9 ms·

Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, propert

by qdog 14y ago

Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life). There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall. Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!

bjorn2404 14y ago
"get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
- cobrausn 14y ago
  It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist. From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles. The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
- clavalle 14y ago
  Anarcho-capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which a lot of libertarians subscribe to.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  No. Anarchism is against hierarchy, libertarians are against government. Libertarians are usually proprietarians (called "anarcho-capitalists" sometimes), people who think that properly-extended property relations/rights can solve every governance problem.
  - bjorn2404 14y ago
    In the US the party (I assume the majority) is not against all government. They just want to limit government.
- ataggart 14y ago
  Some types of the latter are subsets of the former.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism? Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
no_flags 14y ago
Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!
- qdog 14y ago
  A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves. For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases. Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will. That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
  - no_flags 14y ago
    I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like. The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself. My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion: "The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."
mindcrime 14y ago
FWIW, I'm very much a libertarian and spend a lot of time with other libertarians, and I don't know a single one who would contend that "ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals". What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property. I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life) Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.
- cpher 14y ago
  I agree. A "libertarian world" is nothing like a utopia, and that's the point. It's a world left up to the people, not to a group of political elite. Critics might argue that this further separates the haves from the have-nots. That could happen, but when compared to the haves/have-nots in other systems, I'll gladly choose one based on maximizing individual freedom.

by qdog 14y ago

bjorn2404 14y ago

"get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?

cobrausn 14y ago
It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist. From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way. At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles. The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
clavalle 14y ago
Anarcho-capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which a lot of libertarians subscribe to.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
No. Anarchism is against hierarchy, libertarians are against government. Libertarians are usually proprietarians (called "anarcho-capitalists" sometimes), people who think that properly-extended property relations/rights can solve every governance problem.
- bjorn2404 14y ago
  In the US the party (I assume the majority) is not against all government. They just want to limit government.
ataggart 14y ago
Some types of the latter are subsets of the former.
mindcrime 14y ago
Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism? Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

no_flags 14y ago

Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!

qdog 14y ago
A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves. For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases. Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will. That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
- no_flags 14y ago
  I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like. The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself. My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion: "The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."

mindcrime 14y ago

FWIW, I'm very much a libertarian and spend a lot of time with other libertarians, and I don't know a single one who would contend that "ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals". What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property. I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life) Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.

cpher 14y ago
I agree. A "libertarian world" is nothing like a utopia, and that's the point. It's a world left up to the people, not to a group of political elite. Critics might argue that this further separates the haves from the have-nots. That could happen, but when compared to the haves/have-nots in other systems, I'll gladly choose one based on maximizing individual freedom.