Defining libertarianism
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
05-12-2006 18:55
Here's a few short descriptions to give an basic idea of what libertarianism means. From: someone "In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence -- legal or illegal -- to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today." Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education, 1955
From: someone "We the members of the Libertarian Party challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. ..." from the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles, 1972 From: someone "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." L. Neil Smith, science fiction writer, 1987 From: someone Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).
Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.
Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.
Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people. - libertarianism.com Well, I guess they aren't that short when you start adding them up. That's enough for now.
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard, Robin, and Ryan
-
|
Ralph Doctorow
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2005
Posts: 560
|
This is not an attack, it's a real question
05-12-2006 21:35
What position would a true Libertarian take on something like smoking in a public place? On one hand, prohibiting smoking infringes on the liberty of the smoker, on the other hand, allowing smoking infringes on the liberty of the other people there to breath clean air. This can be extended to other more profound pollution issues as well as things like zoning.
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
05-13-2006 11:11
What dc you mean by "public place'?
My answer would be property owners get to set the rules on their own property.
Some places would allow smoking and some wouldn't.
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard, Robin, and Ryan
-
|
Rhinehold Nordberg
Registered User
Join date: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 8
|
05-21-2006 20:51
It depends on what is defined as a public space.
If it is a private business, the decision should be left up to the business owner. If people do not want to be around smoking and the owner allows it, he may find he is losing customers. If people don't mind being around smoking, either because they expect it in that business or the business owner has ensured that the air is filtered well enough that people don't notice it enough not to go, then he may get a boost to allow it.
It's when people are forced, by law, to be somewhere. That should only happen in a government building (which of course, as a libertarian I believe there should be few of) and in this case the government is within it's rights to deny smoking in those areas.
It all boils down to personal choice and I think that we can all decide on this through our choices of being somewhere or not, not through the use of force by the government in a square peg into a round hole method that they are fond of using.
|
Ralph Doctorow
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2005
Posts: 560
|
05-21-2006 21:16
Hmm, I guess I have some sympathy for that view, but how far does it go? As a restaurant owner, can I say the I won't seat Jews or Blacks or Women? If that's the deal, doesn't such a world have tribalism issues? If not, where does one draw the line at what the society via the government can impose? Ralph
|
Rhinehold Nordberg
Registered User
Join date: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 8
|
05-21-2006 21:31
I'm sorry, but we are not talking anarchy.
It is a guaranteed right from the constitution that no one will be treated differently based of race or gender so it's a non starter. This is proper federal law and supercedes any law that a municpality, town, city, county or state can enact.
|
Rhinehold Nordberg
Registered User
Join date: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 8
|
05-21-2006 21:36
As for the philosophy, I think that the basic human rights should be protected and is one of the only functions that a federal government should be involved in. With a limited focus, the federal government would have a much better ability to do the things it should be, protect our rights, protect the citizens from outside forces and regulate trade between the states.
|
Stan Pomeray
Starchy Sturgess
Join date: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 205
|
05-22-2006 02:54
From: Ralph Doctorow On one hand, prohibiting smoking infringes on the liberty of the smoker, on the other hand, allowing smoking infringes on the liberty of the other people there to breath clean air. If you consider a bar or pub, then nobody is forced to be a customer there. If smoking is permitted, and customers don't want to be exposed to it, they are free to go elsewhere. Conversely, if smoking is banned, and customers wish to smoke, THEY are free to go elsewhere. Ultimately, the decision should rest with the owner. Where it becomes more complicated is when you consider the people who work in such a place. Whilst it may be true that nobody is "forced" to work in a pub, it may also be the case that jobs are in short supply in a particular area, so either you take a job in a pub or the government cuts your unemployment benefit off. In that case, you may well be exposed to smoke against your wishes, in which case your liberty is being infringed. My preference would be to go for a law that offers two options: either the establishment is totally non-smoking, or the owner can opt to install physically segregated areas for smoking, with fume extraction, so that the staff do not have to come into contact with smoke. I've seen this done in several airport lounges and it works perfectly well. It also means that nobody's liberty is infringed.
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
05-22-2006 20:06
I'm a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, so some of us are talking anarchy here.
Libertarianism is based on individualism, the idea that individual's rights are important, and it is based on a rejection of collectivism, be it nationalist or racist or religious collectivism. If you have widespread collectivist bigotry and prejudice, you don't have a libertarian society, you have the world we have today, with people dividing themselves into different collectives based on race and religion and place of birth and citizenship in a nation state, forming governments and using tax suppported police forces and militaries to act out their various collectivist bigotries on each other.
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard, Robin, and Ryan
-
|
Milton Hayek
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
|
01-26-2007 21:47
Ralph Doctorow: "As a restaurant owner, can I say the I won't seat Jews or Blacks or Women?" Your implication is that government should force people not to engage in unreasonable discrimination in doing business with some people but declining to do business with others. No one complains about discrimination conventionally regarded as reasonable such as requiring men, but not women, to wear a tie. But once you accept the morality of the collective forbidding an individual to offer a contract to some people while abstaining from offering the same contract to others I reply in your own words: "Hmm, I guess I have some sympathy for that view, but how far does it go?" What if you want to sell your brother service at a discount or as a special concession let him bring a party of friends there after normal hours? Are you forced to offer these same considerations to others? If you brother is special what about your nephew? Your 1st cousin? Your 2nd? How far does it go before you cross the line? If they can force you to accept this kind of contract against your will then the principle is already gone, so what about others? Maybe they should insist you stock every item on your menu in a kosher version so as not to discriminate. Otherwise you are effectively offering a service to WASPS but not to Jews. Perhaps they should mandate that you serve different size portions for the same price so as not to discriminate against people with higher metabolisms or larger bodies. Perhaps they should insist that you stay open 24 hours so as not to discriminate against people with different work schedules. Once you scrap the simple principle that your property is yours to do with as you please and that no contract is binding unless both sides consent to it you open up a can of worms by giving to government the power to decide what contracts are permissible. What if they decide you are not ALLOWED to serve Jews, blacks, or women? The principle is the same. You may think that these examples are just too ridiculous and that government would never be that unreasonable. But I remind you that the Jim Crow laws segregating races on public transportation were FORCED on the railroads over their protests by governments that insisted they had the right to regulate private contract. So the answer is yes - you can refuse people who aren’t your cousins, or people with more than 6 toes, or people named Ralph, or people not named Ralph, or Jews, or blacks, or women, or any irrational or rational criteria you choose. I may not care for your decision but any contract that is not completely consensual of both sides is force, not freedom. Once compromised, no matter how noble the purpose for which it is compromised, you are on the slippery slope toward fascism. For deeply insightful discussion of these kinds of issues read Thomas Sowell’s MARKETS AND MINORITIES. http://www.amazon.com/Markets-Minorities-Sowell/dp/0465043984
|
Milton Hayek
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
|
01-26-2007 22:06
Rhinehold Nordberg: "I'm sorry, but we are not talking anarchy."
Mr. Doctorow’s question has nothing to do with anarchy and deserves either a cogent reply or none at all.
"It is a guaranteed right from the constitution that no one will be treated differently based of race or gender so it's a non starter. This is proper federal law and supercedes [sic] any law that a municpality [sic], town, city, county or state can enact."
Nonsense. Have you read the constitution? And besides he was not asking for legal advice but an explanation of libertarianism.
|
Learjeff Innis
musician & coder
Join date: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 817
|
01-27-2007 07:13
In SL, libertarianism makes excellent sense.
In RL, it's (IMHO) unethical and impractical for a democracy, because public schools are terribly important but they're against Libertarian principles.
|
Milton Hayek
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
|
01-27-2007 14:38
"public schools are terribly important but they're against Libertarian principles."
Oh, of course, the Public Indoctrination System works so well. Anyone not living under a rock must have seen the immense number of surveys that have shown such delights as the high percentage of high school seniors believing the government should prescreen newspaper stories to make sure that they are true; that almost none could name 5 American presidents; the incredible fraction of college freshmen in Miami who couldn’t find Miami on a map, etc., etc,, ad infinitum. And how the awesomely efficient public education establishment spends more money per student than in any other nation and by all standardized tests gets among the worst results, scoring behind such advanced countries as Turkey and Mexico. Oh yes, it works quite well. Wonderful to have all these superbly educated people electing such fine, upstanding, honest people to public office isn't it?
Food is pretty important too. Not as much so as producing compliant cannon fodder of course, but right up there near the top. We need to socialize agriculture too don’t you think? Think how much more effective it would be. LOL.
|
Aaron Edelweiss
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 115
|
01-27-2007 15:24
Couple of good questions here. Smoking was a good example, as was the racial issue in a restraunt. My own interpretation of Libertarianism is that smoking is your choice, as long as anyone not on your private property is not forced to inhale second hand smoke. IE, if you're just insde the edge of your property, but your neighbor is getting your fumes, then you're infringing on someone else's liberty, which you have no right to do. Libertarianism doesn't absolve you of consideration or responsibility. If you want to have a place to smoke, you have to create that place for yourself. This might seem like putting limits on liberty, and in a way it is, and the limit is simply that by exercising your own liberty, you can't infringe on someone elses. As for the question about what that would mean for a restaurant owner not seating people of races he doesn't like, perfectly acceptable. You can refuse anyone access to your own private property, for any reason. You can't harm them, as their bodies definitely are their's to do with as they choose, and off of your property have no more right than they do. I don't know where all of you are from, but the US is hypersensitive to race. It's not helping us overcome racism. Race isn't a good reason to bar someone from your property, but as a libertarian, on your own property, you don't need to justify blocking access. Before you judge too harshly on the above 2 examples, realize that Libertarianism is a form of idealism, in that the people who believe it will work, believe in the innate goodness of everyone. That's why when you ask questions like the two above, some (not all) Libertarians will stumble over the answer. True liberty, gives you the right to do bad things, and "no infringing on the liberties of others," only prevents some of the splash damage.
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
02-16-2007 14:36
From: Aaron Edelweiss Before you judge too harshly on the above 2 examples, realize that Libertarianism is a form of idealism, in that the people who believe it will work, believe in the innate goodness of everyone. It is not at all the case that libertarians believe in the innate goodness of everyone.
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard, Robin, and Ryan
-
|
Aaron Edelweiss
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 115
|
02-16-2007 15:12
That was an opinion, not a fact. I apologize if I stated it like fact  . So explain how the ideals of libertarianism can work if you assume there are people who will try to violate them on purpose (ie. in the real world). A bit of a pre-rebuttal before you do. Remember, enforcing the ideals is a paradox. If you make that exception, then you open up a loophole that will benefit the same people you're making the exception for.
|
SuezanneC Baskerville
Forums Rock!
Join date: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 14,229
|
02-24-2007 04:38
The thought of having a pointless discussion with a condescending know-it-all intent upon humiliating me in public for believing what I believe just doesn't do a thing for me.
I did not start this group with the intent of converting people to libertarianism. I started it to provide a means for SL users who are libertarians to find each other. You aren't a libertarian, that's fine by me.
I became a libertarian, or perhaps discovered that I was one, in 1971. Since then, I have seen no evidence nor heard any arguments to change my view that governments are bands of murderers, thieves, con men, and the like, supported by people for reasons that include being gullible, unable to think clearly, desirous of what others produce, eager to suppress those who differ from themselves, and in a state of denial in regards to the role that violence plays in the State's actions. Governments continue to tax people to make them pay for things they find morally repellent, they continue to draft, pay and train people to go murder people born subject to other states, they continue to imprison people for selling the wrong kind of drugs, engaging in consensual sex with people of the same sex, they take one person's property against their will and give it to another, they grant privelege and subsidy to an elite subset of the population at the expense of common businessmen and laborers, and so on and so on ad nauseum. Until such time as government activity is distinguished by being peaceful and honest instead of being distinguished by being the opposite of peaceful and honest, and this hypothetical peaceful and honest government has produced a world that is peaceful and just, where individuals get to do what they want with that which is rightfully there's, I will continue to disbelieve in statist utopianism.
Since you are intimately familiar with libertarian thought, perhaps you would entertain us with a Socratic dialog on the topic of libertarianism versus statism.
_____________________
-
So long to these forums, the vBulletin forums that used to be at forums.secondlife.com. I will miss them.
I can be found on the web by searching for "SuezanneC Baskerville", or go to
http://www.google.com/profiles/suezanne
-
http://lindenlab.tribe.net/ created on 11/19/03.
Members: Ben, Catherine, Colin, Cory, Dan, Doug, Jim, Philip, Phoenix, Richard, Robin, and Ryan
-
|
Milton Hayek
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
|
03-15-2007 00:14
"enforcing the ideals is a paradox ..." There is no paradox involved. Libertarians do not oppose the use of the police power of the state to enforce laws. What we oppose are laws that do not respect property rights or freedom of contract. You apparently confuse us with anarchists. That's all right. I'm not insulted. Some of my best friends are anarchists. 
|
Milton Hayek
Registered User
Join date: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
|
03-15-2007 00:53
and BTW was this thread about short definitions? The above implies mine:
"Libertarians believe in near absolute property rights and near absolute freedom of contract."
The qualifier is a problem for those of us who want a philosophically airtight unambiguous definition. As for why I include it see, for instance, David Friedman's THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM and the parable of the tower sniper. I'm not sure that ANY serious political ideology can be given a philosophically airtight unambiguous definition. But as description I like the above for people that are already geared to analytical thought about ideology.
Judge Albee of Alabama used to say simply:
"Libertarians believe in non-aggression."
That is very similar to the pledge definition and you can't beat it for pithy elegance. But perhaps a little opaque for anyone who doesn't already understand what it means.
How about Gray Brumbee's definitions:
"Libertarians are Republians without family values" or "democrats without hearts" hehe
Or Nancy Lord's: "Republicans are democrats that have been mugged. Libertarians are Republicans that have been indicted."
|