5 ms·

libertarians only acknowledge negative rights; you can't do X to me. There is no such thing as a positive right; you must give X to me.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
Some (such as myself) also believe it legitimate for the government to provide public goods: goods which are nonrivalrous and nonexcludible. Protection from contagious disease falls into this category, for instance.
- steveplace 18y ago
  And that's being known as a "practical libertarian"
  - olefoo 18y ago
    No, it's known as being a socialist. //not that there's anything wrong with that.
    - yummyfajitas 18y ago
      This is probably the first time since adulthood that I've ever been called a socialist (I was a socialist for a short time during my teenage years).
    - steveplace 18y ago
      I'd actually like to define it as extreme moderatism.
  - william42 18y ago
    Actually it's being known as "having taken econ 101".
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  That's where I stand. I want a small government, and I think it's crazy that a government as hulking as ours doesn't provide something as essential as healthcare. On the other hand, I'm against social security and think that a general welfare system will do fine to take care of poor people, young or old.
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    It's unfortunate that the desire for an efficient government has been tied into the desire for "small government" and libertarianism. An efficient government is a laudable thing that everyone should want, and so cutting away the fat is a natural thing to do in any sort of political light. I don't know why libertarians at large seem to claim ownership of this notion.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      A part of the reason may be that lots of people make their living off this "fat."
      - walterk 18y ago
        Hence, we need to change up our notion of government as fixed institution to government as agile organization.
        thomasmallen 18y ago
        And other nations would be licking their chops.
        walterk 18y ago
        Not sure what you mean by this? I wasn't advocating anarchism. I'm simply saying we need to think of (and implement) government as an agile entity, one that dynamically allocates resources as necessary rather than suffers from "institution creep".
- likpok 18y ago
  Or, you could argue that the government should be limited to market failures. Roads, defense, control, vaccines... all have significant effects outside of the markets, and thus their price does not reflect the benefit to society.
  - anewaccountname 18y ago
    >Roads, defense, control, vaccines... Where do you stop? Surely you'd have to include financial companies? A financial company that makes up 10% of the financial market will calculate a phony 90% discount on any systemic risk it creates: after all, if the system fails, only 10% of that failure will be realized as a loss.
anewaccountname 18y ago
Huh? How do initial property rights get started then?

yummyfajitas 18y ago

Some (such as myself) also believe it legitimate for the government to provide public goods: goods which are nonrivalrous and nonexcludible. Protection from contagious disease falls into this category, for instance.

steveplace 18y ago
And that's being known as a "practical libertarian"
- olefoo 18y ago
  No, it's known as being a socialist. //not that there's anything wrong with that.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    This is probably the first time since adulthood that I've ever been called a socialist (I was a socialist for a short time during my teenage years).
  - steveplace 18y ago
    I'd actually like to define it as extreme moderatism.
- william42 18y ago
  Actually it's being known as "having taken econ 101".
thomasmallen 18y ago
That's where I stand. I want a small government, and I think it's crazy that a government as hulking as ours doesn't provide something as essential as healthcare. On the other hand, I'm against social security and think that a general welfare system will do fine to take care of poor people, young or old.
- KirinDave 18y ago
  It's unfortunate that the desire for an efficient government has been tied into the desire for "small government" and libertarianism. An efficient government is a laudable thing that everyone should want, and so cutting away the fat is a natural thing to do in any sort of political light. I don't know why libertarians at large seem to claim ownership of this notion.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    A part of the reason may be that lots of people make their living off this "fat."
    - walterk 18y ago
      Hence, we need to change up our notion of government as fixed institution to government as agile organization.
      - thomasmallen 18y ago
        And other nations would be licking their chops.
        walterk 18y ago
        Not sure what you mean by this? I wasn't advocating anarchism. I'm simply saying we need to think of (and implement) government as an agile entity, one that dynamically allocates resources as necessary rather than suffers from "institution creep".
likpok 18y ago
Or, you could argue that the government should be limited to market failures. Roads, defense, control, vaccines... all have significant effects outside of the markets, and thus their price does not reflect the benefit to society.
- anewaccountname 18y ago
  >Roads, defense, control, vaccines... Where do you stop? Surely you'd have to include financial companies? A financial company that makes up 10% of the financial market will calculate a phony 90% discount on any systemic risk it creates: after all, if the system fails, only 10% of that failure will be realized as a loss.

anewaccountname 18y ago

Huh? How do initial property rights get started then?