Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 18, 2007 13:34:53 GMT -5
Welcome, students. This will be the discussion thread for the Philosophy 101 lecture on Libertarianism. I'll moderate the discussion a little, and if you have any questions on the material I'll do my best to answer them, but for the most part I'd like the discussion to be directed by the students themselves - you! So go read the lecture here, and then come back and talk about it. Additionally, this is the first lesson we're having here at the Academy, and if any of you have suggestions on what kind of stuff we should do here at the Academy, please let me know outside class (by a private message, for example). Alright, thanks, and go to it!
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 18, 2007 14:08:44 GMT -5
So, just a point I want to clear up before I move on with my ideas, the Libertarianist idea of a government is more like a hired thug that keeps them safe from other free people trying to infringe on their basic right of property. Thus the government is hired to protect, paying a fee.
Isn't that just semantics? Doesn't the night watchgovernment have to curb some freedoms to allow the government to do its work, thus giving the government power, and their fee that's charged is just a way to fancy up the word tax.
It's the principle of the farmer who owns his land and can say whether or not someone can stand in his territory. If that farmer finds that someone is stealing his sheep he'll appoint a lawman to roam his territory in search of the sheep-thief. If the farmer wants the lawman to find the thief, the farmer cannot bar the lawman entry to places that the sheep thief might be or to places that might help the lawman find him, thus losing his right to property if the lawman feels so inclined to wander his home in search for clues. The difference being that a hired lawman can be fired and a government cannot.
|
|
Nesslandria Haneh
Aristocrat
Countess of Wolfshire County
Loyal servant to our Lord Protector and his Queen.
Posts: 230
|
Post by Nesslandria Haneh on Nov 20, 2007 5:25:37 GMT -5
A brilliant lecture, Gelare. Thank you very much. I found it very informative.
I'm not sure how I feel about libertarianism. On the one hand, I do very much like the idea of a small government, but I don't know how we the people would succeed in keeping the government from growing too large. An income tax used to be illegal until Congress added an amendment to the Constitution. Now we are taxed on income from any source derived. What's to stop the libertarian government from acting in the same vain?
Libertarianism also hits at the whole 'moral society' argument. How can we have a moral society if everyone is acting out of self-interest. Yes, you can sell your body, but now we have a society that supports prostitution and an outbreak of STDs. If you have an unwanted pregnancy, just abort. Does not abortion violate the child's right to live? Or is the woman only affecting her own body? You can do whatever drugs you please, but you're not in full control of yourself when under their influence, so that's an increase in crime. If I accidentally burn down my house while high, there's a good chance my neighbor's house will suffer damage as well. It's a thin line.
Thank you again for the lecture. I'd like to comment further, and perhaps I shall later, but I really need to get some sleep as it is 5:25 am. If anything doesn't make sense, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 20, 2007 23:28:21 GMT -5
But now you're bringing in completely different discussions. Abortion should not, and never will be in Uantir, a governmental issue. I am currently disgusted that it is here in America. That is something that is personal, between yourself, your family, your partner and your god(s).
I don't like libertarianism because it relies on human goodness to protect the common person. And, since most people who would choose libertarianism are greedy and selfish as a cast with little interest for anything that isn't theirs or effecting theirs, that poor cripple does fall by the wayside. Unfortunately it takes good people in government for government to help fill in the gap left over by human greed.
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 21, 2007 2:18:03 GMT -5
King Ari: Libertarianism tries very hard not to rely on human goodness. Like Adam Smith wrote, selfish people acting in their own self-interest can promote the public good. In fact, it is quite likely that in a more libertarian society, the common person would be better off than one is now. However, it's likely also true that a poor or disabled person would be significantly less well-off, since libertarianism doesn't have many ways to watch out for the poor.
Libertarians would argue that having people with good intentions run the government by taxing the population to provide welfare to the poor is not a good thing, because those bureaucrats, despite their best intentions, are committing moral wrongs to the citizens by taxing them and thus violating their right to property. The libertarian response to the complaints of the poor is, we're very sorry, but it would be morally wrong of us to tax the other citizens and redistribute their wealth to you. The libertarian would challenge you to explain on what grounds you are morally justified to violate someone's right to property and redistribute their wealth to the poor.
Viscountess Haneh: Your first point, if I'm interpreting it correctly, is how does a libertarian society keep their own government in check. There are a number of options: periodic elections, strikes, revolutions, etc. It's important to note that there are a number of ways to implement a libertarian government. It is perfectly possible to have a libertarian monarchy, where the monarchs do little but give the thumbs up to the generals. It is possible to have a libertarian democracy, where the people running the night watchman state are periodically replaced via elections. Libertarian republic, libertarian meritocracy, libertarian aristocracy, whatever. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, does not tell us which of these to choose. It tells us that, no matter which we choose, to have a just society it must somehow implement libertarian principles. The specifics are left to the citizens, which is, of course, the correct course of action; that way, the citizens can tailor the type of govenment to their own needs and culture.
In summary, libertarianism isn't really concerned with how to keep the government in check. Neither is utilitarianism, which we'll be covering next, it just gives a different set of principles on which to build society. The whole business is a bit idealised, really, which is fine: it's philosophy, after all.
The points you bring up next, about the various ways that peoples' actions can harm others - those are very good points, and potentially harsh criticisms of libertarianism. Indeed, some would argue that once you legislate all the activities that can potentially infringe on the right to property of others, there really isn't much left. A libertarian response would be to say that if things have gone that far, you've really lost sight of the point, which is to protect peoples' ability to make choices. When in doubt, err on the side of liberty. Yes, it's possible that STDs would run rampant, but then people would modify their behavior, becoming more risk averse; medical companies would direct their research to where profits can be had, in this new, burgeoning area of STDs; people have an incentive not to damage their bodies and property, and this will be reflected in the choices they make. The important thing to a libertarian is not to command them on which choices they must be forced to make - that would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 21, 2007 12:45:41 GMT -5
So you're saying that libertarianism isn't so much run by the government, but run by public opinion.
Prostitution in a STD low environment: publically acceptable. As soon as the STDs are on the rise people will prostitute less, regulating their own infections without anyone having to tell them to do so. The end product is the same: less STDs and prostitution, but in one the people take their own sweet time in realising the greater picture.
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 21, 2007 16:25:49 GMT -5
Libertarianism isn't much run by the government, nor is it ruled by the masses, it is ruled by individuals making choices in their own self-interest, which, quite amazingly really, manages to promote the public welfare.
You're quite right in your example of a libertarian society's self-correcting mechanism there, King Ari. Some libertarians would further argue that individuals are highly responsive to changing conditions, whereas a larger government could take months or even years to implement new legislation. Thus, in a libertarian society, not only could things work better, but peoples' rights are preserved too.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 21, 2007 18:13:20 GMT -5
So what is the purpose of the government in libertarianism? Glorified police force?
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 21, 2007 18:17:58 GMT -5
Yes, absolutely. And military, too. A libertarian government is supposed to protect its citizens from aggressors that could infringe on that all-important right to property, not provide social services or things like that.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 22, 2007 15:16:32 GMT -5
So if the government doesn't tax, how does the 'night watchman' have the money to support a military and a police force? I realise that there are governments that don't tax, but they are founded around resources: government owned mined that are exported etc. It poses the problem though, if the government doesn't have enough resources to fund the necessary protective forces how does it perform? Donation? Or does it infringe upon free industry by obtaining more resources (that the citizens should own as property not the government, right?) to continue export and profit.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 24, 2007 21:31:54 GMT -5
That was certainly interesting. Very informative also.
One thing that I do not understand though, is how exactly is libertarianism enforced? I understand that it's up to each individual to mantain their own moral standard and operate within that, but what happens when there is a differing in the individuals moral system, person to person?
-Edited by the King to comply with the Law of Literacy.
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 24, 2007 22:04:17 GMT -5
King Ari: A libertarian government can tax, but it can only use those taxes to pay for the military and such, rather than other social services. There are some other ways a government can get funds, but that's the obvious one. Really, the military is what makes this country a country. Without the night watchman government, it's just a bunch of people in geographical proximity, who would all get conquered overnight.
Mira: So, we've established that it's up to each person to maintain their moral standard, right? And we've established that the police is really only interested in stuff that infringes on the right to property. Stuff like fraud, theft.
So, if your moral system differs from mine in that yours says you should steal everyone's stuff and mine says you shouldn't, then when you steal my stuff the cops are gonna come and make your life worse. If your moral system differs from mine in that yours says each person should marry one other person and mine says I can have as many wives as I want, you don't have any legal recourse. However, you're not entirely powerless.
Your options would look something like this: Make my life more difficult. If you own a restaurant, bar me from it. If you own a store, refuse to sell me anything. Exclude me from your reindeer games. Go campaigning around town and turn popular opinion against me. This is all you exercising your basic freedoms, which you're totally welcome to do. What you can't do is bring me to court, because you simply have no standing to do so. So, good question; I hope that answers it.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 25, 2007 0:02:23 GMT -5
But wasn't it discussed that taxation is in direct opposition to your basic right to property? How can a libertarianistic night watchman tax? That's saying I'm entitled to a part of your property, which is against the tenants of libertariansim. A libertarian tax would have to be voluntary. Could a government effectively protect one household and not the other because one didn't decide to pay taxes that year. I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 26, 2007 21:38:51 GMT -5
Thank you for that. That cleared everything up. I don't think I have anymore questions, except, perhaps, when is your next lecture?
-Edited by the King to comply with the Law of Literacy.
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 28, 2007 18:33:45 GMT -5
King Ari: I am consulting with another professor about that to double check, but I think the idea is, the country needs a military to survive, therefore if you want to live there you have to contribute to it. They're not going to force you to live in their country, that's for sure - that would be wrong. But if you want to live there, you simply need to agree to contribute to this military, because the country needs it. Does a country need, say, a national postal system to survive? No. How about a national health system? Heck no. National education system? Not a chance. What it does need, right now and always, is a military.
Even these days, countries need armed forces. The idea that peace is the default setting is a very new one, and if we look around at all the wars across the world we can see that it's not even true. A country without a military would get eaten by anyone who happened to be nearby, so if you want to be in country, that country needs a military and you have to contribute to it. Whether that's a required number of years of military service per person, or a tax of some sort, that's up to the country to determine.
Mira: I'm glad that you're enthusiastic about the class, I also enjoyed writing the lecture (even if it was a bit draining). I regret to say that I've recently come down with a really butt-kicking illness that's keeping me from a lot of things, so the next lesson may not come for a few weeks. I'll try to keep checking in on the discussion, though. I hope you continue to enjoy the class.
|
|