Redistribution of Wealth At Gunpoint Is Tyranny

[ElQueso]

Willwright, I can understand your viewpoint, but I take two exceptions to what you say.

First, you call Libertarianism far right (well, right-wing extreme), which I feel to be a misunderstanding. It seems to me that many people see only two ways of thinking - my beliefs and then everyone else's. If you're on the left, everyone else then must be on the right. Vice versa if you're on the right thinking similar thoughts. In some things (mostly socially) Libertarians are more liberal than liberals. They are certainly more liberal than conservatives in regarding social ideas, and fiscally, although conservatives seem to spout belief in some similar things fiscally-related, their actions certainly belie their beliefs and socially they are quite restrictive on the whole, at least in my opinion.

Libertarians believe in freedom of expression, freedom from oppressive government and freedom from other people telling them what to do (within reason - Libertarians are not anarchists). They believe in the rule of law and enforcement of property rights. They believe in self determination within the context of society and necessary rules that are required to have a productive society. They simply don't believe that a huge government is the way to do that. I've never come across a serious Libertarian saying that we should have NO government (I would disagree with that sentiment, personally). Many are fiscally conservative (meaning they believe in free market and not spending more than you make, etc.) while being quite socially liberal (meaning live and let live as long as it doesn't affect me in a demonstrably negative manner).

Why can't there be something other than "Right" or "Left" and the extremes therein?

Second, Libertarianism could never have existed hundreds of years ago. It requires a concept of personal sovereignty, which try as hard as even the founding fathers of the US may have, I don't think they really even fully got the concept. Hell, who was it that wrote into the US constitution the concept of a slave getting a partial count related to representation and yet weren't counted as citizens, couldn't vote, and many of those founders themselves kept slaves.

Baby steps.

I've not said that I think complete Libertarianism has any real chance of existing in this day and age. Of course not, no more than a real democracy (republican or direct) could have existed 350 years ago or so when John Locke was writing about such novel ideas as religious tolerance and value of labor and personal property rights.

However, does that mean that there are not some valuable concepts that could be implemented now, that would actually help everyone, something better than robbing from everyone that works to feed and house the poor that continue to be poor because of those very programs that seek to help them?

I can assure you that the royalty in the days of John Locke had no idea that their "obvious" way of looking at the world was doomed...

Libertarianism is just as threatening in terms of a (relatively) new concept (at least as far as it has developed in the last few decades, of course it has older roots) to the powers that be, as democracy was to the royals of days gone by.

Probably, much like in those days, something as new as self-rule without the benevolent influence of a monarch and all the trappings that go along with it, it is nearly impossible to transform an existing society, certainly overnight, to complete Libertarianism from the inside. It will probably take an external example at the least, perhaps from space colonies (comparing such a concept with the European diaspora that came with the discovery of the new world), to show that it can indeed be done.

As I said, I don't have the answers, but I like to spark discussion about this because I believe that thinking in this manner is the only way we will ever make people equal in both opportunities and lifestyle.

In my opinion, what we're doing now isn't working.

 

[steveinbsas]

You must have really hated your time in Paris then!

As this was in reply to my post that "I don't believe the purpose of government is to provide health care, high speed rail, food stamps, or abortions, just to name a few." I just want to add that in all of the time I've spent in Paris (loving every minute) I never used high speed rail, asked for any government health care, free food, or an abortion.

 

[sleslie23]

As this was in reply to my post that "I don't believe the purpose of government is to provide health care, high speed rail, food stamps, or abortions, just to name a few." I just want to add that in all of the time I've spent in Paris (loving every minute) I never used high speed rail, asked for any government health care, free food, or an abortion.

Did you take the metro? The RER? The bus from the airport? Or did you walk because of your philosophical opposition to all things government supported? Even if you took a cab, you are still riding on roads that were paid for by the government.

The problem with you Randroids is that you have no problem when government is providing the services YOU use. All other be damned.

 

[ElQueso]

So sleslie I wonder if, according to you, since we don't believe in large government, because we feel governments around the world are all pretty much the same in many of the basics and that troubles us - are you saying we should just find some corner of the world on which some government hasn't built anything yet, try to survive in a vacuum, alone, and certainly we should not travel to another country where other governments have built things as well?

That because we think there may be a better way and are willing to explore the possibility, even though we live legally where we are, including paying those taxes that we don't like and putting up with, year after year, idiotic nonsense in the form of so many regulations that are supposed to help people but do nothing of the sort, that we somehow don't have a right to complain? Or we deserve be ridiculed because at times we use the services we pay for, out of necessity or convenience? Does thinking that private enterprise can do things better preclude us from mixing with the rest of society, that we should hide like lepers as the establishment wants everyone to believe we are?

Do you feel that because you pay taxes in the country of your residence, or where you earn money, or whatever combination, that it's OK for you to use the government-provided services in other countries even though you didn't provide any tax money there but we aren't or that it somehow makes us hypocrites? Or is it OK for you to use public services in other countries just because you are happy to pay taxes wherever you pay?

Do you really think that just because those systems exist as created by the government that private industry could never do better? if so, argue on those merits, not some bizarre argument that really doesn't hold water.

And of course, the usual attack games begin with derogatory comments such as "Randroid." Instead of intelligent, purposeful discussion, let's lump people who say things we don't like into one group so they're easier to target and then denigrate a specific symbol (one of many, but make sure you don't acknowledge any differences between those symbols - all are the same) of that group so the denigrating venom has more effect.

Or make jokes with no depth (and really not much sense) at the expense of the author without even trying to explain why the actual subject seems like a joke to the responder.

Not to mention the outright "enough, we don't want to hear what you have to say" and "since you don't like things the way things are, you have no right to use services that you pay for and certainly no right to complain."

I tried to be fairly polite, to explain my reasoning at least to some degree and as a result (because it's a complex subject) my writing is long and sometimes meanders. I'm not writing a text book, or publishing some serious work for mass publication. I'm not high or otherwise inebriated. I'm not some idealistic young person who has heard some tale of Utopia, who then glommed onto some movement because it was fashionable.

I don't believe in Utopia. I DO believe in striving to make things better. But people who think that government can take care of all, or even most of the problems in this world, seem to believe in Utopia. If not, how else can you explain that every little thing that happens in the US (as an example) ends up with some kind of legislation, and people continue to ask for it to make the world "safe for all?" And yet things continue to get worse, at least according to those very people in power, and those siding with those in power, and they ask for more and more and more power to make things "right."

Show me a successful government program that has actually raised people from poverty, or provided health care, etc, at a reasonable cost and reasonable delivery, with a minimum of corruption. Or stopped a recession. Or really created jobs. If you really believe that government is so good, why not try to show how and convince me that I'm wrong?

Society has become so fixated on brief explanations and sound bytes that something that is a bit long and deals necessarily with many aspects of the same problem gets torn up for those reasons alone and seems to not even rate a serious rebuttal and debate, for some.

But as they say, politics and religion are difficult things to talk about. Those who are mired in the beliefs of the status quo and don't have any desire to open their minds to other possibilities are threatened by such discussion, I reckon.

The funny thing is, in my youth I was a gung-ho, idealistic, naive guy. I was quite "liberal", in spite of my parents being staunch straight-ticket Republicans. I took sides in the battle between the two political parties that have evolved under the system in the States like a good little sheep. I rooted for my team and cursed the other team for idiots, wagging my tail the whole time and hoping someone would throw me a bone like the good little puppy I was.

It takes a lot to step back and reexamine the things that you've "known" all your life. It takes even more to discuss it in the open when you think you see something that goes against the "known" grain, yet makes sense given a half-century of being mired in the crap that has surrounded you on all sides during that time, knowing that just as you once were, you're going to get a lot of negative reaction from people that are snug, even smug, in their beliefs and don't see a need to do anything different, even though obviously the same old thing doesn't really get anywhere - just business as usual, exactly how those in power like it. Oh yeah, and more of it.

Just do yourselves and the rest of us a favor - either butt out, or join in the fun and debate the issues. I can take real criticism. I actually try to learn from it. Who knows, maybe you could show me the fallacy of Libertarianism. I can guarantee that my mind is wide open to new knowledge - is yours? Attacking disrespectfully, or in a snide, condescending manner, no matter how politely couched, isn't going to win any points with me.

If not scoring points with me doesn't matter to you, then you come across empty and cruel. If it does matter, then you are doing no one any favors.

 

[captainmcd]

I am enjoying reading this thread, and like to see a civil exchange of ideas that have such a large effect on our lives. Although there are many government rules, regulations, and programs that seem to have an effect that is opposite of the one intended, I think that many of them are necessary. In transportation I can't immagine things like freeways, airports, or seaports that are maintained without any governmental input. Nor do I think that free enterprise could maintain many of the parks we like to visit. Private armies for the most part have disappeared from international conflicts, and I believe that govenmental control of law enforcement is desirable.

However I just got back from several months of living in the Gulf Province of Papua New Guinea. There most of the villages are not on the map. There is no cell phone signal, no internet, no roads, no motor vehicles, no commercial enterprises, all trade is done without money, and only barter. There is virtually no governmental presence there. At first I found their way of life really boring, going to bed when it gets dark, getting up at first light, fishing, gathering fruit, making sago sausages from the palm trees, and just worring about the here and now. After a few weeks I found how relaxing it really was, nobody worrying about things they could do nothing about. No 24 hour news! People talked to eachother face to face. No texting, no IM's or emails! Maybe we really can do with less government!

 

[jp]

At first I found their way of life really boring, going to bed when it gets dark, getting up at first light, fishing, gathering fruit, making sago sausages from the palm trees, and just worring about the here and now. After a few weeks I found how relaxing it really was, nobody worrying about things they could do nothing about. No 24 hour news! People talked to eachother face to face. No texting, no IM's or emails! Maybe we really can do with less government!

Wasn't going to comment on this thread - but had a similar experience with a different outcome.

I worked in a school in Kerala in south India in the 90s. Life was incredibly basic, and moving there was a culture shock. But like you, I acclimatised and began to enjoy the simplicity of life there. I also noticed that people were far happier than anywhere else I'd lived with much less, and much more optimistic about the future.

Unfortunately, during the months I lived there I also saw several people die. A few died in road accidents which was tragic but understandable given the state of the roads, the state of the vehicles being driven and the lack of concern for road safety. But the case that disturbed me most was a young mother who died during childbirth. There was no medical attention available to either of them that could help them. Both the mother and the baby died, and had to be buried the next morning. The father then fell to pieces, couldn't work, and so couldn't pay for his kids to go to school I worked at.

Until you've lived somewhere with no government support and no safety net - you can't champion your status as "self made men". You aren't. You depend on people who depend on the government.

If you pay for private healthcare, private schools, private security - good for you. But plenty of the people who provide you with these services were educated, medicated and protected by the government.

You don't want to part with your "hard earned cash" and consider taxation robbery? Your clients and customers are only capable of providing you with this cash because a public hospital brought them into this world and kept them alive, public schools educated them, public transport enabled them to get to work, and public security services protected them and their assets long enough for them to give it to you. Take your hard earned cash, but don't kid yourself about where it comes from.

I can't help think the libertarian fantasy is hopelessnessly naive. Whilst it strokes the ego to believe you are independent, reliant on nobody and a "self made man" this is rarely the truth. No man is an island, and we utterly dependent on others, whether we choose to recognise this or not.

 

[Iznogud]

Bastante = spanish for sufficient, enough = stop.

People say "Suficiente!" in spanish when they had enough and want to put a stop to it.
You should use bastante pretty much as you would say plenty.

 

[captainmcd]

"Unfortunately, during the months I lived there I also saw several people die. A few died in road accidents which was tragic but understandable given the state of the roads, the state of the vehicles being driven and the lack of concern for road safety. But the case that disturbed me most was a young mother who died during childbirth. There was no medical attention available to either of them that could help them. Both the mother and the baby died, and had to be buried the next morning. The father then fell to pieces, couldn't work, and so couldn't pay for his kids to go to school I worked at."

JP, that's so true! If you get sick, you either recover on your own or you die. If you have a toothache, you suffer. If you have trouble in child birth you, your child, or both may die. I was the captain of a small medical ship which brought the first and only medical care those villages had seen in their life, we were all volunteers, not from the government. I will be going again to the Western Province next month. Sometimes we must rely on charity, on eachother, not the government to do something.

 

[demokritos]

Without public roads, corporate regulation, public education, etc., my concern is that society devolves into feudalism, or corporate feudalism. Bradleyhale gave a nice example with the PG&E case - what happens in that situation without some larger (e.g. governmental) entity, answerable to the public? How are monopolies prevented?

The US has done extremely well for itself under its current system. One of its biggest problems is the close ties between the regulatory agencies (SEC, etc.) and management in the same industries it is supposed to be regulating. Large corporations and their CEOs are heavily involved in the electoral process. It's difficult to fix, but in spite of this, we're still chugging along, and major disasters attributable to regulatory dysfunction only happen about once a year. Pretty good considering the number of moving parts in play.

Argentina is another story. There isn't an Argentine alive that remembers a government whose leaders were dedicated to anything other than the cynical extraction of resources from the public for their personal gain. The problem isn't just that the votes are bought by bread and circus programs; there actually isn't any reasonable expectation of a functional government here.

ElQueso, having read some of your other posts, it's clear you have your heart in the right place, and that your experiences in Paraguay and here are driving a lot of your thinking in this matter. In fact, you're advocating benevolent feudalism as a specific solution in cases of extreme poverty. What recourse is there when the local lord turns out to be not so benevolent after all?

 

[steveinbsas]

Agreed.

I'(m)...Most impressed by the ability of some to write and write and write whilst obviously well under the influence.

I hope you were referring to me.

I just popped the cork on a magnum of malbec and I'm just getting warmed up for an "evening of prolification" (to coin a new and intentionally misspelled phrase).