4 ms·

Agree there are some inconsistencies regarding taxation and the minimal services that the government should perform. However, I would note that the primary tena

by bko 10y ago

Agree there are some inconsistencies regarding taxation and the minimal services that the government should perform. However, I would note that the primary tenant of the philosophy is liberty, both economic and personal. This liberty would include property rights, which includes ones person. Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary, although I see how this can be impractical in practice. This already exists in the sense that one is free to move to different cities/states but due to the expansion of the role the federal government, this distinction has been made less relevant.

foldr 10y ago
>Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary Right, and then "...the bullies would not only take your lunch money, they would murder your family, burn your house, and leave you for dead by the side of the road".
philipov 10y ago
The problem with the libertarian platform is that it's based on 150 year old theory that doesn't incorporate second order effects, so it is unable to deal conceptually with feedback loops and thermodynamic phenomena such as entropy. Trust in the market only works when your wealth represents a non-vanishing proportion of market share; and for everyone else, it represents disenfranchisement and serfdom. This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. That's what you get by rolling down the energy valley of the free market. The minimal state of the government is directly proportional to the strength of one's extended wealth network, and wealth reinforces wealth. There are inconsistencies regarding the minimal services that the government should perform because Libertarians tune their notions to their own wealth level, and discount everyone below them. If we wish to create a government that is representative of all citizens, the minimal state of government is much larger than has been allowed within the libertarian framework to date.
- alexmingoia 10y ago
  > This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. Isn't this a strawman? Libertarianism isn't a theory that ensures everyone has whatever they want. It's a philosophy centered around liberty (in contrast to freedom). Libertarians are only arguing that anyone should be free to move where they want and free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach.
  - philipov 10y ago
    > ...free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach. This is the strawman. No one is suggesting that everyone gets a house on the beach. The problem is that Libertarianism has a naive presentation of coercion strategies. It ignores economic and generational coercion mechanisms, instead focusing on violence (and the government's monopoly on it) as the only form of coercion. This prevents it from achieving the liberty which it promises, except for those who are already wealthy. By seeking to obfuscate and divert attention from other coercion strategies, it disproportionately favors those who wield them to reduce liberty, and so it has a net negative effect on liberty.
- MrMan 10y ago
  Minimal state = kleptocracy, rule by thugs and will to power.

by bko 10y ago

foldr 10y ago

>Ideally, there would be a choice of governing associations that one can choose from for police or judiciary Right, and then "...the bullies would not only take your lunch money, they would murder your family, burn your house, and leave you for dead by the side of the road".

philipov 10y ago

The problem with the libertarian platform is that it's based on 150 year old theory that doesn't incorporate second order effects, so it is unable to deal conceptually with feedback loops and thermodynamic phenomena such as entropy. Trust in the market only works when your wealth represents a non-vanishing proportion of market share; and for everyone else, it represents disenfranchisement and serfdom. This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. That's what you get by rolling down the energy valley of the free market. The minimal state of the government is directly proportional to the strength of one's extended wealth network, and wealth reinforces wealth. There are inconsistencies regarding the minimal services that the government should perform because Libertarians tune their notions to their own wealth level, and discount everyone below them. If we wish to create a government that is representative of all citizens, the minimal state of government is much larger than has been allowed within the libertarian framework to date.

alexmingoia 10y ago
> This already exists in the sense that many are not free to move to different cities/states because they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, shackled by debt. Isn't this a strawman? Libertarianism isn't a theory that ensures everyone has whatever they want. It's a philosophy centered around liberty (in contrast to freedom). Libertarians are only arguing that anyone should be free to move where they want and free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach.
- philipov 10y ago
  > ...free to obtain the means to do so. Libertarianism has never argued that liberty means everyone gets a house on the beach. This is the strawman. No one is suggesting that everyone gets a house on the beach. The problem is that Libertarianism has a naive presentation of coercion strategies. It ignores economic and generational coercion mechanisms, instead focusing on violence (and the government's monopoly on it) as the only form of coercion. This prevents it from achieving the liberty which it promises, except for those who are already wealthy. By seeking to obfuscate and divert attention from other coercion strategies, it disproportionately favors those who wield them to reduce liberty, and so it has a net negative effect on liberty.
MrMan 10y ago
Minimal state = kleptocracy, rule by thugs and will to power.