[ExI] Call To Libertarians

[Richard Loosemore]

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 02:08 PM, spike wrote:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Richard
>> Loosemore
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Call To Libertarians
>>
>> spike wrote:
>>>> ... On Behalf Of Richard Loosemore
>>> The inclusion of "theaters" was strictly optional:  not essential to my
>> argument.  A throwaway...
>>
>> Ja, that one caught my attention.  If any government builds a theatre, 
>> that
>> government dictates what is played there.
>>
>>> Would it be more accurate, then, to say that Libertarianism is about
>> SUPPORTING the  government funding of:
> 
> No.  This is the very epitome of definition by non-essentials.  We can 
> do better than this.
> 
> A minarchist generally believes that the only valid functions for 
> government are formulating and enforcing laws and the military.   Things 
> that they thing cannot be done privately.  It is a very short list.
> 
> But for what it is worth from this libertarian:
> 
>> Keep in mind that I differentiate between libertarianism and 
>> Libertarianism.
>> One has a capital L.  I use lower case.
>>
>>>    Roads,    yes
> 
> No.  Private road building worked fine and most private toll roads, 
> unlike public ones were paid off ages ago.
> 
> 
>>>     Bridges,    yes
> 
> No.  Most bridges were not built by government.
> 
>>>     Police,    yes
> 
> Perhaps but only with very constrained laws that follow the NAP.  Not 
> enforcement of whatever any politician things up regardless of whether 
> it is consistent with individual rights.
> 
> Arguably you do not need this to be a government function at all or to 
> have any such specialized body.  Read Rothbard for details.
> 
>>>     Firefighters,     yes
> 
> No. Private firefighters work fine.
> 
> 
>>>     Prisons,    yes, but perhaps not the luxury outfits we see so 
>>> commonly
>> today.
>>
> 
> No.  There is also an interesting argument (Rothbard and others) that 
> prisons are actually unnecessary for the putative purpose they are 
> claimed to be justified by.
> 
>>>     Schools,    yes
> 
> No way.  Government should not be involved in education whatsoever.
> 
> 
>>>     Public transport in places where universal use of cars would  bring
>> cities to a standstill        yes, if the public transport is
>> self-sustaining without (or perhaps minimal) government subsidy
>>
> 
> No.  If the excuse is accurate the need can be fulfilled privately much 
> better.
> 
>>>     The armed forces,    yes
> 
> Not necessarily but commonly argued by minarchist.   But no wars 
> declared by government with forced participation.  Individuals decide 
> whether the war is worth fighting or not.
> 
> 
>>>     Universities, and publicly funded scholarships for poor students,   
> 
> No.  You are free to contribute to the education funds of any individual 
> students or to a pool administered by private persons to distribute 
> funding to those in need of it for education.  Government involvement is 
> not remotely required.
> 
>> Yes if by "poor students" you meant students with little money, as 
>> opposed
>> to bad students.  High SATers, yes.
>>
>>   >    National research laboratories like the Centers for Disease 
>> Control and
>> Prevention  yes
>>
> 
> No.  There is no need for government to do this job.
> 
>>>     Snow plows,    yes, operated by non-union drivers
> 
> No.
> 
>>>     Public libraries,    yes
> 
> No.  Private persons and groups can and do create libraries open to the 
> public.
> 
>>   >    Emergency and disaster assistance;    yes,
> 
> No.  Private groups and individuals can do this.
> 
>>
>>>    Legal protection for those too poor to fight against the exploitative
>> power of corporations;    no, let them take their trade elsewhere.
>>
> 
> Non starter BS.  All have the same rights under rational individual 
> rights NAP based law.
> 
> 
>>   >    Government agencies to scrutinize corrupt practices by  
>> corporations
>> and wealthy individuals,    This might be OK if we balance it by having
>> corporations which would scrutinize corrupt practices by government 
>> and poor
>> individuals
> 
> Nope.  Either people or businesses broke rational laws or they did not.  
> No classist BS.
> 
>>>     Basic healthcare for old people who worked all their lives
>>         for corporations who paid them so little in salary that
>>         they could not save for retirement without starving to
>>         death before they reached retirement...      yes
>>
> 
> Highly biased BS.  No one has a valid claim on the resources of anyone 
> else irrespective of the wishes of the those others.  Ever.
> 
>>>     And sundry other programs that keep the very poor just above
>>         the subsistence level, so we do not have to step over their
>>         dead bodies on the street all the time, and so they do not
>>         wander around in feral packs, looking for middle-class people
>>         that they can kill and eat...
>>
> 
> Utter BS.  Poverty is created quite well by the Welfare State.   We are 
> all impoverished compared to what we could have had by the huge bloated 
> state and its manifold takings from us by force.

Now, this is between you and spike, since he was the one who responded 
to my questions .....  but you indirectly commented on the *framing* of 
my questions to spike, so I have some observations...

In a parallel post, you said:

 >> Ayn Rand's philosophy is not remotely about being a self-centered
 >> jerk.  But that is an entire other thread largely to me populated,
 >> if it arises, by those that have no idea what they are talking
 >> about or are unable or unwilling to discuss the matter
 >> intelligently without dismissive ranting.

Hmmmmm.  Can't help but notice that you just responded to my very polite 
and mild-mannered list of questions directed at spike, with language 
that dismissed my words as "Non starter BS", "Classist BS", "Highly 
biassed BS" and "Utter BS".

Then you complain about some hypothetical people who are "unable or 
unwilling to discuss the matter intelligently without dismissive ranting".

Very interesting.  Thoroughly consistent with other experiences I have 
had from people who defend extreme libertarian views.

*Some* people (not me, for sure, so don't get me wrong) would summarize 
that kind of behavior as .... well, I won't say it.  ;-)

But, do please continue your dispute with spike:  it is instructive to 
see libertarians disputing what the L word is actually about.  Glad I 
could help by framing the debate.



Richard Loosemore