[ExI] Call To Libertarians

[Samantha Atkins]

On 02/22/2011 12:07 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> 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".
>

Are you saying your questions were without spin?  It was the spin that I 
responded to.  You may call it ranting if you like.


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

Those questions are not usable for an intelligent examination of 
libertarian thought as I mentioned at the beginning of this post.  I was 
hardly trying to do an intelligent reasoned discussion as the questions 
were throwaways and I said it was from my perspective for what it was 
worth to answer them.    So your criticism is not that well placed in 
this case.

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

Whatever.  You baited the hook.

> *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.  ;-)
>

Don't be passive aggressive about 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.

Sigh.  It is starting to not be worth my time to even attempt to answer 
the pernicious nonsense that flies past on such subjects.

- s