2 ms·

You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act

by dghf 12y ago

You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act short-sightedly)." Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that. But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.: - a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it - a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency - civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications - public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business) - public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more) - some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades) These cost money. The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.

wlievens 12y ago
Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.
- meric 12y ago
  if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
  - wlievens 12y ago
    I wasn't talking about the US in particular, I'm from Europe in fact. I pretty much agree with all your points: surveillance overreach is unacceptable, police power abuse is disgusting, mandatory private health insurance is unethical (though the previous situation didn't exactly work either so I'm unsure that would be better), and I think almost all monopolies are the enemy of both free markets and social protection. Fixing these things does not require libertarianism or socialism or whatelsehaveyouism. They need political pragmatism, courage and common sense.
GFischer 12y ago
I'm not an American libertarian, but the (non-american) libertarians I know agree with most of the points you mention. - a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it yes, and they want more of it. What they don't want is codifying morals and customs into law (eg: gay marriage or not, anti-abortion, anti-most stuff), except for the very basics (thou shalt not kill and stuff). - a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency well, actually that's one of the central points for most libertarians. Giving the government the power to print money (and to punish private transactions) is very problematic. See: Argentina right now. Or Venezuela. - civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications well, yes, but they can be privatized and work as well. - public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business) this one's very debatable, yeah, most libertarians are against public health. I still don't know which is the best option (insurance companies certainly aren't) - public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more) most libertarians are against public education, but that does not translate to not helping everyone get basic literacy, it can be archieved through grants or coupons or stuff. Plus at least in my country there are several free private schools available (paid for by religious or other NGOs), of much better quality than public ones. - some kind of safety net for the poor some are in favor of that one, they disagree on the how (and very especially on the how it's done now).

by dghf 12y ago

wlievens 12y ago

Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.

meric 12y ago
if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
- wlievens 12y ago
  I wasn't talking about the US in particular, I'm from Europe in fact. I pretty much agree with all your points: surveillance overreach is unacceptable, police power abuse is disgusting, mandatory private health insurance is unethical (though the previous situation didn't exactly work either so I'm unsure that would be better), and I think almost all monopolies are the enemy of both free markets and social protection. Fixing these things does not require libertarianism or socialism or whatelsehaveyouism. They need political pragmatism, courage and common sense.

GFischer 12y ago

I'm not an American libertarian, but the (non-american) libertarians I know agree with most of the points you mention. - a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it yes, and they want more of it. What they don't want is codifying morals and customs into law (eg: gay marriage or not, anti-abortion, anti-most stuff), except for the very basics (thou shalt not kill and stuff). - a more or less ordered and peaceful society - a more or less stable currency well, actually that's one of the central points for most libertarians. Giving the government the power to print money (and to punish private transactions) is very problematic. See: Argentina right now. Or Venezuela. - civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications well, yes, but they can be privatized and work as well. - public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business) this one's very debatable, yeah, most libertarians are against public health. I still don't know which is the best option (insurance companies certainly aren't) - public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more) most libertarians are against public education, but that does not translate to not helping everyone get basic literacy, it can be archieved through grants or coupons or stuff. Plus at least in my country there are several free private schools available (paid for by religious or other NGOs), of much better quality than public ones. - some kind of safety net for the poor some are in favor of that one, they disagree on the how (and very especially on the how it's done now).