[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:58 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> <>
> which (although it is written in support of libertarian POV) makes
> some good points.

The idea that the law
“may not properly compel [a] parent to feed [his or her] child or to
keep it alive”

is not something I would assert. The reason being that your child is
another human being, and the law should protect your child from
everyone else, including you, their parents. Having a child be
property of the parent minimizes their classification as a human
being. So this doesn't meet my definition of libertarian or decent
behavior on the part of government.

Given that, I do think that DCFS, in it's current implementation, is
too governmental, and too interfering in people's lives. It serves as
a mechanism for "reeducation" in the very worst sense of that word. I
speak here from extensive personal experience in dealing with this
particular governmental pain in the ass, despite the fact that I have
never abused a child.

Now, if the government compels you to give maximum care to a child
with a fatal birth defect, I have issues with that... but that is a
corner case.

> Quote:
> Rothbard seems to think that he can show us that we are committed to
> accepting self-ownership, and that once he does this we are committed
> on pain of irrationality to accepting everything that follows
> logically from it, no matter how absurd it might seem.***  But this is
> not how moral reasoning works, or ought to work.  Demonstrating that a
> moral principle has some intuitive support gives you some reason to
> accept it.  (e.g. “taxation is like theft and theft is wrong so
> taxation is wrong”).

In general, I subscribe to "tax is theft." Frédéric Bastiat's "The
Law" (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html) is one of the most cogent
explanations of this point of view, and it was published in 1850 when
government's micromanagement of the citizenry was a fraction of what
it has now evolved into. Bastiat's thesis is that the ONLY legitimate
government is one that defends the right of every individual to life,
liberty, and property and NOTHING MORE. I agree with his thesis 100%.

I do believe that we should, as a society, protect the disabled,
elderly, disadvantaged, uneducated, build roads, provide
infrastucture, etc. But I believe that we are FAR better off doing
this with NGOs, Charities, and dare I say it, capitalistic
corporations.

When taxes are collected to insure my life, liberty and property, I
can accept that as a legitimate use of my money. We can argue about
how taxes are collected. Whether it be an import tax, a luxury tax, an
income tax, an inheritance tax, a land tax, etc. But that isn't the
main issue.

If the tax is used to protect me from my fellow citizens, enemy
countries and enemy memes, then I feel pretty good about that. It
protects my freedom. So I am willing to pay a "freedom" tax, that is
taxes that will go directly to things that keep me free.

Ideally, there should be some way to agree to be taxed for this
purpose, and a suitable consequence should you choose not to agree.
(i.e. your freedom isn't as fully guaranteed as someone who does agree
to the tax.) Ron Paul has some interesting specifics in this area
related to contract law.

> But that reason can be overcome if it turns out
> that the intuitive principle has deeply counterintuitive implications.
>  (e.g., “it is wrong to tax $100 away from a millionaire to save the
> life of a starving child”).

I support this statement. It is wrong to take $100 from a millionaire
to save the life of a starving child. If he wants to donate the $100,
that's super! But to force him at the point of a gun, with threat of
imprisonment if he does not comply, is indeed WRONG, imho.

> Good moral reasoning involves something
> like the back-and-forth method of reflective equilibrium.  All but our
> most deeply held moral beliefs, and perhaps even them, are held
> subject to revision in the light of new evidence, new arguments, and
> new inquiries.  This is why my own attraction to libertarianism is
> grounded in a kind of moral pluralism.  Yes, I believe that coercion
> is a prima facie bad.

It is the worst thing a government can do, unless you have committed a
crime against another citizen, or against the government itself. What
do you mean by moral pluralism?

> But I also believe that it is prima facie bad
> for people to fail to get what they deserve, or for their basic needs
> to be unmet.

Isn't that their problem? Why do we owe ANYTHING to anyone else? We
have our own internal morality, of course, but what makes it the
government's job to enforce morality? Who died and made you Robin
Hood?

I also believe in insurance, but I don't want the government to be an
insurance company either. By your argument, it seems to me that the
government should sell everyone car/house/health insurance, by force,
upon threat of imprisonment if they don't want to buy the insurance. I
don't think so.

> These moral beliefs, to my mind, have just as firm a
> standing as my opposition to coercion.

Your personal morality is required for a libertarian (as I describe
it) society to function, because otherwise, the poor and disadvantaged
would be downtrodden. I have no disagreement that these things should
be taken care of, but WHY does it HAVE to be the government that
provides the solutions? That is the core question for me, not whether
charitable works should be promoted in a society.

> I see no reason to believe
> that in a conflict between them, the opposition to coercion should
> always trump.  Of course, this also makes it difficult for me to
> support an absolute, bright-line, form of minimal state
> libertarianism, as opposed to a more modest form of classical
> liberalism (see here for elaboration of the distinction).  But such is
> the price of nuance, I think.

This is not nuance. It's a matter of what part of society has what
responsibility. I say government should stay out of the way of
charity, and vice versa. I don't want a military run by a charity or a
corporation! That would be chaos of a tremendous degree. Likewise, I
see chaos because government has gotten into business and functions as
a charity too!

> That points at one of the problems I have with libertarians --
> Once you accept principle 'A' then we are committed on pain of
> irrationality to accepting everything that follows logically from it,
> no matter how absurd it might seem. Sorry, but I just won't do that.
> <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/>

Bill, this isn't just about rationality. It's about division of
responsibility in society. It doesn't HAVE to be government, it can be
private. Because of the efficiency of acting locally, and avoiding the
bureaucracy of huge organizations, society would simply be more
efficient if the government were in charge of MUCH LESS than they are
today.

Does that sound irrational to you, or just wrong? I can accept that
this might be the wrong position, and will listen to your arguments,
but if you think it's irrational to think in this manner, then I don't
know where to go...

-Kelly