Any Libertarians Here?

[martha]

I am obligated to say that I would support that shopkeepers right to be a racist bastard ...... I support the right to religious discrimination.

And that's why so few people can take libertarians seriously.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because we are racists and bigoted against minorities? See because I think that if David Duke sets up a chain of resteraunts and refuses to serve blacks then any sane person should boycott the bastard and protest against it I somehow endorse his racist views? That if I was employed by a Conservative Christian who took offence and my vocal atheism and anti-theism and got fired that it was their right somehow makes me supportive of their point of view?

Or because I believe in maximising individual liberty via strong protections for private property against statists? Im not arguing for a utopian political system, I recognise that civil society demands compromise and surrendering certain liberties and I can accept that - but I still argue in principle the extreme and in practice a compromise that pushes liberty as far as people will legitimately accept.

You may not take those sorts of views seriously; but I and many others rightly take the views of people who know whats best for others and will use government force to see it done are dangerous and should be resisted.

 

[martha]

Because we are racists and bigoted against minorities? See because I think that if David Duke sets up a chain of resteraunts and refuses to serve blacks then any sane person should boycott the bastard and protest against it I somehow endorse his racist views? That if I was employed by a Conservative Christian who took offence and my vocal atheism and anti-theism and got fired that it was their right somehow makes me supportive of their point of view?

You said it, not me. Go back and reread your own posts.

Did I hit a nerve?

 

[anitram]

Now those drugs (except marijuana) don't suffer the problem of second hand smoke; so if people aren't being disengenuous about their support for a pro-freedom philosophy with the view that second hand smoke constitutes non-consensual harm then they should logically support decriminalisation of other drugs and perhaps even the use of those drugs in settings such as clubs.

I much prefer people who are unapologeticly opposed to ilicit drugs on the basis that people shouldn't be able to harm themselves than those who couch their own will for social control in the glamour of supporting a liberty (be it clean air, lower health costs, no more negative liberties).

In a perfect world, an illicit drug habit would affect only the individual who partakes. But it does not.

 

[martha]

Libertarians only operate in a perfect world.

 

[A_Wanderer]

An in principle defence of the right for a person to run their business in a bigoted and exclusionary manner on the basis of property coupled with my natural ethical response to such behaviour - boycott and protest - what get's me is that you give an implied statement without needing to offer evidence. I have been consistent in arguing a libertarian position, I haven't waxed poetical about this hypothetical land of do as you please being utopian - quite the opposite in many regards, and have pointed out that the attitude of the original poster of poisoning their body with unfiltered smokes and trans-fats is an act of hedonistic stupidity and yet I get the impression you are trying to present my case in these selected questions as fodder against libertarianism.

 

[anitram]

This is the only area where limitations can be entertained; but that is a question of consensuality verus opportunity and the obligations of the employer to their employees in maintaining a safe workplace.

It really isn't a matter of consent in a lot of jurisdictions. In Canada, for one, under the law you cannot consent to activities which carry a risk of serious bodily harm (clearly exceptions like medical procedures, etc exist, but you get my point).

 

[A_Wanderer]

In a perfect world, an illicit drug habit would affect only the individual who partakes. But it does not.

Are we talking about emotional harm of seeing somebody close self-destruct; because there are a lot of people out there who are more or less alone - is it alright for them to do drugs but if you still have family and friend who care it's not alright?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It really isn't a matter of consent in a lot of jurisdictions. In Canada, for one, under the law you cannot consent to activities which carry a risk of serious bodily harm (clearly exceptions like medical procedures, etc exist, but you get my point).

Then why is smoking legal or sports like boxing.

 

[anitram]

Well you are arguing that some drug habits do not involve people aside from the user. Not true. They can affect their children, their spouses, their employers, their friends, etc. And it isn't just a matter of self-destruction - if you have a crack addicted single mother, there is an excellent chance their lives will be irreparably damaged by her actions. Her liberty ends where their peril begins. Period.

 

[anitram]

Then why is smoking legal or sports like boxing.

Sporting activities are legal insofar as you are consenting to the type of harm that comes in the normal course of the game. That is why you will find a multitude of civil and criminal cases in Canada on the point of hockey - where the force used and the injury suffered exceeded that which the players could legally consent to.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is in the context of secondhand smoke; if I sit around a bunch of smokers and choose to stay there is an implied consent to the exposure, it could even be argued that if an employer continues to work in that environment knowing the risks that they have consented since they could in theory just quit.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well you are arguing that some drug habits do not involve people aside from the user. Not true. They can affect their children, their spouses, their employers, their friends, etc. And it isn't just a matter of self-destruction - if you have a crack addicted single mother, there is an excellent chance their lives will be irreparably damaged by her actions. Her liberty ends where their peril begins. Period.

True; and is that not the place for child protective services to remove those kids from a harmful environment - illegal drugs will define a black market and people will always ruin their lives even when it means abandoning their responsibilities and obligations, the argument is not one of being pro-drugs, rather one of supporting decriminalisation and the ending of the war on drugs and associated policies which have failed time after time; it's not utopian to think that a certain proportion of people are going to abuse drugs if they are legal or not.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Heres a question since at the extremes we have been arguing I am forced to defend negative outcomes - what do people believe the role of the state, the role of society and the role of the individual is in the way we live our lives; is it better to have a system where the state enforces social norms with force at the expense of individual choice (sodomy laws and executions) - a situation where individual choice is held as the benchmark and there is no legal limitations (over the counter OxyContin, protected hate speech, legal discrimination and robust property laws) - or one where the state will enforce a degree of control that most people find acceptable and rely on society to dissuade the rest (social democracy)

What does your view of this have to say about
> Censorship and free speech
> Drug use and abuse
> Government monitoring of your personal information and the removal of civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism
> The marriage contract
> Welfare

 

[INDY500]

Hilarious!

I'm gonna keep this one around next time we have an abortion debate or a gay marriage debate. [/B][/QUOTE]

And what of debates on genocide or slavery. Shall we leave morality at the door for them as well?
I'm not sure you have a grasp on the writings of C.S. Lewis.

"Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that... The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see."

 

[martha]

it could even be argued that if an employer continues to work in that environment knowing the risks that they have consented since they could in theory just quit.

It could be argued that. It could even be argued that employers have no obligation at all to ensure the safety of their workers; that dead and injured workers are just a by-product of successful industry. Fortunately, civilized societies don't buy into that bullshit and they have made laws to make sure that workers have some degree of safety on the job. One more strike agaisnt libertarian "principles."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Genocide and slavery are the most severe violations of another human beings liberty; gay marriage is an excercise in liberty by entering into a contract with a partner and abortion is debatable from a variety of different perspectives including that of reproductive rights; fundamentally control over ones body - the same basic argument as drug decriminalisation.

We cannot rely on revealed truth and morality for the legal framework of society - that leads to abuse and harm - it should be dervied from logical axioms and the balance between liberty and security that a functional society needs.

 

[martha]

An in principle defence of the right for a person to run their business in a bigoted and exclusionary manner on the basis of property

This is my fodder against libertarianism: the fucked up priorities. The belief that the principle of discrimination and "property rights" is more important the the principle of equal access and opportunity. You can talk all you want to about your "ethical protests." It rings false when you really do believe that the person you're protesting against has the absolute right to do whatever it was that he did.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It could be argued that. It could even be argued that employers have no obligation at all to ensure the safety of their workers; that dead and injured workers are just a by-product of successful industry. Fortunately, civilized societies don't buy into that bullshit and they have made laws to make sure that workers have some degree of safety on the job. One more strike agaisnt libertarian "principles."

You want libertarian principles go out and read F.A. Hayeks road to serfdom, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

There is a role for the government in protecting people; libertarian minarchism is not anarchism - and workplace safety as I said could be considered a legitimate place for reuglation. The most hardline argument is not accepted by all libertarians and you are wrong in suggesting that it constitutes a strike against a fundamental libertarian principle.

 

[anitram]

To be honest with you, I think libertarianism (and I am talking about extreme forms of it) is incompatible with the rule of law and that's why it's never going to get anywhere.

 

[anitram]

You want libertarian principles go out and read F.A. Hayeks road to serfdom, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

I've read the last 2. I don't think much of Ayn Rand (her work smacks entirely too much of a masturbatory exercise to be worth a lot academically) and Milton Friedman I flat out disagree with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is my fodder against libertarianism: the fucked up priorities. The belief that the principle of discrimination and "property rights" is more important the the principle of equal access and opportunity. You can talk all you want to about your "ethical protests." It rings false when you really do believe that the person you're protesting against has the absolute right to do whatever it was that he did.

So unless I actively support government force against bigots I implicitly support bigotry?

By that logic the ACLU supports the KKK and neo-Nazis. By the logic that equality and tolerance is to be legislated we end up with much more than laws preventing shopowners from hiring and firing as they please; we get situations where clubs are shut down for their intollerance (for instance Christian groups that discriminate against LGBT individuals at public universities) all the way to hate speech laws; which slice the margins of free speech to only be what is politically acceptable.

It is better to be defending monsters for the right reasons than to be punishing them in a wrong way.

 

[A_Wanderer]

To be honest with you, I think libertarianism (and I am talking about extreme forms of it) is incompatible with the rule of law and that's why it's never going to get anywhere.

And I agree, it can never deliver public education, healthcare, sanitation, basic research, safety in public or at home; all the elements of a civil society. An "ideal" state where it ends up existing may well be the frontiers where no such civil society exists or is expected by citizens; functional anarchy. But it is worthwhile to have groups arguing for an extreme pro-freedom position to keep the centre in the middle. Otherwise statists ideas will work their way through public policy and one way or another we surrender our freedoms - and again this is what we see with blanket wiretaps, sedition laws, anti-blasphemy laws, prohibition etc.

If it's from the right or the left there always has to be lunatics out there calling it and defending those liberties.

 

[martha]

So unless I actively support government force against bigots I implicitly support bigotry?

You'll have to answer that question when you look in the mirror.

By that logic the ACLU supports the KKK and neo-Nazis.

They do, which is why I've never joined them.

It is better to be defending monsters for the right reasons than to be punishing them in a wrong way.

I disagree.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If it is a question of defending free speech absolutely then make no mistake I have no qualms; second hand smoke is harm and it is a violation of the no harm principle - maintaining a safe workplace is the same - but speech is pure liberty, and it is worth dying for as so many have shown (recent case being that offensive prick Theo Van Gough who was butchered by a Muslim terrorist for insulting Islam).

I think it is reasonable to say that if you are opposed to the right of certain people to free speech then you don't support free speech. The question then becomes is your boycott of the ACLU an act of concience and excercise of free association or a stance taken because you think that fascists and racists don't deserve the right to express their views like everybody else.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What sets libertarianism apart from both social democrats and conservatives is that as a poltiical philosophy it does not demand that government power is used to make people do the right thing - it puts the burden of choice back to the individual; and that idea alone is a redeeming feature and the reason that it should have an important place in the political arena even though a libertarian party will never ever be elected to run a country.

 

[BVS]

What sets libertarianism apart from both social democrats and conservatives is that as a poltiical philosophy it does not demand that government power is used to make people do the right thing - it puts the burden of choice back to the individual; and that idea alone is a redeeming feature and the reason that it should have an important place in the political arena even though a libertarian party will never ever be elected to run a country.

Most "libertarians" I know or hear talk are just neo-cons trying not to be neo-cons.

Placing the burden of choice back to the individual is great in theory, but as we see with iron horse's posts it just looks like an excuse to be hedonistic; he wants to smoke, carry guns, doesn't care if we have poisons in our food, and doesn't care if religion is displayed everyone as long as it's his.

 

[Vincent Vega]

We are perfeclty well doing without a liberal party

In fact, we do have a liberal party, but "Most "libertarians" I know or hear talk are just neo-cons trying not to be neo-cons." suits them very well.

Even more, they just try to postion themselves where they are likely to get the most votes to be part of the government.
They don't do real liberal politics and are very much focussed on the interests of the economy and rich people.


But at least we have some more parties than only two.
At the moment there are five parties in the German Bundestag.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Most "libertarians" I know or hear talk are just neo-cons trying not to be neo-cons.

Placing the burden of choice back to the individual is great in theory, but as we see with iron horse's posts it just looks like an excuse to be hedonistic; he wants to smoke, carry guns, doesn't care if we have poisons in our food, and doesn't care if religion is displayed everyone as long as it's his.

Firstly I don't have a problem with religion being prominently displayed provided that not one cent of it is from taxpayers money or on public property; most libertarians oppose the Boy Scouts of America percecuting gays and atheists for that very reason; the government shall neither promote or persecute religious belief - the cornerstone of a secular society is also a rather libertarian position; if you thik that the state has a role adopting religious policy then you are falling into the category of social conservatism more than libertarian.

Most people have a modicum of self control; they don't protest healthy lifestyles by going out and killing themselves but as I have to reiterate the freedom to make the wrong choice is genuine whereas the "freedom" to only make the right choices that fit within the consensus of what society views as right is an illusion - if marijuana was legalised would I start smoking it, no; because I don't want to expose myself. If LSD was legalised would I try it; quite possibly because I fancy the idea and the risks are low: just because some people make bad choices is not cause to make the choices for everybody. Any argument that is built on a platform that the people can't live with freedom risks going to a dark place.

Lastly given that the Libertarian Party of the US opposes the Iraq War and supports a hardline isolationist (bar trade) foreign policy I hardly see how it can be categorised as neoconservative. Of course neocon seems to conjur up so many meanings; Republicans, Theocrats and Rich New York Bankers - disparately linked by a title.

 

[martha]

most libertarians oppose the Boy Scouts of America percecuting gays and atheists for that very reason

Nope. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and therefore can keep out whomever they want.