5 ms·

> Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Li

by mpyne 13y ago

> Even the most staunch of minarchists wouldn't generally repeal the 'base' laws, which are those laws that, if violated, infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not, for example, suggest that murder should be legal -- everyone has the right to life. The set of laws is not really the problem then. Literally everyone agrees that "government should be as small as possible", the problem is that no one ever agrees as to how small that can possibly be. As soon as you're accepted the state, the "men with guns" whom the libertarians trot out as their boogeyman, the existence of a judicial system and police, etc. then the libertarians are suddenly not that far different in practice from many other parties and are even closer in theory (since apparently everyone agrees that courts and police are OK now...)

novalis78 13y ago
"literally everyone agrees that 'government should be as small as possible". Coming from Europe, that strikes me as a fascinating American (I presume) statement. From countless conversations I (Libertarian leaning - something which I just discovered in the last few years, did not even know that such a thing existed before that) had in the past in various European countries I found that the size of government was usually completely irrelevant for most people and in fact the majority was in favor of laws, ideas, concepts, movements etc, that de facto would lead to more government and more laws. Sorry for the OT, just fascinated :-)
- einhverfr 13y ago
  And yet, having been owner and operator of businesses in both the US and UK, the UK government is far friendlier to small businesses than the US government is. Part of the US problem is that government has scaled up so far demographically and geographically that the government does need to be as small as possible at least on a federal level. A way to look at this from a European perspective might be the role of the European Union: should the EU government be as powerful as possible? Or should virtually all of the lawmaking power reside with the member states?
- mpyne 13y ago
  The concept comes out of something akin to the sibling reply to my comment. That there are legal concepts/ideas/etc. that would allow government to regulate something is usually a given, especially in our globalized world where you might buy something online made 3 states away (so that the Federal government is clearly in the lead). The conceit is that just because government can get involved doesn't mean it's a good idea for government to get involved. In fact it's practically axiomatic here that the 'proper' level of government involvement in laws, regulation, etc. is the minimum needed to do the job and that government interaction beyond that level is actively harmful. Even the Democrats tend to toe this line, their disagreement generally comes at the level of "minimum needed" (e.g. there was a push for single-payer option before ObamaCare was finalized as that was felt to be the only way to really meet the goals intended).
bmelton 13y ago
I don't necessarily disagree. It wasn't an attempt to assert that libertarianism is or isn't great, just that if Zed genuinely thinks that most libertarians don't consider 'theft' a crime, then he is badly mistaken. How close or far away Libertarianism is from more statist methodologies is outside the scope of the point I was trying to make, but if I were making a point, it's that yes, they are closer together than his lawless society (which couldn't be further apart) suggests.
- pekk 13y ago
  'crime' is not equivalent to 'cause for revenge through the security agency of your choice'.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well I know it's hard to pin a single definition but I will say I've encountered "libertarians" who were really essentially an/caps and actually did envision a nearly lawless society running on some sort of free market (oh, and strong property rights, always strong property rights). It's getting to the point that when one says they're a libertarian I'm not even sure what that means at first. :-/
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I've had that same discussion recently with my wife, when I think we were discussing Chomsky. In short, I agree, the 'libertarian' umbrella is a broad one, but I think it's as unfair to suggest that libertarianism seriously espouses lawlessness as it is to suggest that democrats espouse NSA spying. Sure, some democrats undoubtedly do, but it's by no means a core policy position. As for the 'strong property rights' comment, you clearly haven't yet met a libertarian socialist[1]. ;-) [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

by mpyne 13y ago

novalis78 13y ago

"literally everyone agrees that 'government should be as small as possible". Coming from Europe, that strikes me as a fascinating American (I presume) statement. From countless conversations I (Libertarian leaning - something which I just discovered in the last few years, did not even know that such a thing existed before that) had in the past in various European countries I found that the size of government was usually completely irrelevant for most people and in fact the majority was in favor of laws, ideas, concepts, movements etc, that de facto would lead to more government and more laws. Sorry for the OT, just fascinated :-)

einhverfr 13y ago
And yet, having been owner and operator of businesses in both the US and UK, the UK government is far friendlier to small businesses than the US government is. Part of the US problem is that government has scaled up so far demographically and geographically that the government does need to be as small as possible at least on a federal level. A way to look at this from a European perspective might be the role of the European Union: should the EU government be as powerful as possible? Or should virtually all of the lawmaking power reside with the member states?
mpyne 13y ago
The concept comes out of something akin to the sibling reply to my comment. That there are legal concepts/ideas/etc. that would allow government to regulate something is usually a given, especially in our globalized world where you might buy something online made 3 states away (so that the Federal government is clearly in the lead). The conceit is that just because government can get involved doesn't mean it's a good idea for government to get involved. In fact it's practically axiomatic here that the 'proper' level of government involvement in laws, regulation, etc. is the minimum needed to do the job and that government interaction beyond that level is actively harmful. Even the Democrats tend to toe this line, their disagreement generally comes at the level of "minimum needed" (e.g. there was a push for single-payer option before ObamaCare was finalized as that was felt to be the only way to really meet the goals intended).

bmelton 13y ago

I don't necessarily disagree. It wasn't an attempt to assert that libertarianism is or isn't great, just that if Zed genuinely thinks that most libertarians don't consider 'theft' a crime, then he is badly mistaken. How close or far away Libertarianism is from more statist methodologies is outside the scope of the point I was trying to make, but if I were making a point, it's that yes, they are closer together than his lawless society (which couldn't be further apart) suggests.

pekk 13y ago
'crime' is not equivalent to 'cause for revenge through the security agency of your choice'.
mpyne 13y ago
Well I know it's hard to pin a single definition but I will say I've encountered "libertarians" who were really essentially an/caps and actually did envision a nearly lawless society running on some sort of free market (oh, and strong property rights, always strong property rights). It's getting to the point that when one says they're a libertarian I'm not even sure what that means at first. :-/
- bmelton 13y ago
  I've had that same discussion recently with my wife, when I think we were discussing Chomsky. In short, I agree, the 'libertarian' umbrella is a broad one, but I think it's as unfair to suggest that libertarianism seriously espouses lawlessness as it is to suggest that democrats espouse NSA spying. Sure, some democrats undoubtedly do, but it's by no means a core policy position. As for the 'strong property rights' comment, you clearly haven't yet met a libertarian socialist[1]. ;-) [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism