User talk:Silver Sloth/Libertarian principles critique

Your sandals read muesli? Генгис   12:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Revert
Sorry Silver, I thought it might be you but as I hadn't seen you do it before I erred on safety.  Lily Ta, wack! 15:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Comments
Do you mind if I make come critiques on your critiques? I hope so because I'm going to anyway! First of all, I've noticed a distinct amount of nutjobbiness in some of the libertarians on this site (not naming names!) and much of the internet; not all libertarians are anarchocapitalist hermit gun hoarders. Also, libertarians don't believe that you have a duty to help your fellow man. That is a liberal (real definition, not CP definition) trait which doesn't resonate with libertarians. This isn't to say, however, that libertarians don't think that the fellow man should be avoided or intentionally left behind.

Starting from the top:
 * Personal Liberty: The "individual's rights" philospophy doesn't necessarily imply rugged individualism. Your example is of someone endangering others; this is an illegitimate use of force. Libertarians believe that others have the right to make any choice so long as that choice does not do harm to others. Libertarians, in general, would not be opposed to a law that says that everyone has to drive on the same side of the street. (Though some libertarians think that roads should be privatized thus giving the decision to the company that owns them, and other libertarians would object to a federal law). Though I do have to admit, when I'm driving on the empty streets of my town late at night, I do wonder about the need for silly things like double yellow lines, speed limits and stop lights...
 * Personal Relationships: I think you rightly mention that there are limits. Libertarians don't think that pedophiles should become adopters, though there might be some who think that you can prevent it without making it a law (don't ask me how though)
 * Abortion:This is an interesting issue because libertarians largely dissagree with each other. This is likely why it was fluffed over. Some libertarians think that a good comprimise would be to apply the "least use of force principle". Under this idea, abortion is legal only before the point at which the unborn child could not be supported outside of the womb. I don't know how widespread this idea is though.
 * Crime and Justice: I think you are lawyerizing a bit too much here. This is a party platform, not a Constitution. To answer your queries, though, I think that libs think it should be up to the court system to decide what constitutes harm.
 * Self Defense: This is why the LP never does all that well; they let too much dingbat show through. I don't know one honest libertarian who thinks that "all laws" opposing firearms are invalid, and I'm frankly surprised to see that language in there at all.
 * Economic Liberty: I was going to respond to each point here, until I noticed all the sarcasm... If you want to understand where their arguments coming from, you need to look further than simply their political platform. You are looking at each point in a vaccuum, and not looking at the big picture, with a fair eye. 
 * Securing Liberty: to answer your questions, in order: private companies, private companies, private companies. Though only the most extreme libertarians think that the first should be fully privatized, and only the somewhat extreme libertarians think that "national treasures" should be privatized.
 * National Defense: I have heard some libertarians who want voluntary taxes for the troops. 

Your conclusion is a pretty popular critique of libertarians. Again, you really should read more theory before you simply reject them as being pro-elite and the screws to the poor. (Objectivism, often confused with, inspired by, inspiring of, but distinct from libertarianism, does pretty much fit this platform. Libertarians believe strongly in charity; Rand was against charity.)

My conclusion: all in all, you seem to agree where you agree, and refuse to listen where you disagree. I don't really know what debate to which you refer in your introduction (though I might be able to guess who it was with), but it's clear that you yourself don't fully understand libertariansim (at least not the economic portion), and don't understand that it's more than simply "delete all the laws and hope it works", even if that's how it's largely presented. I think the best resource for these "how does the libertarian ideal work" can be found here. I think Ruwart pretty well represents moderate/moderate+ libertarian thought, and does a good job explaining why she believes what she believes.

One last point: I fully grant that a lot of the libertarian ideal only works wholesale, and can't be implemented immediately. Don't fall into the trap that many do and equate this with a faulty viewpoint. JazzMan 22:28, 13 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Thanks for a reasoned and well argued response.


 * I call this the we don't really mean it defence.


 * Lets take gun control. The Principles state very clearly that Libertarians oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. When I point out that this implies selling nuclear weapons to the criminally insane the reply is, Oh, we didn't really mean all laws. Yes, you did, it's down there in black and white. If you want to take a more reasonable position then say so.


 * Furthermore, when the consequences of applying Libertarian principles are shown their response is always you don't understand it. The solutions proposed on the site you point to are the same cloud cuckoo utopian solutions that always seem to be proposed but, from my understanding of history, it simply doesn't work that way. The Libertarian ideal is no more workable than the communist one.


 * Every experiment in laisser faire free market economies has had appalling side effects. For any Brit the obvious one is Victorian Britain, which, whilst not being a true Libertarian ideal, had many if not most of the hallmarks. It is unarguable that the wealth and prosperity of the country increased dramatically, and, for those who had, it was a golden age. Eventually it became more and more obvious that the social costs were too high, that eventually it had to be abandoned and a more mixed economy instituted.


 * So, from my point of view, the logical consequences of the positions stated by Libertarians are appalling social injustices, historically the effects of laisser faire free market economies has been appalling social injustices, and the people defending Libertarianism (including the site you linked to) all seem to suggest that the solutions will only work when we reach some sort of free market utopia. Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Silver Sloth 06:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)