6 ms·

There's liberal as in "tolerate how other people choose to live" and there's liberal as in "spend a lot of money on big government solutions to social problems"

There's liberal as in "tolerate how other people choose to live" and there's liberal as in "spend a lot of money on big government solutions to social problems" and nobody can claim to be libertarian and be liberal in the latter sense.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux loss (eg, actually a charge for externalities, not an "extra" cost imposed by others) and liberty maximizing (eg, freedom from concern of unemployment ruining your life is more freeing than the loss of freedom to not pay taxes).
- djrogers 9y ago
  Why? For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. It’s about power, and in our world, money is power.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Does that argument extend to courts and police? If not, why not? Do the same reasons not apply to healthcare?
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Healthcare costs a hundred times more. That makes it almost incomparable. And has knock-on effects like different people wanting different styles of coverage with very different price schedules. Courts/police are relatively straightforward and cheap, and act as an enabler for contracts and personal choice.
      - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        It's about 10x more if you count just police and fire; about 2x more if you count defense spending along with policing, using UK numbers. (Nowhere near 100x!) Of course, many more people spread colds, cause accidents, etc than commit crimes, so it makes sense that the cost of controlling their externalities is more than those of criminals. But your choice seems arbitrary: you couch it in pragmatic terms, because you're not categorically against government programs, but then avoid actual cost-benefit analysis, rendering your opinion nothing more than whim. That's what it always seems to come down to with "libertarians": unprincipled bullshit that aligns with their whims (such as yes police, no NHS).
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        I would definitely not categorize defense spending as police. Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. You're not actually reducing externalities with most categories of care. And if there were no police you would see a lot more theft. Anyway, you can put it in cost-benefit terms, but you have to include a strong freedom factor. A government that takes 2% of GDP to keep public order is far better than not doing that. But taking a very large fraction of income to provide health care? That is an enormous cost to both spending and freedom, and reasonable people can see those costs as higher or lower than the benefits.
        xg15 9y ago
        > Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. If it includes vaccinations then yes, it very much does.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        They don't have cold vaccines. And vaccines are part of the reason I said "most categories". Note also that vaccines are pretty cheap. They're far removed from expensive surgery and drugs.
    - brightball 9y ago
      It does apply to healthcare because healthcare costs are only inflated due to artificial influences. Health insurance, removal of choice of health insurance from the marketplace, government influence on that arrangement due to tax deductibility of employer sponsored insurance but not personally purchased insurance, and finally the expansion of "insurance" to mean a payment system in all transactions and not just the serious items (home owners insurance doesn't pay for minor things). Government influence is what inflated healthcare costs in the first place by removing all aspects from true consumer choice (aka - the market).
      - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        Yet in the UK government activity keeps healthcare costs very low by removing consumer choice.
      - scarface74 9y ago
        And without the government, insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions. What other product that people need can people not buy no matter how much money they have?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it (unless he is the owner of said company or the billionaire). Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. >It’s about power, and in our world, money is power. So better than the government, where we have some say, have that money, than billionaires and mega-corps, which we don't control.
    - watecmascript 9y ago
      > Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. And if they do hold on to, it lowers the supply of money in circulation, thus increasing the value of the dollars YOU hold. A rising tide lifts all ships. So I fail to see the problems. Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? If you want their money, find something to sell to them. Maybe start a billionaire vacation resort on the moon. That will create tons of jobs. > Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. Voting is just a small piece, the bigger part is the full-time lobby groups and interest. They have a much more control than the individual gets 1 vote out of 200+ million. And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. Their living and partying costs are so tiny compared to their wealth, we can just as well say that they are "holding onto their money forever". >Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? I don't believe in the concept of "their money" above a certain degree. After a point such gains are so much part of systemic faults and imbalances that it should be "everybody's money" but its just hoarded. >And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right. Absent a god, it's only what people think that makes something right or wrong.
- differentView 9y ago
  I believe you're describing classical liberalism, freedom with governmental safety nets. Libertarianism would have no safety nets and very minimum police and military. If you can't afford food or health care, that's on you.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    I'm a libertarian who believes that in a modern industrialized world, you can't not have SOME sort of safety net - the days of the yeoman farmer are long gone (subsistence farming isn't possible in the city) - I'd rather it be in the form of a GMI which would enhance personal freedom of choice, over the existing patchwork of expensive, discriminatory programs and wage controls. Give people money, give them mandatory financial literacy training before they get said money, let them figure out how best to live their lives, remove the minimum wage in the process. I'm also strongly opposed to malum prohibitum laws as well - the government does a poor job of respecting peoples civil liberties out of the misguided concept that any and all evils are preventable - the truth is, sometimes bad things happen, and not every potential bad thing is worth the collateral costs to prevent it.
- matt-attack 9y ago
  I guess those seeking your brand of liberty should just get thrown in prison. There you're "free" to not worry about having to feed yourself, "free" from having to pay for healthcare, and rent. Way to completely invert the definition of freedom.
Barrin92 9y ago
not in the American sense, but "libertarianism" has long usage in Europe as well, where it's usually associated with 'left libertarian' thinkers such as Orwell, Kropotkin and so forth. Chomsky would be a contemporary example. Many European anarchists describe themselves as libertarian, in the US the terminology is just not common, so people might be talking past each other here.
- etplayer 9y ago
  Bookchin has spoken about this, but I can't find the lecture at the moment. When I use "libertarian" to describe myself, it's in the Socialist/anarchist sense, rather than what I view as antithetical to libertarian (i.e concerned with the freedom of people) philosophy; I think I would rather call "libertarians" as "propertytarians", as they are so much more concerned with the ownership of property rather than individual freedom, but the name won't catch on. Edit: Found it, it's a short speech, but it's from a larger one about freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnj3dObd6do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnj3dObd6do
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> nobody can claim to be libertarian and be liberal in the latter sense. To be fair it's not a blanket black and white thing. You can be both, one in one area and one in another. I think we worry too much about labels.
- kobeya 9y ago
  While arguing over definitions is usually a waste of time, the libertarian platform is basically defined by its anti government stance.
  - arkh 9y ago
    Not anti-government. Some are as anti all government as anarchist. A lot are for governments to be limited. What to limit it to is what differentiate different liberal (the original definition, not what your parties have done to it) movements. Some will want nothing, others include only the police, army and diplomacy. Some will include basic infrastructure. Most think contracts enforcement is the responsibility of the government. You even have libertarians who are for a universal basic income. But using a huge brush of "hurr durr libertarians, tea party, Ayn Rand" to paint libertarians is an error. Which a lot of so-called libertarians do too, like far left people who will parrot concepts while they never read -and certainly not studied- Marx books. As a side note if the only knowledge you have from the libertarians points come from media (old and new) you should reflect on how they report on tech things you know about and how maybe they report all subjects as badly.
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    > the libertarian platform is basically defined by its anti government stance See, this is why I think arguing about labels is a complete waste of time. The majority of libertarians that I personally know are for smaller government in some areas. That doesn't always meant anti government. Sure you'll find plenty of libertarians that are anti government but you're going to find a lot of people with a lot of views calling themselves all sorts of different things that, ultimately, do not fit very well. For example after reading multiple websites regarding my own political views it would seem some places labeled me as a Libertarian Socialist, others a Liberal and one other a Fiscal Conservative Liberal. I'm not even convinced these labels make complete sense and really only capture some of my viewpoints in a pretty inarticulate way. Ultimately I just think all of these labels are a complete waste of time. People are imperfect and you'll never bucket them well. Even when you have finally come up with the perfect buckets for people you'll be lucky if half of the people put themselves in the correct bucket either due to a misunderstanding or some other reason.
scarface74 9y ago
I consider myself to be a "bleeding heart libertarian". I'm against the drug war, believe in a strong separation of church an state, live and let live, etc. But I don't mind paying taxes for the government to help people help themselves and to help people who can't help themselves.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  That just sounds like a standard progressive liberal (and there's nothing wrong with that). What viewpoints do you consider specifically libertarian?
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I haven't heard liberals talk too much about legalizing all drugs. Clinton in the 90s started the whole tough on crime, 3 strikes you're out, crusade. I am against the minimum wage - I think it skews supply and demand and contorts the free market -- but I do believe in the basic income for people who work in the form of an expansion of the earned income tax credit.
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      I don't believe Clinton is a progressive liberal, but most progressives support these policies, as far as I know.
      - justadeveloper2 9y ago
        The Clintons, as far as I can tell, are some kind of crime family masquerading as career public servants.
        InitialLastName 9y ago
        Either that or career public servants who have been painted by their opponents as a crime family for decades. In practice, not sure there's a difference. When everybody insists the Emperor's clothes are nice...

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

Why? One could argue that the goal of a libertarian is to maximize individual liberty, and plausibly argue that the loss of liberty via taxation is both a faux loss (eg, actually a charge for externalities, not an "extra" cost imposed by others) and liberty maximizing (eg, freedom from concern of unemployment ruining your life is more freeing than the loss of freedom to not pay taxes).

djrogers 9y ago
Why? For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. It’s about power, and in our world, money is power.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Does that argument extend to courts and police? If not, why not? Do the same reasons not apply to healthcare?
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Healthcare costs a hundred times more. That makes it almost incomparable. And has knock-on effects like different people wanting different styles of coverage with very different price schedules. Courts/police are relatively straightforward and cheap, and act as an enabler for contracts and personal choice.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      It's about 10x more if you count just police and fire; about 2x more if you count defense spending along with policing, using UK numbers. (Nowhere near 100x!) Of course, many more people spread colds, cause accidents, etc than commit crimes, so it makes sense that the cost of controlling their externalities is more than those of criminals. But your choice seems arbitrary: you couch it in pragmatic terms, because you're not categorically against government programs, but then avoid actual cost-benefit analysis, rendering your opinion nothing more than whim. That's what it always seems to come down to with "libertarians": unprincipled bullshit that aligns with their whims (such as yes police, no NHS).
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        I would definitely not categorize defense spending as police. Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. You're not actually reducing externalities with most categories of care. And if there were no police you would see a lot more theft. Anyway, you can put it in cost-benefit terms, but you have to include a strong freedom factor. A government that takes 2% of GDP to keep public order is far better than not doing that. But taking a very large fraction of income to provide health care? That is an enormous cost to both spending and freedom, and reasonable people can see those costs as higher or lower than the benefits.
        xg15 9y ago
        > Healthcare doesn't stop people from spreading colds. If it includes vaccinations then yes, it very much does.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        They don't have cold vaccines. And vaccines are part of the reason I said "most categories". Note also that vaccines are pretty cheap. They're far removed from expensive surgery and drugs.
  - brightball 9y ago
    It does apply to healthcare because healthcare costs are only inflated due to artificial influences. Health insurance, removal of choice of health insurance from the marketplace, government influence on that arrangement due to tax deductibility of employer sponsored insurance but not personally purchased insurance, and finally the expansion of "insurance" to mean a payment system in all transactions and not just the serious items (home owners insurance doesn't pay for minor things). Government influence is what inflated healthcare costs in the first place by removing all aspects from true consumer choice (aka - the market).
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      Yet in the UK government activity keeps healthcare costs very low by removing consumer choice.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      And without the government, insurance companies can refuse to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions. What other product that people need can people not buy no matter how much money they have?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >For he simple reason that the more money funnels through the government, the less choice an individual has in how to use it. Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it (unless he is the owner of said company or the billionaire). Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. >It’s about power, and in our world, money is power. So better than the government, where we have some say, have that money, than billionaires and mega-corps, which we don't control.
  - watecmascript 9y ago
    > Well, if the money funnels in billionaires and overseas corporate accounts, an individual has even less choice in how to use it Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. And if they do hold on to, it lowers the supply of money in circulation, thus increasing the value of the dollars YOU hold. A rising tide lifts all ships. So I fail to see the problems. Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? If you want their money, find something to sell to them. Maybe start a billionaire vacation resort on the moon. That will create tons of jobs. > Whereas with the government at least the individual gets a vote on how those money should be used. Voting is just a small piece, the bigger part is the full-time lobby groups and interest. They have a much more control than the individual gets 1 vote out of 200+ million. And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Billionaires buy things, travel, and hire people to work for them. They don't hold onto their money forever. Their living and partying costs are so tiny compared to their wealth, we can just as well say that they are "holding onto their money forever". >Besides, it's their money, what right does anyone else have to it? I don't believe in the concept of "their money" above a certain degree. After a point such gains are so much part of systemic faults and imbalances that it should be "everybody's money" but its just hoarded. >And just because 51+% of voters think it's ok to steal someones income, doesn't make it right. Absent a god, it's only what people think that makes something right or wrong.
differentView 9y ago
I believe you're describing classical liberalism, freedom with governmental safety nets. Libertarianism would have no safety nets and very minimum police and military. If you can't afford food or health care, that's on you.
- Aloha 9y ago
  I'm a libertarian who believes that in a modern industrialized world, you can't not have SOME sort of safety net - the days of the yeoman farmer are long gone (subsistence farming isn't possible in the city) - I'd rather it be in the form of a GMI which would enhance personal freedom of choice, over the existing patchwork of expensive, discriminatory programs and wage controls. Give people money, give them mandatory financial literacy training before they get said money, let them figure out how best to live their lives, remove the minimum wage in the process. I'm also strongly opposed to malum prohibitum laws as well - the government does a poor job of respecting peoples civil liberties out of the misguided concept that any and all evils are preventable - the truth is, sometimes bad things happen, and not every potential bad thing is worth the collateral costs to prevent it.
matt-attack 9y ago
I guess those seeking your brand of liberty should just get thrown in prison. There you're "free" to not worry about having to feed yourself, "free" from having to pay for healthcare, and rent. Way to completely invert the definition of freedom.

Barrin92 9y ago

not in the American sense, but "libertarianism" has long usage in Europe as well, where it's usually associated with 'left libertarian' thinkers such as Orwell, Kropotkin and so forth. Chomsky would be a contemporary example. Many European anarchists describe themselves as libertarian, in the US the terminology is just not common, so people might be talking past each other here.

etplayer 9y ago
Bookchin has spoken about this, but I can't find the lecture at the moment. When I use "libertarian" to describe myself, it's in the Socialist/anarchist sense, rather than what I view as antithetical to libertarian (i.e concerned with the freedom of people) philosophy; I think I would rather call "libertarians" as "propertytarians", as they are so much more concerned with the ownership of property rather than individual freedom, but the name won't catch on. Edit: Found it, it's a short speech, but it's from a larger one about freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnj3dObd6do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnj3dObd6do

BinaryIdiot 9y ago

> nobody can claim to be libertarian and be liberal in the latter sense. To be fair it's not a blanket black and white thing. You can be both, one in one area and one in another. I think we worry too much about labels.

kobeya 9y ago
While arguing over definitions is usually a waste of time, the libertarian platform is basically defined by its anti government stance.
- arkh 9y ago
  Not anti-government. Some are as anti all government as anarchist. A lot are for governments to be limited. What to limit it to is what differentiate different liberal (the original definition, not what your parties have done to it) movements. Some will want nothing, others include only the police, army and diplomacy. Some will include basic infrastructure. Most think contracts enforcement is the responsibility of the government. You even have libertarians who are for a universal basic income. But using a huge brush of "hurr durr libertarians, tea party, Ayn Rand" to paint libertarians is an error. Which a lot of so-called libertarians do too, like far left people who will parrot concepts while they never read -and certainly not studied- Marx books. As a side note if the only knowledge you have from the libertarians points come from media (old and new) you should reflect on how they report on tech things you know about and how maybe they report all subjects as badly.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  > the libertarian platform is basically defined by its anti government stance See, this is why I think arguing about labels is a complete waste of time. The majority of libertarians that I personally know are for smaller government in some areas. That doesn't always meant anti government. Sure you'll find plenty of libertarians that are anti government but you're going to find a lot of people with a lot of views calling themselves all sorts of different things that, ultimately, do not fit very well. For example after reading multiple websites regarding my own political views it would seem some places labeled me as a Libertarian Socialist, others a Liberal and one other a Fiscal Conservative Liberal. I'm not even convinced these labels make complete sense and really only capture some of my viewpoints in a pretty inarticulate way. Ultimately I just think all of these labels are a complete waste of time. People are imperfect and you'll never bucket them well. Even when you have finally come up with the perfect buckets for people you'll be lucky if half of the people put themselves in the correct bucket either due to a misunderstanding or some other reason.

scarface74 9y ago

I consider myself to be a "bleeding heart libertarian". I'm against the drug war, believe in a strong separation of church an state, live and let live, etc. But I don't mind paying taxes for the government to help people help themselves and to help people who can't help themselves.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
That just sounds like a standard progressive liberal (and there's nothing wrong with that). What viewpoints do you consider specifically libertarian?
- scarface74 9y ago
  I haven't heard liberals talk too much about legalizing all drugs. Clinton in the 90s started the whole tough on crime, 3 strikes you're out, crusade. I am against the minimum wage - I think it skews supply and demand and contorts the free market -- but I do believe in the basic income for people who work in the form of an expansion of the earned income tax credit.
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    I don't believe Clinton is a progressive liberal, but most progressives support these policies, as far as I know.
    - justadeveloper2 9y ago
      The Clintons, as far as I can tell, are some kind of crime family masquerading as career public servants.
      - InitialLastName 9y ago
        Either that or career public servants who have been painted by their opponents as a crime family for decades. In practice, not sure there's a difference. When everybody insists the Emperor's clothes are nice...