[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/5/10 Mr Jones <mrjones2020 at gmail.com>:
> Particularly interesting to me were these few sentences...
>>
>> Yes, I believe that coercion
>> is a prima facie bad.  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.  These moral beliefs, to my mind, have just as firm a
>> standing as my opposition to coercion.  I see no reason to believe
>> that in a conflict between them, the opposition to coercion should
>> always trump.
>
> I agree the govt doesn't get to dig into your pocket for any lil' ole thing
> they want/need/desire.  But until people have their basic needs met, society
> deserves the burden, as a whole.

I agree with this, except for the "as a whole" part. I think there are
enough generous people, at least in a country like America, to care
for the truly indigent. The problem with government is you end up with
a program like Food Stamps that now serves 35 million people (12% of
the population). These are not all indigent. I know, I was on Food
Stamps myself for a while and I was by no means indigent at the time.
I just qualified for the program. I'm pretty sure I would qualify now.
I am not indigent, but I could steal money from all of you (at least
the Americans who pay taxes) by going down and applying.

> Amass as much capital as your greedy heart
> desires, once children aren't starving to death because some company like
> Glencore has found a way to game the system.
> "Stability is to be prized," said Oxfam's David Green. And that is the last
> thing Glencore wants, as it's instability which is most profitable - for
> those who have the inside knowledge to exploit it.

I'm not familiar with Glencore, but I probably would not like what
they are doing. If you have an article to read or something, I'd be
glad to comment further.

> Govt provides a kind of balancing against the power of capital (at least
> it's supposed to, when working properly).  What we've witnessed the past
> few'ish decades, is what happens when capital rules the roost
> semi-unchecked.  De-regulation hands the keys to the inmates.  On the other
> hand, micro-managed regulation mucks things up too; as always there's a
> balance to be found.

Of course, there is balance. But to say that there are only two
players, government and corporations, in the game is disingenuous.
There are a lot more players than that, including lobbyists, churches,
NGOs, non-profits, charities, professional organizations, unions, etc.
All of these play a part, and I argue that some of them should play a
much bigger part than they do today. And government should play a
smaller part, for sure.

-Kelly