5 ms·

Please don't take this as an attack on libertarianism, as it seems as valid as any of the competing philosophies to me. That said, the part about not forcing o

Please don't take this as an attack on libertarianism, as it seems as valid as any of the competing philosophies to me. That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake. I don't think I'm straw-manning here, as I have come across that argument fairly regularly, but I understand this does not represent the perspective of every person who identifies as libertarian.

WalterBright 9y ago
I'm just responding to the "jerks" issue.
- bittercynic 9y ago
  After I posted that last one I realized I was getting off-track, and maybe just feeling argumentative. I think we fundamentally agree on the jerks issue.
conanbatt 9y ago
> That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake Thats the point of the libertarian moral tenets. You might disagree with them, but that does not imply 'jerkness' nor it is a 'nice thing' to do great things to some people by harming others.
- bittercynic 9y ago
  Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? Its their intention by definition. Even by the coldest utilitarian model, a tax is about harming someone. > That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes. What is the other way? because I truly dont know any view that holds paying taxes as a benefit and receiving benefits as a harm.
    - bittercynic 9y ago
      One alternative is that paying taxes is just contributing what you already owe in exchange for living in a society that has contributed to your wealth, and social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. The view I outlined is probably extreme by mainstream standards, but I think yours is, too.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        I think this view is as dogmatic as it is religious. It's like saying that you must give an offering to the church because God is looking after you and gave you everything you have. I don't recognize this "debt", let alone if you do "owe" society something, the state is not society the same way that the church is not God. > social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. Nobody stops you personally from helping the people that you considered harmed by the system. Ultimately, the people that believe in giving their resources to other people in need, dont require any help or force from the state. They can do it whenever and however they want. Taxes however, are compulsory. They don't care about what you think or why you do it.
        bittercynic 9y ago
        I'm not sure how to read this. Are you expressing your opinion, or outlining an extreme position to demonstrate some principle?
pitaj 9y ago
These core tenets or the philosophy can be viewed like any other philosophy. (Principled) libertarians view coercion (initiating the use of fraud or physical force against another person or their property) as a morally reprehensible action. Libertarians wish to minimize all coercion in society, and this is where internal disagreements occur. Some think that zero coercion is tolerable, so fall under the umbrella of anarcho-capitalism. Others think that because zero is unobtainable, there out to be a certain concession in order to achieve minimization. By centralization and legitimizing one coercive institution (the state), a lower amount of total coercion can be attained. I think that we should minimize the size of the state as much as possible, and that given time the social support which the state provides will be irrelevant (nobody will need it). I also think the current social support structure (among other things) of the state is wildly destructive to the poor, and that many things could be done to improve that which don't involve higher taxation.

WalterBright 9y ago

I'm just responding to the "jerks" issue.

bittercynic 9y ago
After I posted that last one I realized I was getting off-track, and maybe just feeling argumentative. I think we fundamentally agree on the jerks issue.

conanbatt 9y ago

> That said, the part about not forcing others to do your will is sometimes used to argue against levying taxes to be used for social programs (or almost anything else), and I think that is a mistake Thats the point of the libertarian moral tenets. You might disagree with them, but that does not imply 'jerkness' nor it is a 'nice thing' to do great things to some people by harming others.

bittercynic 9y ago
Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Do you mean to imply that levying taxes to fund social programs is doing great things to some by harming others? Its their intention by definition. Even by the coldest utilitarian model, a tax is about harming someone. > That is not the only way to view social programs. Or taxes. What is the other way? because I truly dont know any view that holds paying taxes as a benefit and receiving benefits as a harm.
  - bittercynic 9y ago
    One alternative is that paying taxes is just contributing what you already owe in exchange for living in a society that has contributed to your wealth, and social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. The view I outlined is probably extreme by mainstream standards, but I think yours is, too.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I think this view is as dogmatic as it is religious. It's like saying that you must give an offering to the church because God is looking after you and gave you everything you have. I don't recognize this "debt", let alone if you do "owe" society something, the state is not society the same way that the church is not God. > social programs provide some minimal compensation to people who are systematically screwed by the society they live in. Nobody stops you personally from helping the people that you considered harmed by the system. Ultimately, the people that believe in giving their resources to other people in need, dont require any help or force from the state. They can do it whenever and however they want. Taxes however, are compulsory. They don't care about what you think or why you do it.
      - bittercynic 9y ago
        I'm not sure how to read this. Are you expressing your opinion, or outlining an extreme position to demonstrate some principle?

pitaj 9y ago

These core tenets or the philosophy can be viewed like any other philosophy. (Principled) libertarians view coercion (initiating the use of fraud or physical force against another person or their property) as a morally reprehensible action. Libertarians wish to minimize all coercion in society, and this is where internal disagreements occur. Some think that zero coercion is tolerable, so fall under the umbrella of anarcho-capitalism. Others think that because zero is unobtainable, there out to be a certain concession in order to achieve minimization. By centralization and legitimizing one coercive institution (the state), a lower amount of total coercion can be attained. I think that we should minimize the size of the state as much as possible, and that given time the social support which the state provides will be irrelevant (nobody will need it). I also think the current social support structure (among other things) of the state is wildly destructive to the poor, and that many things could be done to improve that which don't involve higher taxation.