _polis_ period or the _Res Publica Roma_ made personal security contingent upon the activities of all free born men (indeed that was one of the definitions of free born people; the ability to take up arms and defend their and their neighbour's property).

Since Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, a Libertarian State would probably resemble the Swiss Confederation, with every citizen volunteer receiving the training and equipment to carry out local defense. (A draft would be out of the question, though). Don't forget in Switzerland, every male citizen has an automatic rifle and a minimum of 200 rounds of ammunition at home, and Switzerlans also has one of the lowest rates of gun crime on earth.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Apr 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> I would suggest they look deeper into the past; Classical Greece of the _polis_ period or the _Res Publica Roma_ made personal security contingent upon the activities of all free born men (indeed that was one of the definitions of free born people; the ability to take up arms and defend their and their neighbour's property).
> 
> ....




Thucydides, the problem with the Classical reference is that back when you were a boy the world was much less densely populated.  Living within a city, under the protection, and control, of the Law, was a personal choice.  This may even have been true of slaves.

The rationale for that statement is that Exile was an available punishment.  Exile doesn't work if there is no place for the exiled to go.  Likewise those Brigands to which you refered lived in Spaces outside the Law, far from the Places where the Law was imposed.

In that world there was room for the individual, or at least the small community.  That is less true in modern Greece.

Britain imposed the Law on Sherwood Forest in the time of the Plantagenets.  The Tudors did it to Wales. The Stuarts/Stewarts dealt with the Borderers. The Hanoverians handled the Highlands.

In France the authorities finally got control of the Cevennes in the early 1800s.

West Europe (and Urban North America) has crowded out the Individual.

Now, on the plus side - America, Canada and Australia are too big, even with modern technology for the same level of conformity to be imposed uniformly, and in the rest of the world there is still space for the Individual to live outside of the law.

Places that come to mind:  Corsica, Sicily, the Sahara, Somalia, the Hindu Kush, Siberia....

Lots of opportunity for the determined Libertarian      ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, a Libertarian State would probably resemble the Swiss Confederation, with every citizen volunteer receiving the training and equipment to carry out local defense. (A draft would be out of the question, though). Don't forget in Switzerland, every male citizen has an automatic rifle and a minimum of 200 rounds of ammunition at home, and Switzerlans also has one of the lowest rates of gun crime on earth.





Domestic killings shock Swiss 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4755143.stm
Family slaughter might be a more accurate term - there have been 14 such cases in Switzerland in the last 11 months. 

I do believe that if you check gun ownership is still pretty liberal,...just try getting bullets anymore.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2009)

Libertarianism as a social movement that will turn political. I suspect they will simply take over the carcass of the Republican party since there is a large organizational base and the constituency supports broadly libertarian ideas (even social conservatives, "neo-cons" and RINO's at least speak the language, even if they don't walk the walk). When will Canadaians start having T.E.A. parties of their own?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dc-tea-party-republicans-should-not-be-rejoicing-quite-yet/



> *D.C. Tea Party: Republicans Should Not Be Rejoicing Quite Yet*
> 
> Posted By Jennifer Rubin On April 15, 2009 @ 1:30 pm In . Column2 05, Media, Money, Politics, US News | 110 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is a column attacking Prime Minister Harper:
-------------------------

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/30/terence-corcoran-no-room-for-libertarians-in-harper-conservatism.aspx
Terence Corcoran: No room for libertarians in Harper conservatism

April 30, 2009

Recently, the editors of this page have run a series of short commentaries on the nature of Canadian conservatism by a rainbow coalition of writers — Andrew Coyne, Karen Selick, Deb Grey and others. The contributions were originally produced for a conference sponsored by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. But until today, one of the key Manning Centre speakers was missing from the series, which means that Post readers were unaware of The Night the Prime Minister Purged Libertarians from Canadian Conservatism.

Speaking on the eve of the Manning event to a room full of presumably like-minded conservatives, including Preston Manning, Mr. Harper delivered a rambling two-track message (See text below). First, he defended his Conservative government’s record, listing items that he said were solidly and uncompromisingly conservative: supporting the military, defending Israel, resisting national day care, dodging Kyoto, defending Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.

Canada’s Conservative government, he said, “has made a big difference in this country, and we should never forget it.” He didn’t specifically mention government spending and the big move to deficits, but he was clearly defensive. “This is not to say that we haven’t made compromises while governing. Indeed, compromises are an inevitable consequence of governing. I’m not talking about compromises about principles, or compromises in the name of expediency or opportunity. I’m talking about compromises that have to do with basic reality.” 

The Harper Conservatives, in other words, were mugged by reality. They had to do it because of the recession and Wall Street. When the global recession struck, it was not the time to hold fast to ideas — balanced budgets, spending controls, small government. Why? “Because unlike various forms of Liberalism, Conservatism is a value system, not an ideology. It is a value system based on reality, on the realism of experience, not on abstract blueprints for society.”

Modern Liberals, said Mr. Harper, tend to believe that the solution to all problems lies in more government. “In fact, if a solution doesn’t involve more government, today’s Liberals dismiss it.”

Then Mr. Harper moved to the second track of his message, demolishing what he called “libertarians.” It was an odd message. In reality, libertarians are a mixed bag of people who roughly favour free markets, less government and greater individual freedom than we have now. Exactly how many libertarians exist in Canada, how many call themselves conservatives, or vote Conservative, isn’t known. But there can be no doubt that some core of conservative support comes from people who hold some libertarian views and favour smaller government.

What followed was Mr. Harper’s conscious rebuke of libertarianism. In fact, more words were spent undermining libertarians than Liberals. Libertarians, he said, “believe that the solution to all problems lays in less government. More specifically, they believe in individual freedom, freedom from government, the freedom that does in fact underlie the market economy.”

The essence of Mr. Harper’s conservatism is that it is a happy middle ground between two undesirable extremes, the small-government push of libertarianism and the big-government push of Liberalism. This middle ground is based on “conservative values,” which he defined by the three “Fs” — freedom, faith and family. Freedom, he said, can only exist if it is “used well,” as if to achieve public good.

Mr. Harper’s attempt to purge libertarians from Canadian conservatism reached its lowest point when he pretty much blamed libertarianism for the economic crisis. Wall Street, he implied mockingly, was the heart of libertarianism, and Wall Street and the libertarian free market tanked the economy.

“Look at Wall Street, the great free-enterprise global financial institutions that wanted so much freedom from government regulation — they were the first in line for government support when the recession hit. And now I read that now some of them are saying they don’t like that this government money may limit their freedom.”

This drew laughter and applause from the Manning Centre crowd, from the few hundred conservatives in the audience. As if Wall Street bankers were libertarians. Worse, as if Wall Street bankers were libertarians who deserved to have their banks nationalized and their compensation controlled by government.

Do libertarians pose some kind of threat to the Harper Conservatives? Apparently they do, judging by Mr. Harper’s attempt to eliminate them from the party. And he might be right.

National Post

_Terence Corcoran is editor of the Financial Post. On Saturday, he will participate in a debate at the 13th annual Civitas National Conference in Toronto on the subject: “Mugged by Reality: The Role of Ideology and Pragmatism in Government.”_
-------------------------

Here (same source) are the PM’s remarks that dismayed the _Post_:

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

 Text of remarks by Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Individual freedom is something Conservatives value. But it is not the only thing we value. Reality, my friends, is something we cannot lose sight of, as we are in government faced with, and entrusted with, guiding our country through the most challenging economic times the world has seen in generations.

Conservatives don’t believe that big government — the welfare state — is the solution to all problems, that is true. We didn’t believe it before this recession and we’re not about to believe it now. But neither can Conservatives believe today that the marketplace is the solution to all problems. 

We are in a global recession principally because a lot of people on Wall Street (financiers, business people) and a lot of people in the private sector more generally (home owners, consumers) pushed or bought into a very un-conservative idea: that they could live beyond their means.

Regulators may have failed to prevent it, governments probably made it worse, but it was in the end a failure of the private sector to live according to the values we as Conservatives know to be true.

And also do not forget, because we certainly will not forget, that once the global economy begins to recover, the primary wealth creation of the future will come principally from the private marketplace — from a well-regulated private market place, yes, but in an irreversibly globalized economy, a marketplace just the same.

In the Canada of the future, we should be able to have one of the most free-enterprise, one of the most prosperous, societies on the planet. That would require us to govern according to conservative values.

What exactly are those conservative values?

I think we all instinctively recognize them when we see them, although it is sometimes difficult to define them. I like to summarize my idea of conservatism in three “Fs” — freedom, family and faith.

Individual freedom, political and economic, is one of our fundamental values. It is absolutely critical. But it must be tempered. First, individual freedom must be tempered by family. We are part of a chain in which we honour and build upon those who came before us and in which we hope and look out for the future of those who will come after. 

Second, freedom must be tempered by faith that there is a right and wrong. It teaches us that freedom is not an end in itself, that how freedom is exercised matters as much as freedom itself. 
Freedom must be used well. And freedom can only be maintained if it is used well.  

Now I know the libertarian says — and it’s a simple perspective I have a lot of sympathy for — the libertarian says: “Let individuals exercise full freedom, and take full responsibility for their actions.” The problem with this notion is, as conservatives know from experience, that people who act irresponsibly in the name of freedom are almost never willing to take responsibility for their actions.

I don’t speak just of individuals who may have ruined their lives, through drugs or crime or whatever. But look at Wall Street, the great free-enterprise global financial institutions that wanted so much freedom from government regulation — they were the first in line for government support when the recession hit. 

And now I read that some of them are saying they don’t like that this government money may limit their freedom. 

So I say again, my friends, Conservatives cannot be just about freedom. It must be about policies that help make sure freedom will lead to choices — to responsible choices, prosperous choices with wider benefits to all citizens.

Now friends, I am not here to tell you everything we are doing as a government is perfect. We are operating in a very difficult political and economic environment. Options are limited, risk is everywhere, but I can tell you we are on the right track.
-------------------------

I am not a libertarian but I find Prime Minister Harper’s characterization of  them too facile by far. In the main, in the USA, large, intrusive governments _*provoked*_ the crisis by social engineering projects – aimed at moving the “working poor” into the broader “middle class.” As policy it worked – despite all the sub-prime mortgages and foreclosures, tens of millions of working class Americans *will* pay off their mortgages and cross the barrier into the “propertied” middle class. What went wrong included failures to adhere to “sound” business/accounting practices – one of the things small governments ought to manage.

Prime Minister Harper doesn’t have many friends in the media and he is not popular in the country. Alienating the _classical liberal_ wing of the coalition upon which Canadian” conservatism” rests is not a smart move,


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (30 Apr 2009)

> Now I know the libertarian says — and it’s a simple perspective I have a lot of sympathy for — the libertarian says: “Let individuals exercise full freedom, and take full responsibility for their actions.” The problem with this notion is, as conservatives know from experience, that people who act irresponsibly in the name of freedom are almost never willing to take responsibility for their actions.
> 
> I don’t speak just of individuals who may have ruined their lives, through drugs or crime or whatever. But look at Wall Street, the great free-enterprise global financial institutions that wanted so much freedom from government regulation — they were the first in line for government support when the recession hit.
> 
> And now I read that some of them are saying they don’t like that this government money may limit their freedom.



Oh how soon the sheep will turn on the wolf. With a few stern sentences the PM has angered the herd. Not more than two years ago, these very same people stated that PM Harper's crap didn't smell. What happended? Two words "reality check"

Anyone wanting a small government is living on the wrong continent. You may have to move to Luxembourg to find small.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2009)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> You may have to move to Luxembourg to find small.



Only if you are extremely rich so as to become one of the local decisionmakers.  Otherwise, I believe, you will find yourself as minion of the state.  Luxembourg is the EU in microcosm.  It is where the elite that wish to create the EU live.

Far better to move to Afghanistan, Zimbabwe or the Comoros.  Less government control there (I'm playing the futures on Zimbabwe).


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2009)

Good question; where *do* you go for less government? Where is "Galt's Gulch?"

I think the microstate movement isn't viable simply because the assembled powers of the State will work to crush potential rivals that can physically harbour cash and talented individuals.

"Distributed Republics" running in parallel to the "real world" might take over; massive multiplayer games have parallel economies that actually interact with the real economy, throw in software to make transactions and interactions untraceable and we might have an outline of what the Libertarian future might look like.

Or we could dust off our memberships to the L5 society......


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2009)

More on the trope of Libertarianism as a cultural phenomena:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/05/06/push-back-or-the-real-culture-war-21st-century-style/



> *Push back, or the real culture war, 21st-century style*
> 
> Posted By Roger Kimball On May 6, 2009 @ 6:41 am In Uncategorized | 14 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2009)

Is cultural libertarianism finally going to turn political?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388562244518116.html#



> The Revolt of the Masses Electorates are casting a global no-confidence vote in their leaderships.By DANIEL HENNINGER
> 
> When the political world arrives at the point where even the Japanese rise up to toss a party from office after almost 54 years in power, it's time to see something's happening here, Mr. Jones.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2009)

Free Markets andCapitalism are two distinct concepts which have a very unique synergy, something I had not been able to articulate before. After all, China has "free markets" but not Capitalism, and many criminal organizations strive to monopolize markets to maximise their capital formation (aka profits).

Perhaps a more sophisticated view of Capitalism is it is about the *creation and use* of capital, while Free Markets presuppose the owners of the capital have the ability to make unfettered use of their capital.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/17/corruption-panic-and-incompete



> Random Dude|11.18.09 @ 9:25AM|#
> 
> The difference is what we have currently is not slightly off from capitalism, but considerably in the opposite direction.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2009)

Identifying a tool for pro Libertarians to use:

http://volokh.com/2009/12/10/addressing-the-most-important-weakness-of-conservative-libertarian-public-interest-law/



> *Addressing the Most Important Weakness of Conservative-Libertarian Public Interest Law*
> Ilya Somin • December 10, 2009 7:58 pm
> 
> I recently renewed my membership in the Federalist Society, and got a mailing asking to sign up with the Fed Soc Pro Bono Center. I was only vaguely aware of this organization’s existence, even though it is a potentially important effort to address the most important shortcoming of conservative and libertarian public interest law. Perhaps it will be more successful in that effort, if more people learn about it.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2010)

Libertarians know this already; large complex systems are non linear and ruled by chaos theory. No one and no bureaucracy can possibly know and understand what is going on, much less predict the outcome of changing inputs:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1551



> *Escalating Complexity and the Collapse of Elite Authority
> *
> In yesterday’s New York Times, David Brooks wrote perceptively about the burgeoning populist revolt against the “educated classes”. Brooks was promptly slapped around by various blogosphere essayists such as Will Collier, who noted that Brooks’s column reads like a weaselly apologia for the dismal failures of the “educated classes” in the last couple of decades.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2010)

One of the tenants of Libertarian thought is to be able to make informed choices and to consent to mutually beneficial activities. This software tool has interesting implications (although the author of the blog in question clearly thinks it will uncover nefarious "right wing" conspiracies. Evidently he has not been following Climartegate nor the unfolding of the Stimulus package, the auto bailout or Obamacare). 

Of course the initial app will probably be to generate "boycott" or "buycott" events for and against companies and corporations, but untangling the relationships between corporate rent seekers and the agents of the State will have a positive impact in the end, since most people do not approve of rent seeking behaviour in principle and will act to thwart it if they can (the emotional power of "muck racking" journalism in the early part of the 20th century rose from that distates, and the current slide in car sales by companies that took taxpayer funded bailouts are examples of this behaviour).

Disentangling rent seekers from the State is one of the prime goals for Libertarians, so I think this is the appropriate thread for this idea:

http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/archive/2009/09/24/sourcemap-a-hint-of-political-software-to-come



> *It's still in beta, but it's what it'll evolve into that's so interesting *
> 
> From worldchanging.com comes an interesting posting about Sourcemap, an open tool for visualizing the supply chains that contribute to the products you buy.  It's a great idea:  name a product, and you can see where its pieces were sourced, who built what and where--in short, who's involved in making your life happen.
> 
> ...



Of course the choice of who to support should be yours, and based on your values. I also suspect that immediate self interest (i.e. shopping for the best price) will continue to be the primary motivating factor for shoppers, and companies who attempt to pander too much to the "political" shoppers (of any stripe) will find themselves forced into a niche market and crushed by larger and more diversified competitors.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2010)

Libertarians not as a political party, but as a social movement part II:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11152



> *The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama*
> by David Kirby and David Boaz
> 
> David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are coauthors of "The Libertarian Vote," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2010)

Governments and Bureaucrats treat people like a herd; but there is hope for social and political libertarianism so long as people act as a pack instead:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=103002A



> *A Pack, Not a Herd*
> 
> By Glenn Harlan Reynolds : BIO| 30 Oct 2002
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2010)

Mythbusting markets:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/12/the-fable-of-market-meritocrac/singlepage



> *The Fable of Market Meritocracy*
> Markets don't reward smart people. They reward value.
> 
> Shikha Dalmia | February 12, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

An interesting question:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/16/are-libertarians-anti-government/



> *Are Libertarians Anti-Government?*
> 
> Posted by David Boaz
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

The mathematical and philosophical foundation of why Libertarianism is the only "correct" means of forming governments. Mathematically since the number of interactions scale geometrically with each additional actor added to the system, and philosophically because it is impossible to overcome the local knowledge problem in any meaningful way; the premise that you can control the interactions in the marketplace or between people or understand the impact of proposed legislation is wrong, and thus all things which follow from these premises are also incorrect:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Progressives-can_t-get-past-the-Knowledge-Problem-89780997.html



> *Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Progressives can't get past the Knowledge Problem*
> By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
> Contributor
> April 4, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2010)

Why Libertarianism is becoming a social rather than a political movement; individuals have more education, experience and tools than ever to carry out their personal, social and economic goals:

http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/09/skepticism-and-independence-bad/



> *Skepticism and Independence: Bad!*
> 
> Posted on | May 9, 2010 | 21 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (6 Jul 2010)

Related:

Campus Progress link



> *Libertarians: The Secret Strength of the Immigration Reform Movement
> While the immigration debate takes place between the left and the right, the perspective of libertarians is often left out of the debate. *
> By Julissa Treviño
> June 29, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2010)

Besides the divide between people looking for work and human predators arriving to seek out new prey, many libertarians who favour stronger immigration controls are essentially trying to use one tool of the State to throttle the source of many other problems, problems which eventually increase calls for more State powers and expenditures and long term reductions in individual liberties.

Of course, this leads to other problems (many of which are counterproductive from a libertarian perspective, such as the mentioned enhancement of police powers to conduct arbitrary searches or document checks), but given the limited tool set, and the political climate where "elites" are willing to look the other way as torrents of illegal immigrents overwhelm State funded social services, force the closure of hospital emergency wards (which can no longer to afford the cost of providing service to people with no ability or willingness to pay) and  provide cover for legions of human predators, this is a calculation to provide short term relief for a long term problem.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2010)

Libertarians aren't anarchists.

They don't deny the need for government.

One of the jobs of government is to secure borders.

Come if you will but come to be a Canadian, or American, or Brit, or Saudi for that matter (if you want to move there).

But don't come expecting to live the way you did at home.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2010)

More on the complexity problem. The scary part of the article is the predicted end result:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/its-so-complex/61053/



> *It's So ... Complex*Aug 6 2010, 11:07 AM ET |  Comment
> 
> Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry has an essay question:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2010)

Libertarians have had a diffcult time trying to work with existing political parties/movements (mostly because, in the end, political parties are about capturing the power of the State to reward their friends and punish their enemies). There is an intreguing line in the article of "I do believe that libertarian ideas are better expressed in the *language* of liberalism rather than that of conservatism.", by which I believe the author means "classical liberalism" of free markets, property rights and the Rule of Law.

It is clear that current Libertarian parties are not capable of taking the field in any   effective manner to contest elections, but libertarianism is alive as a social movement (many people express disgust at the idea that they should be thralls of the Nanny State), and the TEA party is motivated by libertarian ideas (although we have to see how well they do in November before we can make any real judgement on their political activism).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/what-use-is-a-libertarian/62086/



> *What Use Is a Libertarian?*
> Aug 25 2010, 9:37 PM ET |  Comment
> 
> The current issue of Reason features a symposium on the question, "Where do libertarians belong?" Not in partnership with today's Republican party, argues Brink Lindsey. The alliance of conservatives and libertarians has worked badly, he says, despite the tea party and its apparent fondness for libertarian themes.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2010)

Interesting essay on the roots of libertarianism, although the concept really didn't have a name until the 20th century:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/book-review-the-next-american-civil-war/?singlepage=true



> *Book Review: The Next American Civil War*
> The pushback against the all-encompassing state has its roots deep in the American tradition.
> September 29, 2010 - by Janet Levy
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2010)

While Libertarians have not made many inroads as a _political_ movement, I suspect the growth of libertarianism as a _social_ movement is pretty upsetting to "progressives" and other statists. Now libertarians are coming under explicit attack:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/08/austan-powers/singlepage



> *What we can learn from watching the libertarians-for-Obama Great Economist Hope get caught doing the White House's dirty work in trashing libertarians against Obama*
> 
> Matt Welch | October 8, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2011)

More on what libertarianism actually is:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-are-libertarians-so-danged-libertarian/



> *Why Are Libertarians So Danged Libertarian?*
> JAMES JOYNER   ·   TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011   ·   34 COMMENTS
> 
> Balloon Juice‘s DougJ is angry that institutional libertarianism — and specifically “Reason magazine, Megan McArdle, and the CATO Institute” — isn’t more angry about corporate excess.   He challenges readers:  ”Go peruse Reason magazine and see if you can find a single article about corporate abuse of power.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2011)

So why are people like me attracted to Libertarian/libertarian philosophies? A possible answer:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/20/the-science-of-libertarian-mor



> *The Science of Libertarian Morality*
> A social psychology study explores the formation of the libertarian personality.
> 
> Ronald Bailey from the February 2011 issue
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2011)

Another person who just doen't understand the meaning of Libertarianism:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/07/fn-libertarians



> *F'n Libertarians*
> Radley Balko | February 7, 2011
> 
> The most improbable and hilarious sentence you'll read today:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2011)

Libertarianism has evolved into a social movement, with people disintermediating via the internet, home schooling and other escapes from the State. Libertarians *could* organize and become a political force (the TEA party movement is one example of how it could be done) if they can overcome their "puritain" proclavities:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/7870-libertarian-purity



> *Libertarian Purity*
> Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:15pm | posted by Tom Knighton
> 
> Libertarians are ineffective in politics.  There, I’ve said it.  Of course, I’m not exactly breaking new ground here either.  Everyone who follows politics knows that libertarians are ineffective.  After all, it’s the worst kept secret in politics.  The question is: why?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2011)

Reading and posting this morning, I came across two articles which really made the point of how Libertarianism is a social rather than a political movement. Japanese "hackers" rushed to work after the earthquake and started building infrastructure (power systems, communications systems, even solar powered lanterns) without waiting for or even referencing the government. An Israeli team of armature rocket scientists is preparing to send a probe to the moon in 2012, working in their spare time (this sounds like something Robert Heinlein would have written). These are rather extreme examples, but the fundamental point is people have access to resources and the ability to make use of them without any sort of government intermediation. Think about what is happening at much lower levels (communities self organizing around home schooling, local gardens, taking over plots of land that the local government is not weeding/mowing or any number of other things).

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/03/hackerspace-happenings-make-interviews-tokyos-akiba.html

http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfreedman/2011/03/30/israel-the-third-nation-on-the-moon/


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2011)

Libertarian insurgency against the Obama Administration and their stooges; love it. (Keep this in mind in case of a Jack Layton coalition government):

http://stopshouting.blogspot.com/2011/04/ten-rules-for-liberty-guerillas.html



> *TEN RULES FOR LIBERTY GUERILLAS*
> The "post-it" Note campaign is going viral!
> 
> Facebook Campaign
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2011)

Some people do understand what Libertarianism is about. It seems the idea of voluntary cooperation and the elimination of political middlemen has proceeded, libertarianism is more of a social movement than a political one.

http://volokh.com/2011/05/14/libertarianism-and-self



> *Libertarianism and Selfishness*
> Ilya Somin • May 14, 2011 2:16 pm
> 
> In a recent widely-cited Washington Post column, conservative commentator Michael Gerson claims that libertarians promote “a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.” The accusation that libertarians are really advocates of selfishness is a very common one. Googling “libertarianism + selfishness” yields 1.9 million hits, the majority of which are attacks on libertarianism similar to Gerson’s.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jun 2011)

Perhaps more indications that Libertarianism has become a social rather than a political movement. The TEA party movement would be a leading indicator of a flow back from social movement to political movement (without necessarily supporting the Libertarian Party. The TEA party movement's model is to take over the machinery of existing parties and work on existing political structures. Instapundit reports the TEA party movement is busy contesting elections at city councils, shcool boards and every other election at every level of government...):

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/poll-finds-a-shift-toward-more-libertarian-views/



> *Poll Finds a Shift Toward More Libertarian Views*
> By NATE SILVER
> 
> Libertarianism has been touted as the wave of America’s political future for many years, generally with more enthusiasm than evidence. But there are some tangible signs that Americans’ attitudes are in fact moving in that direction.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2011)

Libertarianism seems to be flavour of the month. Here are some standard "talking points" progressives use to smear Libertarianism, and a strong debunking:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/some-factual-errors-in-the-lat



> *Some Factual Errors in the Latest Slate Attack on Libertarianism*
> Matt Welch | June 21, 2011
> 
> The New Republic's Jonathan Chait is unimpressed by my "rebuttal" to Stephen Metcalf's Slate essay about libertarians and the philosopher Robert Nozick. This is probably due to the fact that I didn't write one.
> ...


----------



## toyotatundra (22 Jun 2011)

Like most ideologies and religions, libertarianism proposes simple solutions to complicated problems. 

I fell into the libertarian cult for a few years. Like a housewife who buys into the sermons of a televangelist, I was craving clarity and direction. And I thought I found it. Unfortunately, life experience and independent thought kept getting in my way.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Like most ideologies and religions, libertarianism proposes simple solutions to complicated problems.
> 
> I fell into the libertarian cult for a few years. Like a housewife who buys into the sermons of a televangelist, I was craving clarity and direction. And I thought I found it. Unfortunately, life experience and independent thought kept getting in my way.



There is a considerable difference between Being a Libertarian and having libertarian tendencies.  Just as there is a difference between being a Liberal, a Conservative, a Socialist, a Presbyterian or a Catholic and believing that each of those creeds have something to offer.  

Glad that you are no longer seeking dogma to solve your problems and have chosen the messy contradictions of independence.   

Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jun 2011)

If you were craving clarity and direction and seeking it outside yourself, it is understandable that you would fall away from the general idea of self-reliance and individual liberties.


----------



## toyotatundra (24 Jun 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you were craving clarity and direction and seeking it outside yourself, it is understandable that you would fall away from the general idea of self-reliance and individual liberties.



Precisely the opposite, dude.

Libertarian dogma gives people a religion to believe in. An already established set of myths for those seeking intellectual short cuts. However, once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, they realize that human behavior and social organization are far too complicated to fit into the simplistic models proposed by libertarian groupies.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2011)

Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.  All political philosophies have doctrine, ideology, dogma, and myths; and are quasi-religious if by "religious" you mean there are unproven and perhaps unprovable tenets held as facts by the believers.  Again you have missed the essence of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which is that human behaviour should not (can not, unless one is prepared to kill as many people as necessary) be fit into any preconceived model held in adoration by its adherents; social organization is too valuable to be left in the hands of the power-seeking and self-aggrandizing people who gravitate to government institutions.  Libertarianism is a vector, not a destination or a shape.

Once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, he should realize that no person or group of people has any inherent authority to impose their moral aesthetics on others.

What are these myths and complicated problems you find individual liberty unsuited to, what collective solutions do you find preferable, and how far would your morality allow you to go to impose them?


----------



## toyotatundra (25 Jun 2011)

Sorry bud if you are wanting to start a dialogue with someone, best not to start with personal attacks. 



> Again you have missed the essence of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which is that human behaviour should not (can not, unless one is prepared to kill as many people as necessary)



Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources.



> social organization is too valuable to be left in the hands of the power-seeking and self-aggrandizing people who gravitate to government institutions.



As opposed to leaving it in the hands of power seeking and self aggrandizing people who gravitate to corporate institutions.



> Libertarianism is a vector, not a destination or a shape.



And you accuse me of being vague and universal!


----------



## toyotatundra (25 Jun 2011)

> Once a person begins thinking seriously about man and morality, he should realize that no person or group of people has any inherent authority to impose their moral aesthetics on others.



Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.

Humans are social animals. We exist in families, in cities, societies and nation states. We cannot help but interact, influence and impose.

Perhaps an example. Libertarians might advocate for the right of individuals to use any drug they choose. However, such drug use does not occur in a social vacuum. Issues immediately arise. For example, can such heroin use be conducted on city streets? If you say no, then you are already imposing "moral aesthetics". And even if heroin use is acceptable only in private settings, will the libertarian accept the provision of drugs to children or teenagers? And if you say no, then you are again imposing morality. And what about distributing drugs to those with Down's Syndrome? Should the society allow that? Who decides in which settings drug use and drug procurement are acceptable?

Some libertarians then turn to notions of consent. Teenagers can't consent. People with Down's syndrome can't consent. But again, is the age of decision 18, or 16, or 12? What is the IQ level where drug procurement is okay? 50 or 70 or 85? And again, who decides? And who pays for the IQ test? The state? Some charity?

Men are not islands. We cannot avoid the state. Moreover, it is unclear in specific social and environmental problems, whether the answer is more state intervention or less. More enforcement of social and moral norms, or less.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Jun 2011)

Our liberties have been eroding of late. I would love to abolish the party system and make all politicians answerable to their local constituents. Breaking up some monoploies and restoring free markets would help society as well.  But this is all unlikely. But more likely than the laughable Ayn Randian libertarianism espoused here. 

Ever wonder what happened after the ending of Atlas Shrugged? A descent into barbarism and her heroes last for a single generation then become extinct. She really was a philosophical lightweight if that was her sweeping vision of the future.


----------



## Container (25 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.
> 
> Humans are social animals. We exists in families, in cities, societies and nation states. We cannot help but interact, influence and impose.
> 
> ...



Youre carrying libertarianism to the extreme. The same arguments can be made for the extreme socialist almost in the exact same manner with a different conclusion- since "everyone" is harmed by drug use the society should be able  to tell any person when it is or isnt okay in every instance. And if you dont like your medicine we can make you take it. And I read a study that says your music makes you stupid so you can't listen to it. We can make you do anything you want since the society organism is harmed by your non compliance.

What it means in practice is- If I disagree with drug use- I dont use drugs. I bring up children that make their own decisions and are responsible for them. If I disagree with abortion I dont get abortions. If my teenage daughter comes home pregnant I put my money where my mouth is about my views. Because they are my views and I am accountable to it. I like small government that fixes my roads and pretty much sits quiet when it comes to everything else in my life. I dont recall in any of my recent reading where it says no to human interactions but it makes you free to choose your associations. I am not forced to pay for some ridiculous social experiment- and if I like some other ridiculous idea I can invest as heavily as I want to my own peril. 

I like your example of drugs. I think back to the thousands of drug users I've dealt with and can't think of anyone of them who would be a libertarian. Personal accountability/ responsibility isn't part of the vocabulary.

It is an offensive idea that someone would think we need MORE moral enforcement. We need less laws not more.

By the way- you started the "jabs" with referring to people as "dude" and "bud" and how libertarians are "groupies". You started the disrespectful tone you are accusing others of having,


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2011)

Perhaps a re reading of the entire thread is in order, since several of the people posting seem to have no conception of what Libertarianism actually means. As a BTW, the philosophy of Ayn Rand is Objectivism, which is has some similarities to, but not identical to libertarianism.

Most of the misunderstanding I am seeing here and elsewhere is based on the strawman premise that libertarianism is _only_ about individual preference. Libertarians support individual preference insofar as they do not negatively impact on others ("Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"); so arguments that people could take heroin on the streets (or play loud music at all hours of the night, for that matter) are not part of libertarianism at all.

Libertarianism and related philosophies are about mutual consent and free will, and accepting the consequences. Lets take a concrete and real life example: If people don't wish to support car company "x" by purchasing the compay's products, then they should not be forced to pay into company "x" through taxpayer bailouts (they did not consent to support the company voluntarily, why should they be forced to involuntarily support the company?). If you had purchased shares in the company, and the management failed to maintain or increase the value of the company, why am I bound to support the value of your shares with my tax dollars? If you wish to take heroin in the privacy of your home, you should be willing to accept that most people would not choose to employ you (due to the effects of your addiction) and you will lead a very deprived lifestyle as a result of your actions.

There are genuine areas of disagreement within the libertarian philosophy over the bounds of consent, but no libertarian would disagree with the need for some collective activities for the maintenance and protection of the community. In practice this can be the collective defense of the community against internal and external aggressors (the military and the police) and an impartial arbitrator for disputes (the Courts of Law).


----------



## toyotatundra (25 Jun 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Youre carrying libertarianism to the extreme.



Libertarianism is an extreme ideology.



> The same arguments can be made for the extreme socialist



Agreed. Which is why I'm not an advocate for Stalinism or Maoism either.



> What it means in practice is- If I disagree with drug use- I dont use drugs.



Fine, but that doesn't answer any of my questions concerning a libertarian society's rules for drug use.



> I bring up children that make their own decisions and are responsible for them.



Fine and dandy that you are such a great parent. That doesn't solve the issue of how a society deals with those less perfect than yourself.



> I dont recall in any of my recent reading where it says no to human interactions but it makes you free to choose your associations.



In real life that is impossible. We live in cities. We breathe common air. We face hostile foreign regimes. We don't choose many of our associations. 



> I like your example of drugs. I think back to the thousands of drug users I've dealt with and can't think of anyone of them who would be a libertarian. Personal accountability/ responsibility isn't part of the vocabulary.



None of the drug users you've met are libertarians? That fact undermines your argument rather than strengthening it. You have proposed a libertarian society based on personal responsibility. Then you suggest that not one in a thousand drug users is personally responsible.  

In other words, you have based your ideology on how people should be, rather than on how they actually are. 



> If I disagree with abortion I dont get abortions.



You are reducing a difficult moral issue to a consumer purchase. A credible argument can be made that abortion is murder, especially in the last month or two of pregnancy. Do you think it is acceptable to abort a baby in the 9th month of pregnancy? And if not, what role does the society have a role in preventing such child killing?




> By the way- you started the "jabs" with referring to people as "dude" and "bud"



The dude and bud comments came after, not before. Second, you aren't psychic. Dude and bud weren't intended as insults.

Out drinking, I refer to my master corporal as bud. And let me assure you, I have no desire to get on his bad side!!!!!!!


----------



## toyotatundra (25 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Most of the misunderstanding I am seeing here and elsewhere is based on the strawman premise that libertarianism is _only_ about individual preference. Libertarians support individual preference insofar as they do not negatively impact on others



Of course, here's the rub. Negatively impact on others is a very broad category. Actions to prevent negative impact are central to almost every ideology.



> so arguments that people could take heroin on the streets (or play loud music at all hours of the night, for that matter) are not part of libertarianism at all.



Not at all? Really? So in a libertarian society, people can drink coffee on the streets. But not take opiates? What if the morphine I'm taking is by prescription? 

And if an individual publicly taking a prescription pain killer is acceptable, why not non-prescription? Don't libertarians support individual freedom, and a free market in health care and consumer goods?



> Libertarianism and related philosophies are about mutual consent and free will, and accepting the consequences.



A motherhood statement. In a society you will not get everyone to consent willingly. Some people will be offended by Gay Pride Parades or open drug use. Others will not. 



> If you wish to take heroin in the privacy of your home, you should be willing to accept that most people would not choose to employ you (due to the effects of your addiction) and you will lead a very deprived lifestyle as a result of your actions.



And do you believe that children should be forced to live in an opium den? Does the state not have a role in protecting those children? And if so, who pays the social worker and police that are involved? Who pays for the now-removed child's health care and education?

Charity might step in. But if charity is not sufficient, do we let those children be illiterate or hungry? Or are social programs necessary?




> In practice this can be the collective defense of the community against internal and external aggressors (the military and the police)



And what if a taxpayer does not support the war in question? Should they be forced to finance the war against their own free will?

And if so, why is it acceptable to forcibly tax people for wars and police, but not for health programs for the disabled and poor?



> but no libertarian would disagree with the need for some collective activities for the maintenance and protection of the community.



In essence, it is a numbers game. Social democrats think a society works best with 50% of GDP in the hands of government. A liberal might say 35%, a libertarian might say 10.

In essence, we are all libertarians to some degree. And we are all socialists.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2011)

>Sorry bud if you are wanting to start a dialogue with someone, best not to start with personal attacks.

What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?

>Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources.

Bullsh*t.  Violence is when the Nazis and Communists and other big gangs called "governments" kill tens of millions of people in order to manage various "issues which arise".  The "threat of violence" is just the "rule of law"; and the fewer and less invasive the laws, the less the threat of violence. 

>As opposed to leaving it in the hands of power seeking and self aggrandizing people who gravitate to corporate institutions.

Generally they must provide something other people actually want.  Otherwise, they gain no power or position.  But you have stumbled across one of the advantages of libertarianism: recognition and useful harnessing of the basic selfishness of people.

>Libertarians impose their moral aesthetics (to use your term) on others to a comparable degree as many other ideologies.

By definition, people who impose their moral aesthetics on others are not libertarians.  And libertarianism is not the absence of social interaction, but it does promote elimination of coercive interaction.

>Perhaps an example. Libertarians might advocate for the right of individuals to use any drug they choose.

Yes.  And bear the consequences.  Attempts have been made to address the "issues which immediately arise" against the essential nature of people, at great cost and without much success.  And don't confuse basic public safety with moral preferences.  If you can afford the drugs and use them without endangering others or voiding your responsibility to any dependents you might have, fill your boots.

Libertarianism isn't the absence of government; you've confused it with anarchism.  I also doubt that it qualifies as "extreme", because most of the population has several parts of their lives they want government to butt out of completely.

>In other words, you have based your ideology on how people should be, rather than on how they actually are.

In that response, you again reveal fundamental misunderstanding.  The point of libertarianism is to accept people for what they actually are.  The further one slides leftward into the collectivist/statist doctrines, the more management of people and breaking of eggs (ie. ruination of lives) one finds in attempts to address the shortcomings of people.

I would think that more people concerned about liberty and the erosion thereof would seek and comfortably occupy the libertarian part of the political spectrum or map.  It is the liberal (classical) position to challenge whether each increment of law is necessary, and to abandon or rework from scratch a hopelessly complex body of regulation which has become a clusterf*ck of band-aids as each new rule alters the behaviour of millions of people in unforeseen ways.  I don't see that in any other "ideology": they are all convinced that with just a little more tinkering, a few more legislative bills, a little more public service oversight, there will be no more unintended consequences and everything will be satisfactorily managed.  In reality, they are like the French high command in 1940 facing the Germans: out-competed by the decision cycles of millions of free people, unless enough freedom is removed so that there are no longer any decisions to be made.


----------



## toyotatundra (26 Jun 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?



Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.

You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.
> 
> You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.



I've been following this for a bit and I am frankly mystified at where you feel that you have been personally attacked.

I do not have a dog in this fight, but what I am seeing is you making statements, Brad calling you on your logical  inconsistencies and you getting all huffy.


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Yet again you prove yourself to be a jerk.
> 
> You take all the pleasure out of a good debate.



It's probably a sign he is losing. His last post broke Goodwin's Law with a Nazi analogy. Now who's being "vacuous and universal". Game, set, point toyotatundra.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2011)

Sorry, but Brad has made substantive arguments which are met with ad hominem attacks. Game set match (and milpoints) to Brad.


----------



## toyotatundra (27 Jun 2011)

_Removed post._


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jun 2011)

>His last post broke Goodwin's Law with a Nazi analogy.

It's not an analogy.  It's a fact.  You want to play word games as if all "violence" is equal, therefore libertarians are equally violent; I put a fact on the table which illustrates how many orders of magnitude there are between people who home school their children and people who like to make human omelettes.


----------



## toyotatundra (28 Jun 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What constitutes a "personal attack" to you, other than challenging your nebulous claims?



I called you guys groupies. You've called me vague, universal and nebulous. I think we've both been jerks. How about we stick to the politics, and call a truce on the personal drama?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Bullsh*t.  Violence is when the Nazis and Communists and other big gangs called "governments" kill tens of millions of people



At present, I am advocating for a mixed economy, with some form of social programs and environmental protections. The kind advocated for by Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats.

You say that comparing non-libertarianism and libertarian violence is cow excrement, because non-libertarians are so much more violent than libertarians. You give the example of the Nazis. Godwin's Law aside, non-libertarians aren't restricted to Goering and Goebbels. Rather this category includes many Canadian political parties, none have which have killed tens of millions of people.



> the fewer and less invasive the laws, the less the threat of violence.



In a state of nature, there is no ownership. The trees, the fields, the animal herds. None of them come with a name attached.

As intelligent beings, we humans assert control over nature. We have established states with laws over all land, people, and property within those state boundaries. Each state apportions its people and resources according to a particular set of laws. 

A libertarian society where most of the land has been privatized is no less invasive than a socialist society where most of the land has been collectivized. Both divide up the natural world completely.   

In a libertarian society, a landless disabled man can be sitting at the edge of my family's wheat fields, literally starving to death. And in this privatized libertarian society, if he has no money, and no way to make money, his only freedom is the freedom to die. 



> Generally they must provide something other people actually want.  Otherwise, they gain no power or position.



One can say the same about democratically elected officials.



> But you have stumbled across one of the advantages of libertarianism: recognition and useful harnessing of the basic selfishness of people.



I don't agree that people are basically selfish, any more than I agree that people are basically altruistic. I would suggest that human history shows people to be a very rich mix of conflicting motivations.

Some people pollute a town's water, knowing that children will die. Other people throw themselves on a grenade, to save their buddy's life.



> By definition, people who impose their moral aesthetics on others are not libertarians.



Then no one is a libertarian. Because any set of laws will involve some element of moral aesthetics. Some sense of what feels right and just.

Libertarianism is aesthetic to its very root. The libertarian emphasis on the individual, on personal freedom, on leaving people alone.  These are sensations of right and wrong, fair and unfair, rooted in emotion.



> Libertarianism isn't the absence of government; you've confused it with anarchism.



Perhaps. However, the little I've read on the anarchist experience in the Spanish Civil War would suggest that anarchism is not at all the absence of government or collective control. In fact, those anarchist regions of Spain seemed downright socialistic in their approach.



> I also doubt that it qualifies as "extreme", because most of the population has several parts of their lives they want government to butt out of completely.



I believe that is the logical fallacy of popularity. You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme. I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society. 



> It is the liberal (classical) position to challenge whether each increment of law is necessary, and to abandon or rework from scratch a hopelessly complex body of regulation which has become a clusterf*ck of band-aids as each new rule alters the behaviour of millions of people in unforeseen ways.  I don't see that in any other "ideology": they are all convinced that with just a little more tinkering, a few more legislative bills, a little more public service oversight, there will be no more unintended consequences and everything will be satisfactorily managed.



You raise some fascinating points here. I will need time to think them over.



> In reality, they are like the French high command in 1940 facing the Germans: out-competed by the decision cycles of millions of free people, unless enough freedom is removed so that there are no longer any decisions to be made.



If I may make a suggestion. Endeavor to go easy on the Godwin.


----------



## Teflon (28 Jun 2011)

> I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society.



Just wondering which election in Canada had a 99% voter turn out?


----------



## QORvanweert (28 Jun 2011)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Just wondering which election in Canada had a 99% voter turn out?



I believe he meant that of all Canadians who voted, 99% voted for major federal parties.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2011)

>You've called me vague, universal and nebulous. 

I wrote, "Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.", and "...your nebulous claims".  I don't think there is any ambiguity in the sentence structure which should lead you to believe I was addressing those remarks to you rather than your statements.

You wrote "Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources."  My point is straightforward enough: libertarianism is not "as violent" as "many other ideologies".  As a matter of historical record, actual violence tends to increase as one slides leftward on the spectrum of statism vs individualism.

Libertarians do not generally advocate dividing up ownership of absolutely everything into private hands, and the assumption that all land - or water, or air - in a libertarian society must necessarily be privatized is a false one.   What is actually a principle is that ownership be respected.  An associated belief, which is borne out in practice, is that there is an advantage to assigning property rights: the holder is more likely to manage the asset sustainably (both with respect to financing it, and retaining it for indefinite future use).  People can also be neglected in a lavishly funded welfare state.  I "believe", for example, that the plight of status Indians in Canada would be much lessened if people held more clear private title to land and homes and businesses, and had more responsibility to support themselves on their own earned income, than is currently the case - it works for nearly every other member of every culture on the planet.

Nor is it true that charity must be disallowed, including state-run charity.  What is likely is that the boundaries of state-financed charity will be much more constrained to the truly needy in a libertarian society.

I do not see any need for right/wrong to be governed by feelings, sensation, or emotion.  Only one of the following can be true:
1. There is an absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.
2. There is no absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.
3. It is unknown whether there is an absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.

I am unaware of a proof of (1) or (2).  I am equally unaware of a fourth possibility.  If (3) is assumed in the alternative, is it more right to act as if (1) is true, or as if (2) is true - which is the course of least harm?  The basic point of libertarianism is to try to abide by (2).

The fallacy of popularity is "most people believe X; therefore X".  What I wrote is that something which is relatively common is not, by definition, extreme.  Or as you put it: "You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme."  Exactly.

Anarchism, whether in Spain or elsewhere, does not rule out social cooperation.  Anarchism simply means the absence (or near absence) of organized government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2011)

>I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society. 

To what point?  How many of those people are voting for what they consider to be the least of evils?  None of us knows.  When all cars on offer are painted black, it doesn't mean that everyone who owns a car wanted a black one.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2011)

Insisting that Libertarians are violent is not supported by evidence. Indeed , libertarian philosophy is based on reducing or eliminating coercion in public and private life, and making ddecisions based on the idea of mutual benefit.

Similarly, your example of the person starving at the edge of your wheat feild is not relevant to the study of libertarian philosophy. There is nothing to compell you to feed and house the poor and unfortunate, but then again there is nothing to stop you from doing so either.  The story of the Good Samaritan is not just for Christians. On the other hand, compelling other people to provide resources to feed and house the poor is *not* charity nor is it charitable; by definition charity is giving of oneself.

Claiming "good intentions" to compel behaviour is a very dangerous path to take, if you wish to avoid a European example consider that people like Margot Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Tommy Douglas were both proponents of Eugenics; particularly the sterilization of people who were mentially deficient or with medical conditions. Clearing the gene pool of these people is for the "greater good" (and thousands of years of animal husbandry prove this is true for other species); but who sets and imposes the standard? Who decides that human beings are the functional equivalent of cattle in the field or strains of wheat to be cross bred to create something new and "better"? Who decides what is "better"?


----------



## toyotatundra (29 Jun 2011)

> I wrote, "Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.", and "...your nebulous claims".  I don't think there is any ambiguity in the sentence structure which should lead you to believe I was addressing those remarks to you rather than your statements.



You may be right. Again, let's both stick to debating politics, and stay clear of the personal issues.



> the plight of status Indians in Canada would be much lessened if people held more clear private title to land and homes and businesses, and had more responsibility to support themselves on their own earned income, than is currently the case



That could well be. Remember I am not arguing for socialism, but a mixed economy. More property rights on reserves might be consistent with that.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My point is straightforward enough: libertarianism is not "as violent" as "many other ideologies".



I gave the examples of the major political parties. I do not consider these Canadian ideologies to be historically violent. Maoism, however, would be another matter.



> What is actually a principle is that ownership be respected.  An associated belief, which is borne out in practice, is that there is an advantage to assigning property rights: the holder is more likely to manage the asset sustainably (both with respect to financing it, and retaining it for indefinite future use).



That is certainly a talking point I read continuously in articles from various libertarian think tanks. However, actual corporations are often driven by their immediate profit margin, not the sustainability of their land 50 years down the line. Under pressure to show constant profits, companies often show no hesitation in rapidly despoiling a forest or lake. And unfortunately, many of the libertarian articles defending environmental property rights come from institutes funded by the same corporations doing the polluting.



> I do not see any need for right/wrong to be governed by feelings, sensation, or emotion.



Oh I disagree with you there. Hitting a child. Raping a stranger. Stealing from a blind person.

We sense these actions are wrong, because we feel they are wrong.



> The fallacy of popularity is "most people believe X; therefore X".  What I wrote is that something which is relatively common is not, by definition, extreme.  Or as you put it: "You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme."  Exactly.



There are many causes in history and the present day which we can assess to be extreme, even though they are or were popular. According to polls, Osama Bin Laden was supported by tens if not hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that Bin Laden was extreme. Segregation was enormously popular among millions of white Southerners just 50 years ago. Yet I think a case can be made that segregation is extreme.


----------



## Redeye (30 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Claiming "good intentions" to compel behaviour is a very dangerous path to take, if you wish to avoid a European example consider that people like Margot Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Tommy Douglas were both proponents of Eugenics; particularly the sterilization of people who were mentially deficient or with medical conditions. Clearing the gene pool of these people is for the "greater good" (and thousands of years of animal husbandry prove this is true for other species); but who sets and imposes the standard? Who decides that human beings are the functional equivalent of cattle in the field or strains of wheat to be cross bred to create something new and "better"? Who decides what is "better"?



Nice non sequitur.  Lots of people in that time frame were proponents of eugenics in some form or other.  Just like many people thought segregationa and "separate but equal" was a decent idea.  Both Sanger and Douglas, however, contributed far more to society (to the world in the case of Sanger and Planned Parenthood, to Canada more specifically in the case of Tommy Douglas) than this rather silly smear would suggest.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2011)

It takes a lot more than Sanger or Douglas ever achieved to wash away the stain of eugenics.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2011)

A blogger's take on non ideological (i.e. social movement) libertarianism:

http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-am-libertarian-and-that-means.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwVPTZ+%28The+Blog+of+Walker%29



> I am a libertarian, and that means absolutely nothing
> 
> I've found myself caring less and less these days about my political affiliation. This is partly because I'm tired and lazy, and simply don't have the energy to maintain an iron-clad political philosophy. I like to think that for the most part I'm just too busy caring about things like the War on Drugs, free speech, and other forms of personal and political liberty to really pay much attention to the philosophical underpinnings of what I'm writing.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2011)

Furthering the idea of social libertarianism is an article by uber libertarian Glen Reynolds (Instapundit). References to the TEA Party movement have no analogies in Canada (or maybe just not yet), but an alert reader can see counterparts in Canada to most of the suggestions made here (for example, joining political parties and becoming an activist at the riding level, or calling Bell to carry Sun TV as a matter of consumer choice.)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/sunday-reflection-three-things-you-can-do-liberty



> *Sunday Reflection: Three things you can do for liberty*
> By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds | 07/02/11 8:05 PM
> 
> Though many call it the "Fourth Of July," July 4 is properly known as Independence Day. It celebrates the independence of the United States from Great Britain -- or, more accurately, the declaration of that independence, which required considerable further effort before it was actually accomplished.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It takes a lot more than Sanger or Douglas ever achieved to wash away the stain of eugenics.



And those stains - and particularly the most extreme example notably had absolutely nothing to do with anything either of them did.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jul 2011)

Maybe in a different time and place.  Here and now, the standard is that the slightest association tars a person.  Let me know when the leftward half of the political spectrum sees reason; meanwhile, I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.



Brad, please watch the language.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jul 2011)

> Brad, please watch the language.



Are you serious? Leave the Moderating to the Moderators and worry about yourself.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Are you serious? Leave the Moderating to the Moderators and worry about yourself.
> 
> Army.ca Staff



Will do.


----------



## Redeye (6 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Maybe in a different time and place.  Here and now, the standard is that the slightest association tars a person.  Let me know when the leftward half of the political spectrum sees reason; meanwhile, I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.



You realize, of course, that the "leftward half" sees the "rightward half" in more or less the same way, surely?


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2011)

Sure, but the leftward half has for decades tried to stake a claim to a moral ascendancy that it does not have, and never did.  All the bullsh!t about being more rational, more "reality-based", more compassionate, more fiscally prudent, more worldly and sophisticated, more nuanced, etc, etc.  Witness in the US the promises of how noble and ethical and wise they would be once the Bush administration was swept aside, but since 2006 they have nothing to show but serial fu*k-ups and a manifest disregard for the most pressing problems of their nation.

They have never been able to fit the shoes they tried to claim for themselves.  I don't call them out for being as fault-prone as everyone else; I call them out for being as fault-prone as everyone else while claiming that the sun shines out of their collective behind.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2011)

The beauty of Libertarian thought is it simply makes no claims to moral ascendency, indeed the idea we should limit the power and ability of people, institutions or governments to initiate the use of force is because force is often invoked on the basis of moral claims. 

These claims can be based on religion or ideology (or whatever else strikes the fancy of a person, institution or State to justify using force). C.S, Lewis summed it up very well:

"_Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. _"


----------



## toyotatundra (8 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The beauty of Libertarian thought is it simply makes no claims to moral ascendency



Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy. Namely, the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community as a whole.

In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military; their individual morals ascendant over the needs of their community. In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives. I do not consider this non-libertarian approach to be less moral. In fact, the very opposite. Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.

Libertarianism embraces the noble ideals of autonomy and individual conscience. Libertarianism is admirable, but imbalanced. In the nitty gritty of the real world, libertarianism morphs into self-indulgence. Instead, we need a balance between the "me" and the "we".


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy. Namely, *the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community* as a whole.
> 
> In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military; their individual morals ascendant over the needs of their community. In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives. I do not consider this non-libertarian approach to be less moral. In fact, the very opposite. Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.
> 
> Libertarianism embraces the noble ideals of autonomy and individual conscience. Libertarianism is admirable, but imbalanced. In the nitty gritty of the real world, libertarianism morphs into self-indulgence. Instead, we need a balance between the "me" and the "we".




Actually, all *liberals*, real liberals, celebrate the _sovereignty_ of the individual and recognize that the state is nothing but a collection of individuals who cooperate for the common good when and where it makes sense to do so. Real _liberals_ also understand that the primary duty of the state is to protect the rights and freedoms of all those individuals.

I do  not pretend to understand libertarianism nor, of course, can or do I advocate it. But it seems to me that *popular conservatives* (collectivists and statists ~ illiberals, in other words) attack it so relentlessly because they recognize that even libertarianism is superior to illiberal collectivism.

We have balances between "we" and "me" - Locke and Mill, for example, provide more than sufficient evidence that illiberal collectivism is intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2011)

>Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy.

Yes, and we should...

>Namely, the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community as a whole.

...for not exactly that reason, but the root from which it springs - an unwillingness to compel others to do our bidding.  ("needs and values" sounds so much better than "demands and desires", doesn't it?)


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2011)

>In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military

He probably would, if he thought the ruling classes were doing their best to send the children of others to die to protect the privilege of the rulers to continue ruling.  The society has to be worth fighting for.  For example, why should any of the people marginalized by a society fight to continue their ill treatment?

>In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives.

"Duty" covers a lot of ground in wartime.  Not everyone has to be a rifleman, but Canada's past includes many people who were never libertarians who were quite effective at evading that particular duty.  I would grant more respect if the members of the non-libertarian factions insisted overwhelmingly on being at the front of the line at the induction/recruiting centres.

>Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.

I think you will find it impossible to make the charge of "laziness" stick since there are a great many things one might do to contribute.  And no one should level a charge of cowardice unless they have already left no stone unturned in efforts to join a fighting unit.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2011)

WRT moral ascendancy, the idea that people are sovereign and their rights are inviolate is indeed much more moral than the idea that people are to be coerced into whatever set of actions that are deemed to be "moral", but this is something that can be promoted by education and persuasion, rather than rules, regulations and armed force (indeed the idea of forcing people to become libertarians is a hilarious contradiction)

A Libertarian nation's armed forces would probably resemble the Swiss citizen militia model, with the primary difference being the citizen solders being willing volunteers rather than conscripts. Libertarians do not dispute the need for the mechanisms of the State for some duties that cannot be performed by individuals, and protection from aggression is one of these. Private armies or vigilanteism would not allow for the impartial application of force against aggression, but simply provide the means for the wealthy or ruthless to use force to impose their will on others; the opposite of Libertarianism. This would also limit the ability of the State to use military power for coercive ends; such a military would be unable and unwilling to take part in an undefined mission like the current campaign in Libya, nor would the libertarian military or government embrace concepts like R2P ("Responsibility to Protect") as a basis for planing or deployment. Such a military could possibly build itself into an expeditionary force to face down existential threats, but for the most part would act as a deterrent against foreign aggression against the homeland. 

Once again, there is a profound misunderstanding of what Libertarian thought entails, and I suggest that readers go over the thread before they make any claims about what Libertarian thought actually entails.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2011)

At last! A clear case study of a Libertarian society in action (although the libertarianism is "involuntary", since the State simply ran out of money and shut down its services):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/now-its-getting-serious.php



> POSTED ON JULY 13, 2011 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN MINNESOTA CAGE MATCH
> NOW IT’S GETTING SERIOUS!
> 
> Mark Dayton’s shutdown of Minnesota’s state government is now in its third week, and so far I’ve seen no sign of it. I mean that literally: if I hadn’t read about the shutdown in the newspapers, I would have no reason to be aware of it. Each day, the Minnesota Star Tribune runs an article on some group that ostensibly is being hurt by the shutdown. So far, the ones that have elicited the most sympathy are the people who had planned to camp out in the state’s parks, which are closed for the duration.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2011)

Libertarianism as a social movement makes a lot of sense since :

a. People are recognizing that many of the things the State offers are better performed by themselves, and:

b. The Social Welfare State is failing in so many regards that libertarianism becomes a sensible alternative (as opposed to ruthless collectivism, which is really the other choice)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/declaration-of-independents/2011/07/29/gIQAJrUAiI_print.html



> *Declaration of independents*
> By George F. Will, Published: July 29
> 
> August is upon us, beaches beckon and Michele Bachmann has set the self-improvement bar high. She recently told The Wall Street Journal, “When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises.” The congresswoman may be the first person ever to dribble sun lotion on the section of Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action” wherein the Austrian economist (1881-1973) discussed “the formal and aprioristic character of praxeology.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2011)

One of the driving forces behind the Libertarian as a Social Movement meme is the proliferation of communications means. The Internet is the premier example, but the 500 channel universe provides outlets and viewers for almost every POV; similarly the explosion of radio stations and even courier servicees which compete with Post Offices. (The other leg is the explosion of skilled and educated people, who are realizing they can provide many of the same goods and services as governments offer themselves). 

The current powers that be are alarmed at the slow dissolution of their powers and privilages via citizens becoming less reliant on the State (much less the actual financial bankruptcy which will eliminate much of their ability to bribe or coerce people in the near to mid future), and are looking at ways to take back their powers and privilages. The author asks the obvious question at the end, my take is the correct answer was discovered by Alexis de Tocqueville when he noted America is a nation of associations. Brittle, slow moving bureaucracies are at the end of their life-span, flexible associations of like minded people working on problems and issues that affect them directly work effectively and well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502214236127064.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5



> *Repressing the Internet, Western-Style*
> As politicians call for more online controls after London and Norway, authoritarian states are watching
> 
> By EVGENY MOROZOV
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2011)

A light hearted example of libertarian economics in action:

http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/08/22/kim-kardashian-for-president/?singlepage=true



> Question:  What’s the difference between a Federal Jobs Creation Program and Kim Kardashian’s wedding?
> 
> Answer:  Kim Kardashian’s wedding creates jobs.
> 
> ...


----------



## canada94 (2 Sep 2011)

I know it hasn't been commented on in a week or 2. But I personally put myself in line with many libertarians around the world from Ron Paul to his son.

It's a form of government that sees less regulatory restrictions, no censorship and let people do as they please. We let society harm itself on government regulated establishments IE Gambling/Alcohol/Prescription drugs

But its a crime to smoke a joint? In the end this is all my opinion and that is why I enjoy the ability to state my views on this site with other people who may/agree disagree with me. 

PS: I used the "joint as an example" I don't wanna turn this into a hippy rally


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Sep 2011)

If Ron Paul was running for President I would vote Republican. The rest look like corporate schills on both sides. Every othe candidate is just a poser in someone's pocket.


----------



## canada94 (3 Sep 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If Ron Paul was running for President I would vote Republican. The rest look like corporate schills on both sides. Every othe candidate is just a poser in someone's pocket.



He is running for the Republican nomination!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2011)

I think the thing which frightens opponents of Sea Steading and other ideas for self contained libertarian communities isn't so much the Libertarian ideology but simply the idea that people can "opt out" and refuse to participate in coercive crony capitalist/corporatist/fascist/authoritarian societies anymore. Libertarianism as a social movement (home schooling, vouchers, unregulated free speech and free trade over the Internet, distributed Republics etc.) is equally frightening to them, people using these options to "opt out" are people who can no longer be controlled:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/02/libertarians-hunt-humansmdasha



> *Libertarians Hunt Humans—And Other Tales*
> The latest hysterical response to libertarian ideas
> 
> David Harsanyi | September 2, 2011
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Sep 2011)

That article is rambling and has a whiff of paranoia. Ironically you write better than the article you quoted. 

I lived off the grid for about three years on solar. Which got me in contact with all the rural hippies and permaculture folks. I think making your own power and growing your own food is the most radical thing you can do politically. The only problem was the amount of energy you can make. Panels are great for lighting and a shallow piston pump for water. They are not economical enough to do things like heating, cooking or moving a vehicle.

A libertarian society will naturally develop itself if two disruptive technologies come to pass. 

The first is energy storage. Traditional batteries are not efficient enough and lack sufficient energy density for their mass. This is why electric cars are still years away. Density is currently increasing at about 10% per year. In about ten years we will be there with conventional batteries. Many supercapacitors are being tried currently. Capacitors store energy by capacitance, not chemically, and the newer ones in theory have over 100 times the energy density of traditional batteries and can be charged in minutes. Their discharge rate will be negligible as well.

The second is energy production. I was able to get my solar install down to around 35c per Kw/h amortized over 20 years in 1999. That needs to drop to 5c or 6c for average people to be able to drop out of the competitiveness of the rat race and keep a comfortable life style. Printed solar cells may be  a step forward. I haven't seen any game changers in energy production yet. Once people can make and store their own energy they don't need the social construct we are living in. That is how I want my freedom in my old age. Their is no liberty without independence.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2011)

You are quite right about new technologies being needed to get off the "grid", although for various reasons I don't think battery technology can reach the  levels needed. We can be agnostic about *what* technologies will work, and even know that we don't need anything more advanced than what we have today. Setting up a victory garden and rainwater catchments is a good way to start.

The key to Libertarianism as a social movement is the ability to bypass the traditional gatekeepers through new communications technologies and the growth of an educated population capable of doing many things on their own without the need to hire "experts". (You still need expert help and advice for many things, but even things as diverse as reporting, making movies or shows, and engineering are becoming accessable to people without lots of capital or even formal training). Naturally the gatekeepers are not happy with the ability of you or I to bypass them...


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Oct 2011)

I really enjoy reading Chris Hedges.

“"Speculati­on in the 17th century was a crime. Speculator­s were hanged. Today they run the state and the financial markets. They disseminat­e the lies that pollute our airwaves. They know, even better than you, how pervasive the corruption and theft have become, how gamed the system is against you, how corporatio­ns have cemented into place a thin oligarchic class and an obsequious cadre of politician­s, judges and journalist­s who live in their little gated Versailles while 6 million Americans are thrown out of their homes, a number soon to rise to 10 million, where a million people a year go bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills and 45,000 die from lack of proper care, where real joblessnes­s is spiraling to over 20 percent, where the citizens, including students, spend lives toiling in debt peonage, working dead-end jobs, when they have jobs, a world devoid of hope, a world of masters and serfs." -- Chris Hedges” 

A bit more on speculators gaming the financial system. I'll just post a link.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/09/biggest-bubble-of-all-time.html#.Tola6qcvjLg.facebook


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2011)

> Speculati­on in the 17th century was a crime. Speculator­s were hanged. Today they run the state and the financial markets.



The 17th century: ie the century that commenced in 1601 and ended in 1700.  

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 - after the Dutch born Prince of Orange became King of the United Kingdom because of support from English subjects who sequestered funds in Dutch banks. Those banks were safe repositories for funds from all parts of the globe, including France and England.

Why didn't the English put their own money in their own banks - in part because the last of the Stewarts (Stuarts) - wouldn't keep up with the times, insisted in conducting his affairs in gold, just like Louis XIV who bought and paid for him in that currency, and regularly ran out the treasury.

He was convinced that anybody who bought or sold gold, thus depriving him of his divine right, was his enemy.  Those were the speculators that were hanged.

The modern banking system, with easier access to funding more generally available to the public, derived from that struggle and ultimately drove the modern, democratic "E"volution.


----------



## Jed (3 Oct 2011)

Remember the Golden Rule. "He who has the Gold, rules!" as opposed to "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you."


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2011)

While the history lesson is very interesting, it has little to do with Libertarian philosophy or practice.

The fact that there is a stable banking institution which is subject to common rules accessable to all is a pretty fundimental foundation stone for Classical Liberalism (of which Libertarianism is one of the branches), this is itelf a subset of the "Rule of Law" (The other foundations of Classical Liberalism being individual liberty and the unfettered ownership of property).

The current frenzy of "Crony Capitalism" that has infected the global financial markets (and which is what you are decrying) is a result of moving away from a firm foundation of the "Rule of Law" and making exceptions on the basis of crony support or (essentially) whim. You can insulate yourself to some extent by moving your wealth into other forms and conducting your banking through alternative means (Coops are a good place to start, but an entire ecology of alternative finincial institutions is growing and evolving, from PayPal to Hawala networks).


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2011)

A clearing house for students interested in lerning the theory and practice of Libertarianism: http://www.libertarianism.org/


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Nov 2011)

Interesting talk on the paradox of choice.  Too many choices can lead to paralysis and regret. The downside of liberty.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2012)

The Libertarian as a Social Movement meme is explained in more depth here. I believe rather than becoming an independent political movement the greater bulk of the Libertarian as a Social Movement activists will move into mainstream politics and parties and shift them away from increasing State power and towards the fundimental issues of libertarianism (what is the role of the State? How can the State best protect and promote individual liberty? How can the State provide an environment to encourage and allow voluntary cooperation between individuals to flourish?):

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/02/where-are-all-the-libertarians-coming-from/



> *Where are all the libertarians coming from?*
> 
> By Anton Howes
> Notebook - A selection of Independent views -, Opinion
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2012)

And a Libertarian response to "nanny state" laws:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2012/03/23/putting-your-libertarian-principles-to-the-test/



> *Putting your libertarian principles to the test*
> March 23, 2012 10:07 am Dalwhinnie Political Correctness
> 
> The superb Dr. Sean Gabb, leader of the British libertarians, puts his money where his mouth is. On the subject of making alcohol more expensive, as the Cameron government currently proposes, he writes:
> ...


----------



## Sythen (27 Mar 2012)

Rather than starting a new thread, I think this will be a good place to put this as it deals with individual liberties.. If people disagree let me know and can move or just abandon the discussion.

Anyways, in light of the recent ruling on brothels by the Ontario Court of Appeals (  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.html ) I am in a debate with my sister and a few of her more religiously leaning friends about the legitimacy of this.. Anyways, long story short, in response to my saying what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone elses business, they said something along the lines of would I advocate for duels to the death be allowed to happen? Kinda gave me pause for a second and I was gonna say that was an extreme example.. But is it really? If dueling would be highly regulated in approved buildings, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

Just looking for others thoughts, and if anyone can think of any extreme example of what two (or more) consenting adults shouldn't be able to do, given proper regulation and facilities?


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Rather than starting a new thread, I think this will be a good place to put this as it deals with individual liberties.. If people disagree let me know and can move or just abandon the discussion.
> 
> Anyways, in light of the recent ruling on brothels by the Ontario Court of Appeals (  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.html ) I am in a debate with my sister and a few of her more religiously leaning friends about the legitimacy of this.. Anyways, long story short, in response to my saying what happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone elses business, they said something along the lines of would I advocate for duels to the death be allowed to happen? Kinda gave me pause for a second and I was gonna say that was an extreme example.. But is it really? If dueling would be highly regulated in approved buildings, then why shouldn't they be allowed?
> 
> Just looking for others thoughts, and if anyone can think of any extreme example of what two (or more) consenting adults shouldn't be able to do, given proper regulation and facilities?



Wow. That's a creative counterpoint, and one that does actually sort of make sense. If two consenting adults, knowing full well what they're consenting to including the risks, choose to do so in an environment where there's no chance of "collateral damage", it's hard to argue against, I suppose. The same argument, I suppose, could be dovetailed off a discussion about assisted suicide/euthanasia. Tricky one to argue, too, although the ends are ultimately different when you're comparing prostitution and dueling, but at the core the argument to be used is substantially similar if it was brought into a discussion about assisted suicide. If we're going to permit people to aid others in terminating their life, why couldn't they wager it...?

Quite an interesting point indeed.


----------



## Sythen (27 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If we're going to permit people to aid others in terminating their life, why couldn't they wager it...?



Exactly. But at what point do we stop? Because how far are we, if we were to allow duels to the death, from blood sport arenas as they had in ancient Rome? Is there anything even wrong with it, if the contestents are all willing?


----------



## larry Strong (27 Mar 2012)

Assisted suicide maybe....as the recipient is usually aware of things. Euthanasia is a different story as the recipient is not always aware of things , and it is quite often preformed with the consent of NOK not the recipient. See the stats for Belgium and Holland........


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Exactly. But at what point do we stop? Because how far are we, if we were to allow duels to the death, from blood sport arenas as they had in ancient Rome? Is there anything even wrong with it, if the contestents are all willing?



In my view, the idea of such things is repugnant - but at the same time, I have absolutely no issue with the idea of people choosing to end their lives when faced with terminal illness. While I don't see the two as being equivalent, an argument can be launched that they are, since the outcome is the same, it's just a matter of different means. I don't know how I could go about forming a really good argument on it.


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Assisted suicide maybe....as the recipient is usually aware of things. Euthanasia is a different story as the recipient is not always aware of things , and it is quite often preformed with the consent of NOK not the recipient. See the stats for Belgium and Holland........



What stats are those? Although legal, voluntary euthanasia is extremely rare in the Netherlands, and a strict series of requirements must be met before it is acceptable - including a persistent request from the patient, the existence of extreme suffering (which is taken to mean physical pain, generally), and the confirmation that the patient has the capacity to understand the request and their circumstances, which must be certified by another physician. That's not the same as withdrawal of life-saving/sustaining care or things like DNRs, where decisions aren't made by the patient. Generally speaking, such cases are guided by advance care directions or living wills, which with as much detail as possible specify the terms under which such actions can take place. In Canada it works the same way, though you can only specify the withdrawal of treatment, rather than medical intervention to bring about death. It's commonly the decision of someone legally appointed to make decisions for the patient, since the triggering events generally would terminate the capacity of the patient to make such decisions. That's why I have an extremely detailed ACD drawn up to set out what exactly I want. However, the decision, for example, to withdraw someone from life support is generally made by whoever holds power of attorney for personal care, or the legal decision maker if no document specifies one.

To Sythen's point though, in the abstract it's hard to specify a difference, though in locales where euthanasia is legal, there's generally a strong set of criteria that must be met to make it acceptable, which probably would not apply to bloodsports.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Mar 2012)

Maybe stats was the wrong choice of words....

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/explaining-euthanasia/1531267127001

However this is not the thread to get into this, all I am saying is euthanasia is not always a personal choice.


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Maybe stats was the wrong choice of words....
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/explaining-euthanasia/1531267127001
> 
> However this is not the thread to get into this, all I am saying is euthanasia is not always a personal choice.



I can't stream the video, but I'm guessing the content refers to cases where people have felt pressured into euthanizing elderly family members, I've heard stuff like that before, and that shouldn't be able to happen - caveats should be strict enough to prevent that, to make clear it's fully voluntary and requested solely by the patient - that I'm comfortable with, anything beyond, not so much.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Mar 2012)

I am out of time and this is the wrong thread, IIRC and should you wish to continue this, we have been down this road some years ago, try searching "Sue Rodriquez". Suffice to say after a cursory search in Holland alone there is rampant unreported occurrences, changing COD to reflect "natural causes" instead of euthanasia, and miss use of the system.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0021.html



> A case was reported in 2000 where a doctor assisted in the suicide of an 86 year old man, simply because his life had become meaningless. He was later charged with murder, but given a token penalty. Additionally, underreporting and life-taking without patient request have dogged Dutch euthanasia for many years.



It is not as rosy or black and white as you might wish it to be.......

Got to go to work

later
Larry


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2012)

Wow. It took one post to take one tangent, on duelling, off the rails and sequay to another tangent on euthanasia.

Great thing about agendas, let nothing stand in your way if you've got one.

We're going to split the chaff off, and give it a general title, while you guys decide which tangent you want to discuss.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Wow. It took one post to take one tangent, on duelling, off the rails and sequay to another tangent on euthanasia.
> 
> Great thing about agendas, let nothing stand in your way if you've got one.
> 
> ...




Please don't split it off, recceguy; I think both dueling (as an example) and assisted suicide are logical outcomes of Libertarian beliefs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Please don't split it off, recceguy; I think both dueling (as an example) and assisted suicide are logical outcomes of Libertarian beliefs.



We'll watch it then, until it turns the thread, a la the Abortion issue. When it becomes the main focus, instead of Libertarianism, it'll get split.

Just so that everyone knows the reasoning.
We've started losing track, of tangents, and haven't been able to keep up, to the point where we now have threads out there that have absolutely nothing to do with their titles. While that's very difficult to police, now that they've escaped the cage, we can take a harder stand and cut them off at the wellhead, which was the intent here. The Mods don't have time to track every single tangent, most times we rely on Report to Mod, even then though, most tangents don't get caught. It's a quick judgment call when we do spot them ourselves as we have to move on to the next fiasco across the board somewhere.

It would be appreciated, if Senior members could help us out spotting these and if all members would pay attention, stay on track and not segue from the original intent of the thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

Right: let me explain *why* I think e.g. assisted suicide is a logical outcome of Libertarian thought.

The _classical liberals_ can be, roughly, subdivided into:

1. _Utilitarians_, like me, who believe in the "greatest good for the greatest number," which, perforce, means that minorities must _sacrifice_ for the greater, common good - _conservatives_, like US Democrats and Canadians Liberals and _Dippers_ believe that the greater, common good must be "milked" to appease minorities; and

2. _Libertarians_ who believe that the _sovereign individual_ must always prevail.

(Now, while I believe in a "smaller" (less intrusive) state and in private property as an absolute right, I also believe that the _community_ is essential for a civilized society and I accept, indeed welcome, the _communitarian_ compromises that we all make to achieve social harmony (sounds like something Hu Jintao might say, doesn't it?).)

Two Libertarians, having taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that their actions would endanger no others and that every reasonable course of action had been tried and had failed, would, indeed should consider a duel an acceptable way to settle a dispute that involves a clash of rights oir principles. Equally, a Libertarian ought to feel free to ask for help in ending his or her life, under certain circumstances, *but* (s)he can never, not while being a Libertarian, countenance forcing anyone - a doctor, for example - to assist in his/her suicide. Libertarians ought to oppose conscription and confiscation of property and moral values. (A _utilitarian_, on the other hand, who was convinced that assisted suicide is an important _right_ might decide that a reasonable compromise is to require doctors who are paid by the state to provide such assistance.

Euthanasia is a different matter and I cannot reconcile it with either _libertarian_ or _utilitarian_ values - it appeals to a certain kind of _conservative_, usually a socialist, who puts the needs desires of the community ahead of fundamental rights.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2012)

All well and good Edward. I'm not getting involved in the ethics or reasons on the inclusion, but thanks for you explanaition.

My concern is keeping the Board and it's Threads on track. At this point, I've accepted your reasoning for leaving it here, I don't need convincing.

The caveat being that when it grows it's own head, it gets moved.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All well and good Edward. I'm not getting involved in the ethics or reasons on the inclusion, but thanks for you explanaition.
> 
> My concern is keeping the Board and it's Threads on track. At this point, I've accepted your reasoning for leaving it here, I don't need convincing.
> 
> ...




Of course, and rightfully so.


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Euthanasia is a different matter and I cannot reconcile it with either _libertarian_ or _utilitarian_ values - it appeals to a certain kind of _conservative_, usually a socialist, who puts the needs desires of the community ahead of fundamental rights.



That, I submit, depends on the context in which you present euthanasia. In the case of assisted suicide or medical intervention to end suffering at the request of a patient, then it's not a matter of community needs/wants, and sounds to me like something entirely consonant with libertarianism.

It's a matter of a person making a conscious decision based on their own needs/wants. In the case of involuntary euthanasia - eugenics type programs, well, I the greatest example I can think of - the T4 program of Nazi Germany isn't exactly something that appeals to many people at all. Such things, however, are often used to "scaremonger" about various programs that socialists among others like - witness the hysteria about the completely fictional "death panels" in the USA.

I hope that's not a derail - not intended to be!


----------



## ballz (27 Mar 2012)

Here's why I think the "duelling" example strikes a bit of a different chord in our heads.

One could see it as society allowing one man to murder another, based on who is more athletic. 
If we are going to allow this, would we allow two people to play a game of checkers where the stakes are that the winner gets to shoot the other person? Basically, the "prize" for being better at checkers than your adversary is that you get to murder the SOB.

It seems to me that we're saying "Okay, if you really want to kill someone that bad, and he just happens to want to kill you too, we'll have a contest and the winner gets "one free murder.""

But to answer the question that was posed to Sythen, yes, I really would let two consenting adults in a highly-regulated environment have duel to the death or even play a game of checkers over it.... if that's what they want, might as well let natural selection take it's course.


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2012)

So, taking a libertarian point of view: It should be perfectly legal to have games of Russian Roulette for those so inclined ?

I must be Utilitarian then, as I don't think anyone in society should have to clean up the mess that results from people doing irrational acts. (And many people do and will continue to do irrational acts.)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Mar 2012)

The comparison of the legalization of prostitution and duelling is not a very good fit. The sexual act between a consenting (and of age) prostitute and the customer is itself perfectly legal. It is the business transaction that has been illegal.

In a duel to the death, the act of killing itself is illegal. The willing consent of both participants has no bearing. A duel with fencing sabres to determine "a winner" without injury is perfectly legal.

In a boxing match (or hockey fight) we have an act that is itself illegal  (assault and battery) but it is condoned within certain boundaries and rules. The fights are not to the death, and we do not accept greivous harm.

I think that it has soemthing to do with the tension between _consequentialism_ or _Kantianism _ (I hate the term deontologicalism). Consequentialsm and utilitariaism are very good friends, and both can easily find themselves in dangerous waters when taken to the extreme. You can make good consequentialist arguments in favour of the boxing match or hockey fight. The beneficial consequences (revenues, prizes for the fighters and its voluntary, the guilty pleasure of entertainment) outweight the negative consequences (bruises and teeth). The line certainly seems to be drawn at grievous injury. When a hockey fight results in a serious injury we see the negative consequences. The death of a player in a hockey fight or of a boxer in a match then raises serious questions. A Kantian might argue that the fights and boxing matches should not occur because the harm they cause negate any benefit.

If the point of the duel was to kill then the consequentialist would argue that we reject the duel on the grounds that the act (killing) is so repugnant that it makes it untenable regardless of any benefits. Even if both parties consented and there were huge profits to made and vast entertainment for millions of pay per view specatators the negative outcome of killing would outweigh those good consequences. A Kantian, of course, would reject the duel to the death outright because the act itself (killing) is immoral. 

Now, we might well accept killing on grounds of self defence or within the bounds of the law.

Utilitarians can accept prostitution because it serves a purpose. It provides an outlet for some and an income for others. There are some negative consequences (health, criminal influence, unsightly traffic etc)  but those can be managed with proper zoning, oversight and licensing. 

As an aside, I figure that we should be consequentialist on small matters and Kantian on the big ones. All bets are off, however, in the international arena...

Regarding the Libertarians, if two libertarians decide to have a duel to the death then their consent matters not to me. They are part of society, and what they are doing is criminal.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Mar 2012)

Actually, I stumbled into a well-publicized case on this from Germany.  A man placed an add on a cannibalism website for someone who he could kill and eat.  Another man answered the call and was eaten.  The cannibal was originally charged with manslaughter as his entree was entirely willing (the guy filmed the whole thing).  The government later overturned the manslaughter charge and put the guy in jail for life for murder.

A wee bit disturbing, but illustrative of taking Libertarian values to their extreme.

I'm currently reading Francis Fukuyama's _The Origin of Political Order_, a fascinating book, and in the beginning he points out that far 'left' and far 'right' theories ultimately loop around and meet at a state of anarchy.  Pure libertarianism sees individuals in an ideal 'state of nature' free of government control while pure communism sees an ideal stateless society where the government and property are gone.

Fukuyama gives a good example of what a real libertarian/communist society looks like - he points to social groups that never moves past clan level organization like the Yamamano in South America.  They exist in what Fukuyama calls the 'tyranny of cousins' and are very violent (something like 50% of Yamamano males die from intertribal violence).

I, like Edward, am more utilitarian than libertarian.  Libertarian values of individual sovereignty are, to me, sensible to the point where they have value in our society.  Destructive activities such as duelling or cannibalism go past that point.  We are not Yamamano in skyscrapers.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2012)

Duels, voluntarily offering oneself up as a meal for a cannibal and so on are not Libertarian positions, and should not be considered logical outcomes of libertarianisim as a philosophy.

As Edward pointed out, one of the primary ideas behind Libertarianism is the idea that the Individual is Sovereign. This implies that the individual makes choices involving their own best interests and bears the consequences or rewards of such actions. If this is your only point of reference, then perhaps you might make some of the conclusions outlined upthread.

OTOH, since every individual is sovereign, the use of force, fraud or coercion against another individual is prohibited by libertarian thought. The only justifiable reason for a libertarian to use force against another is in self-defense; arbitration of disputes is through a neutral third party (generally recognized as the State, through the Rule of Law). This effectively discounts duelling as a dispute solving mechanism (or even an extreme sport). 

Assisted suicide is a more difficult argument (and I admit I am not currently in a good position to do the legwork to research this), but generally speaking, while self destruction is something a person may choose to do (however distasteful others may find it), assisted suicide (to me) skirts very closely on the edge of initiating the use of force against another individual. When doctors perform euthanasia on patients who may not be fully aware of the action about to be taken (i.e. a patient in a coma or suffering from dementia) or through the projection of their own values on the patient (the patient is living a hopeless/worthless life) then they are clearly initiating force against a helpless individual, which in libertarian thought is totally immoral.

Remember, for any proper discussion on Libertarian values, the common denominators are:

1. The individual is sovereign
2. Initiation of force (including fraud or coercion) against  another individual is forbidden. Force may only be used in self defense.
3. Individuals have the right to ownership and unfettered use of their own property (limited only by how it may impact other sovereign individuals; i.e. you can't dump your waste on other's property)
4. Individuals may collectively agree to trade with each other or enter into voluntary agreements for their mutual benefit (as they see it).
5. The State exists to protect individuals and their property against internal and external threats
6. The State provides an impartial arbitrator to settle disputes.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2012)

Blogger Hugh MacIntyre comes up with a very quick and effective summary of the upthread arguments:


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

Interesting take on the sea steading idea. Note the driving motivation behind it are the byzantine laws and regulations regarding Visas and business startups in the United States; if the dead hand of the State were to be lifted, so would the motivation for this project. (If there was to be a sea change in American laws and regulations, this project could try anchoring off the coast of a distressed EU nation...)

http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2012/05/21/visa-free-startup-community-off-california-coast/



> *Visa-Free Startup Community Off California Coast*
> 
> By Kate Rogers
> 
> ...



Of course there is the additional motivation of avoiding California's punishing tax and regulatory environment as well. Interesting to see how this works out.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 May 2012)

What happened to the country I grew up in? If you told me all these things would happen in Canada 20 years ago I would have laughed in your face.


Flagrantly unconstitutional restrictions on Freedom of Association/Assembly in Quebec.
Charges in Quebec with no burden of proof /reasonable doubt.
Widespread Voter Suppression in the last election.
Police arresting and beating unarmed protesters not breaking any laws.
Abandoning military Veterans.
Gutting environmental regulations and monitoring.
Mandatory prison sentences for non violent crimes.
Selling our strategic resources to foreign powers and transnational corporations.
Security certificates allowing the detention of citizens without charge.


----------



## Container (25 May 2012)

[quote author=link=topic=45537/post-1145400#msg1145400 date=1337997873]
(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and 
  (i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if 
  (A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, 
  (B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence, 
  (C) the person carried, used or threat- ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or 
  (D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or 
  (ii) to a minimum punishment of impris- onment for a term of two years if 
  (A) the person committed the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years, 
  (B) the person committed the offence in a prison, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or on its grounds, or 
  (C) the person used the services of a person under the age of 18 years, or involved such a person, in committing the offence; 
  (a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that is not more than the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day; 


(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marijuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of 
  (i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking, 
  (ii) imprisonment for a term of nine months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply, 
  (iii) imprisonment for a term of one year if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501, 
  (iv) imprisonment for a term of 18 months if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply, 
  (v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, or 
  (vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply; 

9. (1) Within five years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including a cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences, shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.
[/quote]

I dont see anything unreasonable in here. In fact the bottom says that it'll be checked to see if its worth it after the experiment. The emergency law in Quebec is being challenged in court like we do in Canada. 

The sky is hardly falling. In fact the police are farther behind in the ability to convict people of things then they ever have been before. Vets affairs have been screwed forever.

I'll give you environmental laws.


----------



## a_majoor (26 May 2012)

The "widespread voter suppression" has been discredited (look up the examples posted in the thread devoted to that topic), you notice since there was no proof/traction the opposition and media have moved on to comparing apples to timeshare condos in CF-35 accounting, and now to apocalyptic changes to EI.

What is really happening is a gradual move to a post progressive society, driven by such factors as ever escalating costs which are not commensurate with the results, demographic  and economic flows away from the old centers of political and economic power and globalization, which strips away being insulated from your own dumb mistakes (since the Chinese, Europeans or Americans will jump on you the second they see an opening, and we now have the ability to do some jumping of our own).

The current Prime Minister and governing party know and understand this, but are also politically astute enough to recognize that the political will to make changes is very shallow, and so the movement away from State sponsored progressiveism must be very gradual.

It is perhaps fortunate that Libertarianism as a social movement exists, since people now have the knowledge, understanding and ability to gather capital and resources and bypass traditional "gatekeepers" in many fields. IF the State isn't going to take care of our every need/whim (or does a really bad job of it), then we will need to take care of things ourselves.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2012)

How Libertarianism becomes a social movement. Notice people are not bypassing or avoiding the State due to the positive appeals of minarchism, but rather to avoid the grasping hands of the State and to preserve/protect their own assets and wealth. Still, movements are started and sustained for all kinds of reasons, and so long as the Progressive model exists and has power, it will drive people to take these measures for simple self preservation (if nothing else). Canadians are familier with these concepts, including the underground economy and voting with their wallets and feet to get away from high tax/high regulatory environments:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6104/americans-revolt-billions-of-times-a-day/



> *Americans Revolt Billions of Times a Day*
> posted on July 10, 2012 by Jerry Bowyer 40 Comments
> 
> It seems to be that as the United States federal government and the Presidency in particular have gradually morphed into something more like a European monarchy, our attitude towards its sovereignty has shifted. Certainly no state or province or faction of the ruling class would dare to challenge the military might of the United States in a single act of open revolt.
> ...



And when enough people decide that the Progressive state is illigitiamate and are no longer willing to provide active or passive consent, then the model will collapse. What arises to take its place is unknown, but the trends of increasing personal empowerment mean that Libertarianism has an effective shot at becoming the social model fo the future.


----------



## jeffb (12 Jul 2012)

Or Fascism as people decide that they are more interested in Facebook then their personal liberties.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2012)

Perhaps so. "The Man on the White Horse" has a powerful inducement to fearful people seeking to escape from chaos, as history shows us. The one factor which really has changed far more than at any time in the past is people back then were not empowered; did not have the capital, expertise, education, skills or resources that are available to a massive number of people today. To get an idea of the scale of things, consider that India has 300 million people who can be economically grouped as "middle class"; equal to the entire population of the United States. Even in Canada, most people who are "poor" according to government statistics own cars, televisions, homes and so on; they are not serfs, sharecroppers or tenants.

So the starting conditions are different. 

The second line of evidence can be found in The Coming of the French Revolution by Georges Lefebvre, where the author raises the argument that the French Revolution was the first true revolution since the middle class started and sustained it to protect their own property from the aristocracy and the poor (the aftermath was pretty ugly). The middle class in most western nations do have an attachment to their property, and know (if in an unsophisticated way) that the unfettered use of property is the foundation of political and economic rights.

Now it is possible the collapse of the Progressive project will trigger a Samson like pulling down of the walls and unleash a greater chaos, or like the unfortunate Revolutionaries in France, the middle class will not be able to organize and sustain a transition to a stable new regime. Still, there is always hope (and you can probably work individually and collectively with like minded people to help arrange a controlled drawdown and smooth transition to the new way of things).


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2012)

I adhere to the general idea that the stronger the middle class is, the less likely violent revolution and extremist governments are.  I think we have a long way to fall before that happens.  What is breaking the progressive model is sunlight - there are simply too many alternative channels for information and ideas to be exposed and discussed.  There is no longer only a sympathetic media doling out narratives in little chunks deliverable via TV and print.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2012)

A portrait of one of the few libertarians elected to office:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/14/brian-doherty-the-ron-paul-revolution/



> Brian Doherty: The Ron Paul Revolution
> Special to National Post | Aug 14, 2012 6:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 13, 2012 3:52 PM ET
> More from Special to National Post
> 
> ...



It is very difficult to be and remain a principled libertarian, especially in an environment where the incentives are all heavily tilted against libertarian principles. Reading carefully, it would seem that if most US Congressmen and Senators had followed the same principles, many of the current problems afflicting the US might have been avoided altogether. Certainly the current explosion of Crony Capitalism would have been nipped in the bud.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2012)

George Jonas on free speech. In general, I agree with him; we should not fetter people's rights, but we are not obligated to hand out soap boxes either:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/18/george-jonas-al-quds-day-is-just-a-soapbox-for-a-hatefest/



> *George Jonas: Al-Quds Day is just a soapbox for a hatefest*
> George Jonas | Aug 18, 2012 12:27 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 18, 2012 12:25 AM ET
> More from George Jonas
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Aug 2012)

Louisiana as the first polity to elect a Libertarian opposition? Truth really is stranger than fiction:

http://moelane.com/2012/08/19/rsrh-i-do-not-object-to-the-libertarians-becoming-louisianas-opposition-party/



> *#rsrh I do not object to the Libertarians becoming Louisiana’s opposition party*.
> Because it’s starting to look like that might happen:
> 
> Subtract the results of the Second Congressional District, and it is possible that the votes for Libertarian and no party candidates in all of the other U.S. House contests will exceed those cast for Democrats across the rest of Louisiana, belying the notion that state Democrats are anywhere near a sustained and successful rebuilding effort.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2012)

Chicago, a hardcore Democrat stronghold, is showing how libertarianism as a social movement works. Consider tht when the teachers strike is over, many of the parents will not be sending their children back to the public schools (or only reluctently); since the "Blue Model" failed them, and they have no realistic means of electing the opposition (due to the nature of ward politics in Chicago) their only recourse is to strike out on their own:





> Teacher Walkouts in Chicago, Conspicuous Details
> by Justin Katz	 on September 10, 2012
> in Education, Unions - Analysis
> Comments (5)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2012)

Ayn Rand would never have been called a Libertarian (and indeed violently objected to libertarianism in general), but many of the philosophical foundations of Objectivism are very similar to Libertarianism. Since the two are related, and Libertarianism is spreading as a social rather than apolitical movement (with modern communications technology allowing people to bypass "gatekeepers", and a large fraction of the population having enough accumulated capital and expertise to not need expert "help"; another means of bypassing gatekeepers), the objections to Ayn Rand are fairly close to objections raised against Libertarianism. Similar memes are raised against the TEA Party movement, which as a small government movement, has a similar philosophical base:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/22/terence-corcoran-ayn-rand-still-the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america/



> *Terence Corcoran: Ayn Rand — still the most dangerous woman in America*
> 
> Terence Corcoran | Sep 22, 2012 2:32 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 22, 2012 12:20 PM ET
> More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2013)

This guide is also good for people who do not understand Libertarian memes or find arguments against Libertariansim confusing because what is being argued against really isn't there. Good background reading material:

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/top-10-ways-talk-about-libertarianism



> *Top 10 Ways to Talk about Libertarianism*
> 
> By David Boaz
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2013)

While the idea of "Liberaltarianism" is odd, I think this is much more a manifestation of the "Libertarianism as a social movemenmt" than a political movement (yet). The corresponding changes in Republican policies or at least discussions noted in the article is the "other half" of Libertarian thought.

Libertarianism as a social movement has people moving in the direction of personal and economic freedoms as opportunities increase (i.e. lower capital costs of items, higher levels of education, greater personal accumulations of wealth and the ability to bypass "gatekeepers"), but since most people see themselves politically in a particular camp or party, their personal and social preferences will then tend to inform how they view their party and what sorts of measures they are prepared to support. A Libertarian leaning person in the Democrat (Liberal/NDP/Socialist to move farther along the spectrum) will support more individual and social liberties. A person on the Republican (Conservative/Classical Liberal) side of the spectrum will gravitate towards economic issues, which I think explains the divide:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/the-liberaltarian-democrats/



> *The Liberaltarian Democrats*
> 
> I haven’t written anything about the entirely predictable demise of the post-Newtown gun control push, but this passage from Politico’s coverage of last week’s Senate vote seemed worth a comment:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2013)

It is abusive use of regulatory powers which are the "stick" which drives more people towards the "Libertarianism as a social movement" meme, and if the State can create such a self evidently stupid and counterproductive regulation as this, imagine what has been going on where real technical expertise was needed to draft regulations or laws?

http://lfb.org/today/how-government-wrecked-the-gas-can/



> *How Government Wrecked the Gas Can*
> Jeffrey Tucker · May 7, 2012
> 
> 2478 326 118 5222
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2013)

Many of these same issues exist in Canada, and may well translate into an increased interest in libertarian ideas and practice. While it might be nice to dream of such things, I doubt it will translate into a sweeping libertarian takeover of either Canada or the United States (and by its very nature, libertarian philosophy is not well suited for large scale governance, but rather to build the "small platoons" of day to day living):

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/10/riseoflibertarians.html



> *The Rise of the Libertarians*
> 
> By Duke Cheston
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2013)

Reason Magazine on Libertarianism as a Social Movement. Since access to the various tools that free people from the "gatekeepers" seems to be a prerequisite, I can see why "Progressives" want to stifle the Internet, restrict technologies like 3D printers and so on. The issue for them is that apolitical people get their hands on these enabling technologies, and suddenly discover "hey, I can do all these things by myself". The second act is when the newly empowered run up against the rules, regulationa and taxes the gatekeepers have set, and realize "these people are in my way".

Of course it is also easy to subvert Leftist dogma if you are clever and wiling to turn their language against them: a person who grows a "Victory garden" in their backyard or balcony and saves money on their grocery bill is also not paying very much in the way of sales tax, but can always get praise from Progressives by saying they are "eating local" or talking about the "environment". Similarly, establishing cooperative networks of similarly minded people to trade specialty goods and services amongst each other bypasses a lot of the regulatory radar but can usually be passed off a "supporting the local economy".

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/06/lefties-contemplate-the-pain-of-cyberlib



> *Lefties Contemplate the Pain of "Cyberlibertarianism,"*
> Wonder Where They'll Ever Find a Centralized World to Manage Choice and Behavior
> Brian Doherty|Dec. 6, 2013 3:10 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2014)

ERC, among other posters, have decried the "social conservative" wings of various political movements. This article suggests that not only has their day passed, but the very issues they raise are strengthening the ideas of libertarianism (although as I have pointed out many times, libertarianism is more of a social rather than a political movement). Still, dumping many of these ideas from the political arena back to the social arena where they rightfully belong provides a powerful means of shrinking government size and power: Libertarian ideals

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/09/are-social-cons-saving-liberalism-roger



> *Are Social Cons Saving Liberalism? Roger L. Simon Thinks So, Sees Libertarian Shift as Future of Conservatives, GOP*
> Nick Gillespie|Feb. 9, 2014 9:45 am
> 
> A few weeks back over at PJ Media, Roger L. Simon penned an interesting piece arguing that social conservatives are helping liberals out by pushing culture-war themes in an America that has long moved on to more basic economic issues of governance. It's not that personal lifestyle issues don't matter, he says, it's that most of them (maybe all of them) should be dealt with in non-political channels.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2014)

An astute analysis of why Libertarianism isn't an attractive _political_ movement. Since Politics is (as defined in organizational theory) "a means of allocating scarce resources", people will vote for whoever promises to supply _them_ with these scarce resources. Libertarians, on the other hand, are concerned with people holding on to their _already existing_ resources, and their ability to maximize the use and utility of these resources. This is a much less attractive proposition on the campaign trail, although in the "real world", people _have_ to maximize the use of their own resources, hence the growth of the "Libertarian as a social movement" ideal, as opposed to a political movement.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UyzKKF7-WmE



> *Ready for Rand?
> 
> Americans hate Rand Paul’s libertarianism. They just don’t know it yet.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An astute analysis of why Libertarianism isn't an attractive _political_ movement. Since Politics is (as defined in organizational theory) "a means of allocating scarce resources", people will vote for whoever promises to supply _them_ with these scarce resources. Libertarians, on the other hand, are concerned with people holding on to their _already existing_ resources, and their ability to maximize the use and utility of these resources. This is a much less attractive proposition on the campaign trail, although in the "real world", people _have_ to maximize the use of their own resources, hence the growth of the "Libertarian as a social movement" ideal, as opposed to a political movement.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UyzKKF7-WmE




Very true.

I do not identify as a libertarian, but I am, like Rand Paul, an absolute free trader because my reading of history is that free trade always and everywhere meets the _utilitarian_ test of doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

I believe in much, much smaller and less _intrusive_ government. If I was prime minister for a day this list would, at the end of that day, be only ⅓ to ½ its current length and the civil service would be concomitantly smaller.

I believe in four absolutely fundamental, nonnegotiable rights ~ I assert that we have the *right*, indeed the duty, to rise up in violent revolution if the government, our government, interferes with _life_, _liberty_ and _property_, as defined by John Locke, in 17th century England, and _privacy_ as defined, late in the 19th century, by Warren and Brandeis in the USA.

But I believe also in a well regulated society, in "peace, order and good government," and I understand, accept and support government, in its proper sphere.

I accept that no one agrees with me and I understand that I will be burdened with _fat_, inefficient, economically illiterate governments that, now and again, do the right things, albeit too often for the wrong reasons ... because everyone gets to vote.


Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2014)

Looking up the list of Eastern Prime Ministers I came across this organization.

Liberal International Manifesto

Never heard of them before.  And I am suspicious of any outfit that adds democratic and international to their vocabulary.

Having said that I can agree with most of the early clauses of this manifesto.  It is the later stuff where words like reactionary and government responsibility show up that I get leary.



> Declaration of Brussels - 16th June 1946
> 
> We the Delegates of the under-mentioned parties, namely:
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Mar 2014)

I have opposed political views and agree with that manifesto. 

Slight problem with the free trade thing as I've seen some cancer villages overseas. Environmental costs need to be factored into trade. Things like workers with no protective equipment or health insurance working with heavy metals that they dump into the river afterwards. Liberty to exploit others is not something I want. I want to compete on a level playing field. I actually liked working in a factory decades ago when we still had some.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I believe also in a well regulated society, in "peace, order and good government," and I understand, accept and support government, in its proper sphere.
> 
> I accept that no one agrees with me and I understand that I will be burdened with _fat_, inefficient, economically illiterate governments that, now and again, do the right things, albeit too often for the wrong reasons ... because everyone gets to vote.



Well said. And I agree but there's only two of us. And broken clocks can be right twice per day!

A podcast I listen to frequently asked the question "if you know little to nothing about the issues or the candidates, should you vote?" or words to that effect.

The podcaster suggested that maybe a voter threshhold knowledge test should be administered prior to voting......


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2014)

Because of the corruption of language and the "dumbing down" of the spheres of discussion and debate (in many fora, making a statement outside of the Progressive ideology will result in your being shouted down with charges of "racism", _something_phobia, or being a Fascist with the intention of ending the discussion right there), the Libertarian philosophy is misunderstood and misrepresented.

Edward, while he may not identify as a Libertarian, expresses the main concepts of Libertarianism (specifically Minarchism i.e. the smallest possible government needed to do the job), and many other people on this board have similar principles in theory. Libertarianism is an offshoot of classical Liberalism (not what passes for "Liberal" these days). While Wikipedia should always be used with caveats, their introduction to the topic is a good summary:



> Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.[6] Although libertarians share a skepticism of governmental authority, they diverge on the extent and character of their opposition. Different schools of libertarianism offer a range of views concerning the legitimate functions of government, while others contend that the state should not exist at all. For instance, minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, while anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12] While some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others wish to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism).[13][14][15][16]
> 
> In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[17] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[18] In the United States, the term libertarianism is often used as a synonym for combined economic and cultural liberalism while outside that country there is a strong tendency to associate libertarianism with anarchism.



The United States actually operated as a Libertarian nation in the past, in the book "Democracy in America", Alexis de Tocqueville characterized the United States as "a nation of associations", and this also falls in with the classical liberal position of life being made possible by the action of "the Little Platoons" as articulated by Edmund Burke. Modern society has displaced the "Little Platoons" of church congregations, rotary clubs, civic leagues and town halls with a massive bureaucracy and overwhelming State, and in many societies which never developed the Little Platoons (beyond tribal and clan associations) would not be able to transition to a minarchist nation-state should the State collapse or be overthrown.

The societies and nations of the Anglosphere do have a history and ongoing association with "Little Platoons" (although much weakened these days), which explains the rise of Libertarianism as a Social movement; *we* have a model to fall back on as the Progressive project unwinds and collapses.


----------



## Nemo888 (24 Mar 2014)

They are not doing too good lately. One of the best metrics to judge a political system is the level of coercion they need to control their citizens.  





A very large portion of this is from the war on drugs.


----------



## Griffon (24 Mar 2014)

> They are not doing too good lately. One of the best metrics to judge a political system is the level of coercion they need to control their citizens.
> 
> A very large portion of this is from the war on drugs.



By my math, with an approximate U.S. population of 350 million, there are 2.6 million inmates.  Your second statistic shows a total of ~100,000 federal inmates due to drug charges, that's hardly a "very large portion".

You are tying inmate population to government coercion in the United States, based on what?  When you promote the needs of the individual over the needs of society, many people just take it too far and neglect the rights of others in the pursuit of their own goals.  They break the law, and they go to jail.  Societies that meet the needs of individuals through the collective efforts of their social groups, such as seen in Japanese culture, can actually reduce the number of individuals breaking the law.  It is ingrained that personal liberties do not take priority over the rights and needs of others.

I am also not too sure what your point is with respect to the war on drugs statistic.  Are you suggesting that illicit drugs be legalized?  I could only imagine the anarchy that would ensue if heroin, crystal meth, cocaine, bath salts, and the like were legal.  Illicit drugs have absolutely no intrinsic value to society, have no benefit to the users, drastically impact individuals' health and behaviour, and are a drag on the health system.  For these reasons I absolutely agree with the criminalization of hard drugs.  Turning a blind eye to the problem doesn't solve it, it only promotes it.

I wholeheartedly support individual rights and freedoms, but only to the extent that they do not impose on the rights and freedoms of others.  The government tries its best, in my opinion, to keep individual liberties in mind when creating the laws of the land.  There needs to be a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of others, and it is when the rights of others are violated that new laws are created.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2014)

Much of what you say is true, Griffon, but not quite in the way you think. In Japanese and some Asian cultures, the basic building block of society is the family rather than the individual, and cooperation and deference is (or at least was) a result of cultural factors and ingrained into people with their mother's milk. Not to say there is anything wrong with this, but cultural factors are very strong in understanding the "how" and "why" people behave the way they do. As Edward often points out, China is a _Conservative_ culture, so the appeal of Libertarianism as a political philosophy will be rather limited there.

Nemo is of course avoiding the real arguments as developed upthread. Coercion against the citizenry takes many forms, and the most obvious one these days is attempts to limit the unfettered use of property through high levels of taxation and regulatory interference, followed by attacks against free speech. Canada at least has made a small reversal in eliminating the notorious "Section 13" in legislation involving "Human Rights Commissions", but notice it is a _State_ institution (Human Rights Commission) that is used to attack and censor free speech. The growth of ubiquitous State surveillance such as exposed by Edward Snowdon should also be of great concern, since this data is collected and stored without warrant or suspicion of wrongdoing, and once in the hands of the State, can be manipulated or used for any purpose (consider that in "small world theory" AKA "six degrees of separation" you can be meaningfully linked to almost _anyone_ in just a few series of steps).

There should be consequences to actions, so I do support the idea of drug laws. My concern is the level of "proportionality", to my mind, many of the milder forms of recreational drugs can and should be treated like tobacco or alcohol, with punishments linked to misuse (much like drunk driving charges).


----------



## Griffon (24 Mar 2014)

I wasn't trying to get too much in depth as to why the Japanese society is the way it is, but you've definitely hit the nail on the head.  My point was just to show that a correlation could be made between their culture and the number of inmates.  Selfish motivations such as greed can lead individuals to crime to meet their goals, landing them in prison, but there is nothing criminal about finding happiness in one's family life.

As for the drug problem, it's obviously not an easy problem to solve.  I can see substances like marijuana being legalized and regulated just as tobacco or alcohol, and maybe even MDMA, but that's about as far as I would entertain it.  I am not that that well educated on the strategies that have been used to try to curb the drug trade in the last 40 years, and so would not presume to know what needs to be done to solve the problem, but I don't think the penalties for the manufacturers and traffickers are extreme.  As for the end users, arguments are made that these individuals just need to be rehabilitated, but that isn't always true.  Rehabilitation requires in intrinsic motivation on the part of the addict to be effective, otherwise regression to drug-use is almost inevitable.  The government is trying to curb drug abuse through stiffer penalties due to, I believe, frustration from the lack of effectiveness in education and other deterrence efforts along with relatively high rates of relapse, and are probably trying to have stiffer penalties as a further deterrent.  I don't think this approach is very effective as no-one plans to be caught, and addictive behaviour is rarely controlled through external controls...

What's the solution? I don't know.  I do know there isn't a single solution that will work for everyone: people are different, their motivations are different, and different techniques will be required to reach all of them.  I think it's a pipe dream to make it all go away though, drugs have been in society throughout the entirety of recorded history, we're just making stronger stuff now.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Mar 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> They are not doing too good lately. One of the best metrics to judge a political system is the level of coercion they need to control their citizens.



Enacting laws for the good order of society can hardly be termed coercion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2014)

Anything that can't be universally and continuously enforced shouldn't be outlawed.  Otherwise, law becomes merely a pretext for abusive selective enforcement.  Most drug use and possession laws are, as a practical matter, unenforceable.  The result is that protected and privileged members of society can openly flaunt the law (and declare having done so), while unprotected and unprivileged members are harassed and lose chunks of their lives to due process.


----------



## Hisoyaki (25 Mar 2014)

Because we as a society have failed to enforce our drug laws does not mean that they are unenforceable. 

If difficulty of enforcement is the primary criterion for the viability of a law, then we might as well forget about enforcing laws on murder or robbery.  

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay#start-of-comments



			
				Michael Teo said:
			
		

> Drug abuse blights modern societies. That is why many governments are focused on tackling addiction, preventing drug-related crimes and ultimately protecting their populations. Singapore's tough stand and use of strict laws and stiff penalties against those involved in the drug trade, including capital punishment, have sometimes come under criticism.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2014)

A look at libertarian arguments for and against mandatory vaccination. This is interesting since there is a claim of "public good", and at least intuitively we feel that being protected against infectious disease is a good thing. Certainly, historical evidence from times when public health was non existent makes a strong case that here is one of those places where the economies of scale inherent in State run projects outweighs the negative impacts...or does it? In multiple parts:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory/print

Part 1


> Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?
> Matt Welch, Ronald Bailey, Jeffrey A. Singer & Sandy Reider|Mar. 25, 2014 7:00 am
> 
> SyringeZaldy Img Foter.com CC BYFew issues divide libertarians so emphatically as government-mandated vaccinations against communicable diseases, as reason discovered after including anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy in our "45 Enemies of Freedom" list (August/September 2013). That selection brought forth a deluge of mail, such as this succinct riposte from reader Christopher Kent: "Freedom doesn't get much more personal than the right of individuals to choose what is put into their bodies, and to accept or reject medical procedures."
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2014)

Part 2

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory/print



> Refusing Vaccination Puts Others at Risk
> Ronald Bailey
> 
> Millions of Americans believe it is perfectly all right to put other people at risk of death and misery. These people are your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens who refuse to have themselves or their children vaccinated against preventable infectious diseases.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2014)

Part 3

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory/print



> The Science Is Not Settled
> Sandy Reider
> 
> As a practicing primary care physician for the last 43 years, and as a parent since 1981, I have followed the evolution of vaccination policy and science with interest, and not a little dismay.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2014)

I'm inclined to agree that there ought to be very strict limits on what the state (society at large) can force us to do. Some things, like driving on one or the other side of the road, are part of the overall price we pay in _'liberty'_ (very, very broadly defined) for _civilization_ (safety, community, etc).

Maybe the science is not 100% settled, is the 'science' of, say, water purification 100% 'settled?' Or do we, generally, accept a broad, general consensus as _enough_?

Let's suppose we agree that parents, for a whole host of reasons may decide not to vaccinate children ... Can we, society at large, not decide, then, that those children ought to wear patches on their shirts and jackets so that our children can avoid contact, or that they ought or wait in separate areas in the bus stations and airports, and perhaps, drink at separate water fountains? Just asking ...


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Mar 2014)

There is also the notion that trying to control and surpress diseases that would other wise would kill/maim us, ultimately has two negative attributes.

1) We become weaker as a species, as Darwin's theory no longer is applicable, and the weak and feeble increase a dilute the gene pool. 
2) In an ironic twist, we accelerate Darwin's theory in our foe, and we end up creating super bugs.

I like the idea of requiring people who opt out, to sign waivers acknowledging the risk they are taking, and the risk they pose to others.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2014)

If the state is going to support the greater good (reducing the broad, general risk of disease) by demanding the individual assume a personal risk (being one of those for whom the medication has an unplanned, adverse reaction) should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?

Just asking.

Knives cut two ways.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the state is going to support the greater good (reducing the broad, general risk of disease) by demanding the individual assume a personal risk (being one of those for whom the medication has an unplanned, adverse reaction) should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> Knives cut two ways.




That would, I think, be the proper _utilitarian_ response.






Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), founder of modern _utilitarianism_.


The "greatest good for the greatest number" may require a few to take risks to safeguard the many, but that few should be indemnified by the many.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the state is going to support the greater good (reducing the broad, general risk of disease) by demanding the individual assume a personal risk (being one of those for whom the medication has an unplanned, adverse reaction) should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> Knives cut two ways.



No.   The risk present to the poplulation as whole is larger and more threatening for people who don't vaccinate.  It's also an incentive for people to actually to think critically about a choice that may end up effecting plenty of other people, and not just buy into the last viral "science" going around on facebook, without doing some research of their own.


----------



## Griffon (25 Mar 2014)

> Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), founder of modern utilitarianism.



He was a genius...and a little crazy...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> He was a genius...and a little crazy...



Being crazy doesn't stop you being right.

Facebook aside .... the state does cause harm even as it wishes to do good.  Just as doctors and mechanics do.  I don't see this as an issue of appealing to one's better angels.   Keep in mind that the particular question here is often one of parents and the state acting in loco parentis trying to decide whether or not the parents' child is going to bear the risk of protecting the population at large.  The child may be one of the many that probability dictates will benefit from the medication.  On the other hand the child may be one of the others that probability equally dictates will be adversely affected.

The ratio of risk benefit ranges polio and small pox to thalidomide.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The ratio of risk benefit ranges polio and small pox to *thalidomide*.



If you are going to invoke the dangers of vaccines, you should probably use an actual vaccine.  Thalidomide was never a vaccine, and no one was forced to use it.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Part 3
> http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory/print


The first two articles are bearable but the third by Sandy Schneider is bullshit. She states pertussis fatalities had already started dropping but fails to mention it was because of antibiotics. She fails to mention that the average measles hospital admission costs over 10,000$. Or that whooping cough is extremely deadly to infants too young to be vaccinated(1 in 200 dead). Fatalities were dropping but not infection rates. Two decades in an iron lung is technically not a polio fatality.

These are the death rates prior to vaccines for the listed diseases and have not been adjusted for other advances in medical care;
Measles, 1 in 500
Whooping cough in infants, 1 in 200
Polio, 3 in 100 for children, 1 in 5 for adults
Meningitis 1 in 10

Serious side effects from vaccines were 7.2 per 1,000,000 in 2012 in Ontario. Deaths are steady at zero.
The 46 page annual report on vaccine safety is here.
http://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/Annual_Report_Vaccine_Safety_Ontario_2012.pdf

Vaccines are a social contract. Every healthy person should vaccinate. But angry moms with no science background being anti vaccine has been a problem for longer than most of us think,...





When Chinese Emperor Fu-lin died of smallpox, his third son became Emperor K’ang. Having already survived a case of smallpox before he became Emperor, he eventually supported inoculation and wrote about it in a letter to his descendants:

    “The method of inoculation having been brought to light during my reign, I had it used upon you, my sons and daughters, and my descendants, and you all passed through the smallpox in the happiest possible manner…. In the beginning, when I had it tested on one or two people_, some old women taxed me with extravagance, and spoke very strongly against inoculation_. The courage which I summoned up to insist on its practice has saved the lives and health of millions of men. This is an extremely important thing, of which I am very proud.”

That was in 1661, 224 years before Pastuer "invented" vaccination. It was the first public vaccination order that I can find. Chinese  doctors used dried smallpox exudate and blew it up the noses of subjects with a bamboo or silver tube since roughly 1000AD. This idea was taken from the Indian worshipers of the Goddess of Smallpox Shitala Devi by Chinese traders. For millennia ritual priests of Shitala would dry the exudate for a year and then put the exudate under the skin of devotees with long needles. Vaccination may be well over 2000 years old.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2014)

>If difficulty of enforcement is the primary criterion for the viability of a law, then we might as well forget about enforcing laws on murder or robbery.  

I'd guess roughly 75% of the population in dorms were occasionally using marijuana during my student days.  Do you think it feasible or desirable to treat 75% of the population - or some similar fraction, depending on how usage varies between socioeconomic strata - as criminals?  Or are you satisfied with just sticking it to the least well off - after all, they have less to lose and are filthy and unsightly to boot.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2014)

>should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?
...
>>No.   The risk present to the poplulation as whole is larger and more threatening for people who don't vaccinate.

Right.  So we'll put up the cost of treating some rare diseases at $500K per annum per person and fund cosmetic surgery for gender-confused people, but if we vaccinate someone against his will and he dies, tough sh!t.

Occasionally I find it very difficult to not despise statists.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Mar 2014)

We don't vaccinate anyone against their will, unless you are in the Army >
I can't remember a single death from vaccination. The occasional rare case of encephalopathy, but most of the time they were already immunocompromised and probably should have taken an exemption. Healthy people are fine, but hell I've seen anaphalxis from Benadryl. There is no always in medicine.

Quebec does have vaccine injury compensation BTW.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?
> ...
> >>No.   The risk present to the poplulation as whole is larger and more threatening for people who don't vaccinate.
> 
> ...



What the hell are you talking about?  Occasionally I find it very difficult to not despise people who insert random and irrelevant stuff into an argument, because they can't think of a decent and on point retort.


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Mar 2014)

Vaccines are not mandatory. Seatbelts are mandatory and  they injure and kill  people every year in Ontario. 25% of deaths of children ages 1-9 are from unintentional injuries PRIMARILY MVA's.(ZERO fatalities from vaccination) Those kids were all wearing SEATBELTS! Why is the province not tracking seatbelt deaths in our children OMG CONSPIRACY! I prefer my kids to develop natural immunity to MVA's.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Mar 2014)

>What the hell are you talking about?  Occasionally I find it very difficult to not despise people who insert random and irrelevant stuff into an argument, because they can't think of a decent and on point retort. 

So your answer to the question you quoted ("should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?") is not, in fact, "No"?


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What the hell are you talking about?  Occasionally I find it very difficult to not despise people who insert random and irrelevant stuff into an argument, because they can't think of a decent and on point retort.
> 
> So your answer to the question you quoted ("should the state have to sign an insurance offering to hold safe the individual, their heirs and successors, from any harm resulting from taking this state imposed medication?") is not, in fact, "No"?



You know precisely what I was referring to, $500k treatments and gender reassignment surgery, since that has nothing to do with this conversation.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Mar 2014)

I believe the reference was with regards to how money in the health budget should be allocated.

Brad apparently believes that the cost of holding safe the individual from the actions of the state is more important than some of the other ways in which the health budget could be spent.

In broad, I agree with him.

The principle is no different than the state appropriating (expropriating) lands for a new hospital and paying the landowners "fair market value" for their lands.   Certainly the state can secure the lands without compensation or consideration  but it should not.  Equally the state can compel the individual with without compensation or consideration but it should not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2014)

........and the other side of the coin...............

When she says, toward the end, "someone has to be held accountable, someone has to pay" it says it all about today's WELFARE generation.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RBqjZ0KZCa0?showinfo=0&rel=0&hd=0

This is the reason we need the government to get out of our pockets, so they stop taking money for people, and programs, like this.

And yes we have this type in Canada also, as well as the social programs that got them there. My hard work should not be supporting this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Mar 2014)

>since that has nothing to do with this conversation. 

When I look at policies, I evaluate them as thresholds.  Basically: if we do X, then we should also do Y.  I disapprove of a scattered or inconsistent approach in which public benefits are scattered around according to whatever is fashionable or PC.  My point is that it is repugnant to impose a health-related liability (risk) on someone - albeit very small - while granting health-related entitlements to others for - in some cases - trivial needs.  (A life-saving treatment is not a trivial need, but I believe the cost establishes a new upper bound on the minimum amount any person should be able to claim for life-extending treatments.  There should be no question of "Disease A?  You're covered.  Disease B?  Sorry, you're SOL.")


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >since that has nothing to do with this conversation.
> 
> When I look at policies, I evaluate them as thresholds.  Basically: if we do X, then we should also do Y.  I disapprove of a scattered or inconsistent approach in which public benefits are scattered around according to whatever is fashionable or PC.  My point is that it is repugnant to impose a health-related liability (risk) on someone - albeit very small - while granting health-related entitlements to others for - in some cases - trivial needs.  (A life-saving treatment is not a trivial need, but I believe the cost establishes a new upper bound on the minimum amount any person should be able to claim for life-extending treatments.  There should be no question of "Disease A?  You're covered.  Disease B?  Sorry, you're SOL.")




While I agree, broadly, with you, Brad, (See my comment: "The "greatest good for the greatest number" may require a few to take risks to safeguard the many, but that few should be indemnified by the many.") it seems to me that the only economically sane way to run a _public_, sole payer, health care system, like the ones we have in Canada, is to draw lines somewhere so that Diseases/Conditions A to _xxx_ are covered but Diseases/Conditions _xxy_ and beyond are not. Some things should be covered because they are a _normal_ part of living, some should be covered, despite being quite rare (abnormal), because we should try to meet Tommy Douglas' aim of not burdening people with catastrophic health care costs. But some things ought not be covered because they are a matter of choice, not circumstance. I am conscious of the fact that cosmetic surgery for A is matter of choice while cosmetic surgery for B is a necessity but both are "cosmetic" ~ lines can be hard to draw.






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                               A                                            B
                                                                                                         Both are "cosmetic" surgery


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2014)

By identifying a distinction between necessity and convenience, I think you have established how easy it is to draw a line.  I concede they are ends of a spectrum, but as with most public policy issues we have to rely on the ability of people to be reasonable, subject to the constraints of revenues.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2014)

A fellow Correctional officer is seeking nomination for the Conservative Party of Manitoba for the next election. 

He and I spoke at some length of what government should be taking care of, in very broad terms:

Public Safety - police, fire, ambulance and military
Health Care 
Infrastructure
Education

While I realize this is very general I think it is a good start point.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Best of luck to your friend

As a libertarian, though, only point 1 (Public saftey) is an essential government function as far as I'm concerned.

Health care, infrastructure and education are all services which were delivered (and delivered well) by the private sector in the past, and could use a jolt of private sector competition to be revitalized and modernized today.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Best of luck to your friend
> 
> As a libertarian, though, only point 1 (Public saftey) is an essential government function as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Health care, infrastructure and education are all services which were delivered (and delivered well) by the private sector in the past, and could use a jolt of private sector competition to be revitalized and modernized today.




In fact _public safety_ and _security_ are only recently in the full _public_ (state) domain. For very long periods, in many (most?) societies the notion of the state having a monopoly on the use of force and a duty to keep people safe is very recent, indeed. Currency - the provision of a stable, useful money supply - seems, to me, to be one of the few areas in which the _state_ (often the mini-state or _statelet_ or principality or shire) has had a necessary and sometimes exclusive role.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Public saftey being a public "good" is indeed recent (Treaty of Westphalia, in fact), pre modern states were often characterized by private armies in the hands of feudal lords or their equivalents, and even personal retainers in the manner of Mafia enforcers in cities.

Of course, the ability to resist the demands of the Sovereign is what made premodern States so inefficient and often chaotic. Many modern "States" today still have militias, personal retainers and other armed actors who can defy the central government, with results that rival the efficiency of European polities of the 1400's...


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Apr 2014)

Art grants.  Goodness, don't forget the art grants.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2014)

A long article about the potential for Libertariansim and populism to be joined in the United States. I am not convinced, particularly since modern politics is highly tuned to stroke the base emotions of greed and envy amongst the voters (and politics is, after all, a means of allocating resources). Since Libertarians typically want you to keep what is yours but do not promise to use government power to "give" you goods and services paid out of other people's resources, their message isn't resonant with most voters.

OTOH, as governments and institutions evolve towards the Fascist Corporate State model, and political parties no longer have the answers to the issues that beset us, people will look to new models, structures and institutions which do provide shelter and solutions (Libertariansim as a social movement).

Part 1

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/01/the-case-for-libertarian-populism-n1852602



> The Case for Libertarian Populism
> Conn Carroll | Jul 01, 2014
> Conn Carroll
> Share on Facebook 219 291 SHARES
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2014)

Part 2

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/01/the-case-for-libertarian-populism-n1852602



> CUTTING TAXES FOR THE RICH ISN’T ENOUGH
> But if Americans are so skeptical about the size and scope of the current federal government, and they want to see it scaled back, then why did they re-elect Obama in 2012?
> 
> Because they don’t believe the current Republican Party cares about them.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2014)

Part 3

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/01/the-case-for-libertarian-populism-n1852602



> END THE DRUG WAR
> Conservatives know that the best weapon any community has against poverty is the millenniums-old institution of marriage. Unfortunately in far too many communities today, marriage has all but disappeared.
> 
> According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 72 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock. And it is not because black men do not want to be fathers. They most certainly do. The CDC reports that when black men do live in the same home as their children, they are just as involved in their children’s lives as other fathers, if not more.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jul 2014)

Part 4

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/01/the-case-for-libertarian-populism-n1852602



> END SECURITY THEATER
> If you’ve ever seen an 85-year-old grandmother forced out of her wheelchair for a pat down, or forced your own crying 3-year-old to put their beloved stuffed animal through an X-ray machine, then you already know that there is perhaps no better example of Big Government’s wasteful, intrusive, and stupid bloat than the Transportation Security Administration.
> 
> And the man who created the TSA agrees.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2014)

On reflection I decided this is the most appropriate venue for this article, since it shows how many of the traditional political alignments are being crosscut by emerging institutions, business and technology. Canada should be facing similar issues as business like Uber and Lyft penetrate the Canadian market, or upstart companies like Tesla or Amazon.ca bypass traditional market channels (Tesla is under injunctions in several US States because they do not sell their cars through dealerships, something car dealers are fighting against in their State Legislatures).

This fits my thesis of Libertarianism as a Social Movement, rather than a political movement. As a BTY, I am working with some friends to see how we can incorporate these issues into London's upcoming municipal election and make candidates speak to these issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/07/grover-norquist-thinks-republicans-can-ride-uber-to-power-in-urban-areas-thats-probably-a-stretch/



> *Grover Norquist thinks Republicans can ride Uber to power in urban areas. That’s probably a stretch.*
> 
> By Emily Badger July 7
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2014)

Throughout organized history, those who have made it and have control over an industry try very hard to prevent others from taking a piece of that pie and will defend/attack any threat. Sometimes that response is driven by a duty for those that work for them, other times it's to guard their own rice bowel, no matter how big.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2014)

There are some good arguments being made over regulating companies such as Uber and Lyft from the public safety and Tax revenue side of the equation. And it's not just to the advantage of the taxi drivers, but also the drivers who sign up with Uber  or Lyft that benefit from the regulations.

There was a story on the local news here about a driver for one of the companies who was told specifically by a company rep that he would be covered by a supplemental policy that the company offers when he is providing services for that company. When he found himself in need of that insurance, he was told that this was not the case, and that his own insurance would cover him. But because he was using his vehicle for commercial purposes, his own insurer denied coverage as he did not have commercial insurance or a commercial chauffeur's license. 

But having regulations where drivers and vehicles have to meet minimum standards for equipment, insurance coverage, and qualifications only makes sense.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2014)

>But having regulations ... only makes sense.

That's the thin edge of every wedge currently holding things up.  "A" story, or even a handful of stories, should not be a trigger for nationwide hand-wringing and legislation.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But having regulations ... only makes sense.
> 
> That's the thin edge of every wedge currently holding things up.  "A" story, or even a handful of stories, should not be a trigger for nationwide hand-wringing and legislation.



No one is really looking at it from the aspect of the driver's protection. The majority of jurisdictions here are issuing cease and desist orders based on non-conformance to taxi regulations and / or non payment of taxes. I just thought that this was an interesting spin on it from another angle.

And to be clear, it is the ride sharing service such as Uber-X that is being challenged. Uber's original service where you have dedicated drivers in upscale vehicles is not being subjected to the same level of attention, and have been more accepted.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2014)

The bottom line is that it's eating into "guild" turf; any rationalization to retain the crony capitalist structure will be sought by those whose interests lie with the "guild".

I read an observation/hypothesis/speculation recently to the effect that the mean time between some value-enhancing innovation and its regulatory capture and strangulation seems to be decreasing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I read an observation/hypothesis/speculation recently to the effect that the mean time between some value-enhancing innovation and its regulatory capture and strangulation seems to be decreasing.



"Who is John Galt?"


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2014)

Crony capitalism has been around for a long time, and the growth of parasitic bureaucracies is also a long standing issue. It should be no surprise that the States which limited crony capitalism and bureaucracies in the 1600's did much better than those that didn't...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/fighting-parasitic-bureaucracies-and-crony-capitalism/article/2551305?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> *Fighting parasitic bureaucracies and crony capitalism*
> BY MICHAEL BARONE | JULY 27, 2014 | 6:00 PM
> 
> “Pare down the parasitic fringe” of government. “Favor a gospel of work” instead of aristocratic entitlement. “Rationalize finance” and “reverse the Parkinson’s law of bureaucracy.”
> ...



Conditions are becoming unbearable to more and more people, and they are looking for an "out". Most people do not see a solution in politics or the political class, hence "Libertarianism as a social movement" in response.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2014)

Niall Ferguson has a very interesting article in "The American Interest" on the challenge of Networks to the current Hierarchies that define today's power structures. As the existing hierarchies and institutions are less and less able to adapt to the changing economic, demographic and technological landscapes, they will eventually be supplemented and replaced by new organizations and institutions which can provide functionality in these new environments (Libertarianism as a social movement). As you can expect, the existing hierarchies provide a huge payoff for existing elites, and they will fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their positions of privilege and power:

Part 1

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/09/networks-and-hierarchies/



> *Networks and Hierarchies*
> 
> By Niall Ferguson
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2014)

Part 2



> The triumph of hierarchy over networks was symbolized by the complete failure of the Second International of socialist parties to prevent the World War. When the leaders of European socialism met in Brussels at the end of July 1914, they could do little more than admit their own impotence. What the Viennese satirist Karl Kraus called the alliance of “thrones and telephones” had marched the young men of Europe off to Armageddon. Those who thought the war would not last long underestimated the hierarchical state’s ability to sustain industrialized slaughter.
> 
> The mid 20th century was the zenith of hierarchy. Although World War I ended with the collapse of no fewer than four of the great dynastic empires—the Romanov, Habsburg, Hohenzollern, and Ottoman—they were replaced with astonishing swiftness by new and stronger states based on the normative paradigm of the nation-state, the ethno-linguistically defined anti-imperium.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2014)

A few riffs on the Libertarian theme. I'm not too sure that Libertarian populism is the term I would use, but there are many different ways to skin the cat:

Breaking the Banks and Government with Libertarian Populism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0v15DmtLw0&feature=youtu.be

Glenn Reynolds interviews Conn Carol

and more on how Libertarianism as a Social Movement is evolving with changes in technology:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/large-government-out-of-place-in-a-society-based-on-small-technology/article/2553178



> *Large government out of place in a society based on small technology*
> BY MICHAEL BARONE | SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 | 5:00 AM
> TOPICS: BARACK OBAMA LABOR HISTORY TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT REGULATION SMARTPHONES
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2014)

Jesus was a Libertarian as well:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

An interesting contrafactual from a former Libertarian. As a small "l" libertarian I agree with some of his points, but am not entirely satisfied with his answer. How libertarians answer these questions is, however, going to be telling, for if they cannot or will not, then they nwill continue to be marginalized in the future:

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/07/politics/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/



> *Why I’m No Longer a Libertarian*
> Wed, May 7 - 11:00 am EST | 2 years ago by John C. Wright Comments: 110
> The Wright Perspective
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2016)

Charles Koch is, of course, a libertarian, so his views on Bernie Sanders are quite authentic. From Instapundit, with the commentary:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227133/



> EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY: Charles Koch has an oped in the Washington Post, “This is the One Issue Where Bernie Sanders is Right.”
> 
> As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates. I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy. . . .
> 
> ...



Full OP ED here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

The birth of Libertarianism as a Social Movement is (like many such movements) completely unplanned and a result of a totally different project (ironically from the "Left"). The availability of studio quality equipment freed people with artistic inclinations (of whatever political stripe) from the "gatekeepers", and the Internet supplied the supercharging. You will note the counter reaction of the Progressive Left has been to attempt to curtail freedom of the Internet and take over social media (for example the manipulation of FaceBook feeds in the recent past and the banning, shadowbanning and other shenanigans of Twitter against identified conservatives as the latest example)

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229059/



> *THE RISE AND FALL OF ZIGGY STARDUST AND THE VIDEOFREEX FROM MARS.*
> 
> We now take for granted YouTube’s ability to birth DIY performers who eventually acquire large followings and of course, video cameras built into smart phones and tablets have become ubiquitous. But just as DARPA was crafting the notion of an interconnected network of computers in the late 1960s, portable DIY video technology was also being birthed during that period, as authors Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad write near the beginning of their 1985 book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live. Without Sony’s invention, “It’s possible that the underground [comedy movement, which SNL creator Lorne Michaels tapped into for his first stars and writers] might have bypassed television altogether had it not been for the Sony Corporation’s introduction in the late 1960s of portable video cameras and recorders that were affordable by the public at large:”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2016)

An interview with perhaps the highest profile Libertarian candidate of all; Garry Johnson, Libertarian candidate for the President of the United States. The video is quite illuminating, although I could have done without questions like "What is your favourite car" or "do you believe in aliens". For people who continue to spout nonsensical disinformation about Libertarianism, this is a quick, good "go to" place to get some real Libertarian POV. IF you like what you hear, then there are plenty of other places for serious research and discovery:

https://pjmedia.com/video/meet-the-candidate-hilary-and-donald-are-afraid-to-debate/?singlepage=true



> Meet the Candidate Hillary and Donald Are Afraid to Debate...
> BY STEPHEN KRUISER APRIL 5, 2016 CHAT 56 COMMENTS
> 
> Gary Johnson is polling in the double digits-- a first for a Libertarian candidate! He sits down with Stephen Kruiser to discuss his chances, and how there is a viable possibility he might wind up on the general election debate stage.
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI2XR8JxJY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFtIJS2p0Vo


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2016)

Sadly, yes. The best that small "l" libertarians can ope for and work towards is shrinking the scale and scope of the State, but the positive incentives to support an expanded State seem insurmountable (until the positive feedback leads to a collapse, which is also not a recipe for Libertarianism):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437967/libertarians-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-nationalism-socialism



> *How’s that ‘libertarian moment’ working out?*
> Las Vegas —
> 
> Yeah, I told you so. As the presidential campaign season kicked off, many of my friends and colleagues insisted that the United States was having a “libertarian moment.” I thought otherwise, and argued (in Politico) that the admirable Senator Rand Paul, the closest thing to an out-and-out libertarian with any currency in mainstream political circles, would have a hard time seeking the Republican nomination not in spite of his libertarianism but because of it. The idea that Americans are closet libertarians who desire a regime of economic liberalism and a hands-off approach to social questions is not supported by the evidence.
> ...


----------

