4 ms·

I consider myself a left-libertarian, and I strongly support a basic income. I'm also a supporter of some amount of public health care. In theory I support the

by api 13y ago

I consider myself a left-libertarian, and I strongly support a basic income. I'm also a supporter of some amount of public health care. In theory I support the elimination of taxation and a purely volitional society, but I recognize that such a thing is likely a very long way away. What we have now is not even close, and trying to shoehorn it into that vision prematurely will not work. That kind of moral futurism should not blind us to chances to radically improve human life here and now while working pragmatically within the bounds of the political realities we have. One also must ask the question: given that the abolition of force and fraud is a moral long term goal, what sort of society would we want to build that would be likely to evolve in that direction? I don't think crony capitalism with fascist tendencies and no social safety net seems like what you'd want. Seems like that would be more likely to regress back to feudalism... which is exactly the historical path that we seem to be on. Regression to feudalism takes us further -- much further -- from that goal. Seems to me that the precursors to a volitional libertarian state are radical reductions in violence both within and between nations, a highly educated and healthy populace that is capable of taking care of itself, and the abolition of caste systems (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, guild systems, etc.). A basic income is a step in that direction.

nickff 13y ago
"Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. "Public health care" is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. Your third paragraph is interesting, because you appear (to me at least), to endorse liberty, yet without believing in it. >"given that the abolition of force and fraud is a moral long term goal, what sort of society would we want to build that would be likely to evolve in that direction" My answer to your question, (as quoted above,) is that I believe liberty would allow for people to prosper, and all the fascist, feudal, and that regressive tendencies we see are a product of coercion. I do not understand your answer to the question, as it seems to open the door for any type of coercive means with the stated intent (but not necessarily with the result) of improving the welfare of the populace. The ends which you describe in the last paragraph are all interesting, and nice goals, but do not (in themselves) justify the use of coercive means; especially since the coercion presents many discrimination problems due to the discretionary powers granted to those who would 'solve' the problems.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > "Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.
  - nickff 13y ago
    I would pose a question to you: In what area of healthcare has a government in the OECD reduced its 'participation'? If the answer is 'a few' or 'not many', then I would say we are experiencing the destruction of private health care right now.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      If you define "destruction" that way, your argument is circular, as you've just made it: 1. Public health care usually leads to destroying private health care, and 2. "Destroying" private health care means the government not decreasing the public role in health care.
      - nickff 13y ago
        I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My point is that many OECD states are (greatly) increasing the portion of the healthcare market controlled by the government, and few if any are decreasing it substantially (or at all). I define 'destroying' the private market in healthcare as the government taking over previously private activities, in effect nationalizing the industry.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. It wouldn't change the basic problem; you first started with the claim that public health care usuually means destroying private health care and have progressed to define "destroying" private health care as government either not decreasing (your penultimate post) or increasing (your last post) its role in health care. Which means that, stripped of the peculiar definition of destruction, your claims is that public health care means the government either not decreasing or increasing its role in health care. Which is trivially true, of course, but absolutely vacuous.
orblivion 13y ago
> Seems to me that the precursors to a volitional libertarian state are radical reductions in violence both within and between nations, a highly educated and healthy populace that is capable of taking care of itself, and the abolition of caste systems (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, guild systems, etc.). A basic income is a step in that direction. Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions? Why remove the state at all if you think it can engineer society for the better in this way?
- tokenizer 13y ago
  A libertarian could be a minarchist, and anarchist, or simply someone who looks at our current governance architecture (state control focusing on finance and asset wealth growth) as counter intuitive. > Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions? The libertarian in my worries that a state would either abuse a system for the benefit of a small elite, or purposefully skew results in favor for their brand of narrative (didn't work, too expensive, just not possible, abolishing labour laws because it needs to be done!, etc...). Personally it depends on the policy details to me. If this leads to the abolishment of all other forms of social assistance, and can reduce the amount of government employees who simply decided who got them in our older models, then sign me up. A system would also have to not discriminate, neither down nor up in regards to income. That said if our choices are current social assistance, negative income tax based minimum income, or minimum income for all without deductions, then both NIT-MI and MI work for me.
- api 13y ago
  If you remove the state from a violent, fraud-ridden, still very feudal system, you will simply unveil the underlying less centralized tyranny latent in that system. There's also a massive blind spot in most conventional libertarian thought with regard to soft power and indirect coercion. Eliminating direct coercion but leaving caste systems in place only frees those who are rich or powerful enough to evade those caste systems. The rest are consigned to poverty and oppression through manipulation instead of force. So yes, I do think the state can play some role at this time in history at uplifting the human condition and empowering the general population in ways that could -- given a lot of time -- eventually lead to a future that is better and freer in multiple ways. Or it could not. The state can't be trusted, but I also don't think we can dispense with it (yet). Simple reductio ad absurdium: imagine actually dispensing with the US Federal Government. Most US states in the interior would establish theocratic feudal totalitarianism along Christian Reconstructionist / Dominionist lines, and the coasts and anywhere resource-rich would probably be invaded.
craigyk 13y ago
I'm confused as to how you think libertarianism is the path to get to that society, the only path, or even the best path. If we are dreaming futures, the goals you mention could just as easily be met by a system in which super-sentient AIs plan all the details, and robots provide all the labor. After all, the only monetary 'freedom' that is better than having complete control over one's money, is the freedom of not having to even worry about it.

by api 13y ago

nickff 13y ago

"Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. "Public health care" is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. Your third paragraph is interesting, because you appear (to me at least), to endorse liberty, yet without believing in it. >"given that the abolition of force and fraud is a moral long term goal, what sort of society would we want to build that would be likely to evolve in that direction" My answer to your question, (as quoted above,) is that I believe liberty would allow for people to prosper, and all the fascist, feudal, and that regressive tendencies we see are a product of coercion. I do not understand your answer to the question, as it seems to open the door for any type of coercive means with the stated intent (but not necessarily with the result) of improving the welfare of the populace. The ends which you describe in the last paragraph are all interesting, and nice goals, but do not (in themselves) justify the use of coercive means; especially since the coercion presents many discrimination problems due to the discretionary powers granted to those who would 'solve' the problems.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> "Public health care" is interesting, because it usually involves first forcing everyone to pay for a government healthcare system, then (usually) regulating the private system into oblivion, or destroying it outright. You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.
- nickff 13y ago
  I would pose a question to you: In what area of healthcare has a government in the OECD reduced its 'participation'? If the answer is 'a few' or 'not many', then I would say we are experiencing the destruction of private health care right now.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    If you define "destruction" that way, your argument is circular, as you've just made it: 1. Public health care usually leads to destroying private health care, and 2. "Destroying" private health care means the government not decreasing the public role in health care.
    - nickff 13y ago
      I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. My point is that many OECD states are (greatly) increasing the portion of the healthcare market controlled by the government, and few if any are decreasing it substantially (or at all). I define 'destroying' the private market in healthcare as the government taking over previously private activities, in effect nationalizing the industry.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear. It wouldn't change the basic problem; you first started with the claim that public health care usuually means destroying private health care and have progressed to define "destroying" private health care as government either not decreasing (your penultimate post) or increasing (your last post) its role in health care. Which means that, stripped of the peculiar definition of destruction, your claims is that public health care means the government either not decreasing or increasing its role in health care. Which is trivially true, of course, but absolutely vacuous.

orblivion 13y ago

> Seems to me that the precursors to a volitional libertarian state are radical reductions in violence both within and between nations, a highly educated and healthy populace that is capable of taking care of itself, and the abolition of caste systems (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, guild systems, etc.). A basic income is a step in that direction. Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions? Why remove the state at all if you think it can engineer society for the better in this way?

tokenizer 13y ago
A libertarian could be a minarchist, and anarchist, or simply someone who looks at our current governance architecture (state control focusing on finance and asset wealth growth) as counter intuitive. > Does the libertarian within you believe that the State will accomplish this goal, without worse repercussions? The libertarian in my worries that a state would either abuse a system for the benefit of a small elite, or purposefully skew results in favor for their brand of narrative (didn't work, too expensive, just not possible, abolishing labour laws because it needs to be done!, etc...). Personally it depends on the policy details to me. If this leads to the abolishment of all other forms of social assistance, and can reduce the amount of government employees who simply decided who got them in our older models, then sign me up. A system would also have to not discriminate, neither down nor up in regards to income. That said if our choices are current social assistance, negative income tax based minimum income, or minimum income for all without deductions, then both NIT-MI and MI work for me.
api 13y ago
If you remove the state from a violent, fraud-ridden, still very feudal system, you will simply unveil the underlying less centralized tyranny latent in that system. There's also a massive blind spot in most conventional libertarian thought with regard to soft power and indirect coercion. Eliminating direct coercion but leaving caste systems in place only frees those who are rich or powerful enough to evade those caste systems. The rest are consigned to poverty and oppression through manipulation instead of force. So yes, I do think the state can play some role at this time in history at uplifting the human condition and empowering the general population in ways that could -- given a lot of time -- eventually lead to a future that is better and freer in multiple ways. Or it could not. The state can't be trusted, but I also don't think we can dispense with it (yet). Simple reductio ad absurdium: imagine actually dispensing with the US Federal Government. Most US states in the interior would establish theocratic feudal totalitarianism along Christian Reconstructionist / Dominionist lines, and the coasts and anywhere resource-rich would probably be invaded.

craigyk 13y ago

I'm confused as to how you think libertarianism is the path to get to that society, the only path, or even the best path. If we are dreaming futures, the goals you mention could just as easily be met by a system in which super-sentient AIs plan all the details, and robots provide all the labor. After all, the only monetary 'freedom' that is better than having complete control over one's money, is the freedom of not having to even worry about it.