You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!

[_barrelomonkeys]

I don't know if you mean this example isn't to do with what you were saying, or it's not related to Libertarianism at all...

I was saying that smacking has nothing to do with the special case of children and libertarian thought. If a parent hurts a child then the state may step in. Right? I'm talking about the opposite of force, neglect essentially as being the special case. I told you this before!! :) Are we going to do this every 6 months?

f you walk away from all your children, society implodes. It is unsustainable, as well as going against deeply ingrained natural instincts.
You are correct, the philosophy doesn't provide hard limitations. That doesn't mean that this problem you've highlighted isn't purely hypothetical...

Show me a country that has embraced Libertarianism to any degree that is getting close to calling children with no guardian 'morally acceptable'?

Right. Society does implode if we walk away from our children. Therefore let us hope that all parents really, really find it worthwhile to raise their children or else we're going to be forcing parents to do something that they just don't really want to. Or you're going to make taxes so other people pay for these children. If you hand these children over to guardians are you going to have an agency go around checking on these children? Are you advocating that the state intervenes and forces parents to be responsible for their children? Hmmm.... you're comfortable with that?

No. But if your going to abandon your kids, no state with Libertarian leanings I'm aware of will not make every effort to place that child with a guardian that actually wants the child.
I'd personally rather have that than leave the kid with a parent that doesn't want them.

If only the religious would stop getting in the way of gay parents adopting...

Well then you're advocating for a special welfare for the children.... wouldn't that make an exception to the philosophy where the state does have a function in supporting/feeding/caring for certain citizens? That would be what I call the "special case of children" in a libertarian state.
You have to have some sort of welfare ... uhoh!

Hey, help me out with the posts okay. I'll be back with the rest later.

[_barrelomonkeys]

When I say help me out with the posts I mean could you not break them up like that? I struggle with the quote feature here. Thanks.

[_barrelomonkeys]

An 'extreme' welfare state directly attacks Libertarian principles.
But I'm aware of no Libertarian principle that excludes a 'contract' between an individual and the society it is a part of (which would cover such concepts as taxes etc.) - AS LONG AS such person could 'opt out' of society. They would have no obligation to pay taxes etc., but they would also recieve none of the benifits of society.

Yah. The opt out part is sort of troubling to me. Somewhere along the way I’ve become a liberal because I’m pretty sure I do want to take care of these people that opt out and then down the line realize that they need some help.

But the point as it relates to children is this; If children can be abandoned or neglected then you’re advocating that they have a special status as being protected by the state. This is actually called the “special case” for children in Libertarianism. I’m not saying I have a problem with the state making children a special case (as a matter of fact I’m such a liberal now *gasp* that I would hope more than just children are special cases, but then there’s a slippery slope, eh?) as much as that I’m saying that is not consistent with the philosophy.

For me, the underlying principle of Libertarianism is 'The longest amount of freedom for the most amount of people'. A child that isn't getting fed or otherwise looked after doesn't seem to me like it's going to find much 'freedom' in the long run....

Well that’s actually my point! Children essentially are special because they depend on others. They must have someone to care for them.

Perhaps. I'm sure we can weave some Mormonism in as well...! :)

Good luck with that.

[_Ren]

I was saying that smacking has nothing to do with the special case of children and libertarian thought. If a parent hurts a child then the state may step in. Right? I'm talking about the opposite of force, neglect essentially as being the special case. I told you this before!! :) Are we going to do this every 6 months?

Right. Society does implode if we walk away from our children. Therefore let us hope that all parents really, really find it worthwhile to raise their children or else we're going to be forcing parents to do something that they just don't really want to. Or you're going to make taxes so other people pay for these children. If you hand these children over to guardians are you going to have an agency go around checking on these children? Are you advocating that the state intervenes and forces parents to be responsible for their children? Hmmm.... you're comfortable with that?

Well then you're advocating for a special welfare for the children.... wouldn't that make an exception to the philosophy where the state does have a function in supporting/feeding/caring for certain citizens? That would be what I call the "special case of children" in a libertarian state.
You have to have some sort of welfare ... uhoh!

OK - I'm not gonna go crazy with the quotes :)

On the point of smacking, well - I do see it as relavent to Libertarianism, in the sense that I'd like to hear how other moral 'systems' handle the situation. But perhaps we'll come back to that...

As far as 'doing this every 6 months' - ermm - sorry :) If I'm not remembering all the areas we covered, and your exact positions, then apologies. My memory is bad at the best of times...

As far as 'let's really hope that parents find it worthwhile to raise their kids', well - I question the ability of many parents. But I don't see kids being abandoned left, right and centre in the UK, which is largly a country based largley around Libertarian ideals.
Is this perhaps where we are coming from different perspectives on where we are? I see the UK as very much Libertarian right now. Whilst perhaps you and Moshka seem to see it as some 'still to be realised' state of affairs. Is that right? I don't mean whether I'm right or wrong - I mean in the sense of representing you correctly...

I see refinements I'd like to see implemented - but I'm far from 'unhappy' with the state I already live in. But I do think I would have a harder time as a 'Libertarian' in any other time than the modern age, and the way attitudes are moving...


As far as taxes to take care of abandoned children - yes. I am not anti-tax, as I explained above.
Do you belevie I have to be anti-tax? As a Libertarianist? I've already said that if you don't want to pay taxes, you should have the right to 'opt out' of society.
But I don't think anybody is entitled to a free lunch...


When you say: "If you hand these children over to guardians are you going to have an agency go around checking on these children?"
Do you mean 'me' as in the parent, or 'me' as in the state?

When you say: Are you advocating that the state intervenes and forces parents to be responsible for their children?
No. If a parent is so irresponsible and uncaring that they simply don't WANT their child, then I don't see good arising from forcing a child on that parent.
Democratically elected goverments tend to handle these situations OK - generally. I doubt people would stand for a goverment that didn't for too long. At least that appears to be the way it's panning out in the Western world - unless you have evidence to the contrary...

Hmmm.... you're comfortable with that?

I'm not comfortable with some of the conclusions with you seem to belevie I 'must' reach - as a Libertarian. If that's what you mean...

When you talk about 'advocating' welfare - I get the impression that you beleive that Libertarians can't be in favour of any kind of 'welfare' system at all.
I don't see why Libertarianism should be against any type of welfare system.
If a person is free to 'opt' out of society, why is it against the concept of 'freedom' to - of your own will - contribute to a democratically elected society with taxes, in return for the benefits of society?

Can you explain to me what I'm not seeing?

[Guest]

About children being a 'special case' in Libertarianism - yes they are.
And the reason isn't because the only way to make handling children morally is to avoid Libertarianism. It's because children can't properly consent yet. That's the ONLY reason it is a 'special case'.
If babies popped out with full faculties, then there woudl be no 'special case' for children. Well, I guess if they were still limited physically, then you coudl argue some kind of disability requirements for them - for the first few years. But there would certianly be no issue with consent. Age would be irrelavent.

But of course, reality isn't like this. Children do not have full faculties. So, we wait until they are adults before we give them ownership of their lives. Till that point, their freedoms are restricted as deemed nessesary by both their guardians, and the state.

Yes, it is a 'special case'. But it's not a special case out of thin air. It's a special case directly in accordance with Libertarianism, and the issue of consent.

Children essentially are special because they depend on others. They must have someone to care for them.

Hopefully what I've said above covers this.
Until a child is an adult, their parents and the state decide what is best for that child.
But once the child is an adult, they are then 'free' of both. And being in a democracy (again, no other form of goverment is acceptable under Libertarianism) - if they feel that their parents or their state got their upbringing 'wrong', then they have their say about it at the ballot box.

This is why - in my opinion - Libertarianism works. It's a feedback loop. And it does rely on the idea that it's more likely for people to want the general good than for people to want bad for others.
See what Dawkins had to say about 'Tit-for-tat' in social behaviour for reasons why - overall - society naturally leads to co-operation and altruism. Libertarianism simply allows that inbuilt system to take care of itself. And as far as I'm concerned, it generally works.
My evidence is the Western world not turning into anarchy with increased freedoms. (Although I'm sure fundemetalists take a different view...)

[_DonBradley]

I will NOT get embroiled in a lengthy political discussion here (I'm saying that as a mantra in the hopes that it will make itself come true); but I'd like to express my opinion that American libertarianism (right libertarianism, as opposed to European libertarianism--left libertarianism) amounts to basically the worship of The Free Market. As instrumental as the market is in producing widespread prosperity, promoting republican government, and breaking down racial and religious prejudices, the market doesn't always place the right values on things and often creates problems as great as those it solves. The problem of public goods, for instance, is one the market can't fix, and one where it requires repeated government intervention even to keep the market itself working effectively.

The reason the market (within some constraints) is a good thing is that it does much to promote human welfare. This being the reason it's good, where the market doesn't promote human welfare, its raison d'etre is violated, and it requires intervention from outside the market.

The trouble with right libertarians, and with Ayn Randian "Objectivists" in particular, is that they assume that great good done by the market in many areas of human life means that the market is good and right in itself and makes no mistakes--i.e., that it always places the proper value on things, as if it were an omniscient Deity. Such slavish devotion to the market as a moral arbiter makes the market one's God and capitalism one's faith.

Don

[_barrelomonkeys]

As far as 'let's really hope that parents find it worthwhile to raise their kids', well - I question the ability of many parents. But I don't see kids being abandoned left, right and centre in the UK, which is largly a country based largley around Libertarian ideals.
Is this perhaps where we are coming from different perspectives on where we are? I see the UK as very much Libertarian right now. Whilst perhaps you and Moshka seem to see it as some 'still to be realised' state of affairs. Is that right? I don't mean whether I'm right or wrong - I mean in the sense of representing you correctly...

I see refinements I'd like to see implemented - but I'm far from 'unhappy' with the state I already live in. But I do think I would have a harder time as a 'Libertarian' in any other time than the modern age, and the way attitudes are moving...


As far as taxes to take care of abandoned children - yes. I am not anti-tax, as I explained above.
Do you belevie I have to be anti-tax? As a Libertarianist? I've already said that if you don't want to pay taxes, you should have the right to 'opt out' of society.
But I don't think anybody is entitled to a free lunch...


When you say: "If you hand these children over to guardians are you going to have an agency go around checking on these children?"
Do you mean 'me' as in the parent, or 'me' as in the state?

When you say: Are you advocating that the state intervenes and forces parents to be responsible for their children?
No. If a parent is so irresponsible and uncaring that they simply don't WANT their child, then I don't see good arising from forcing a child on that parent.
Democratically elected goverments tend to handle these situations OK - generally. I doubt people would stand for a goverment that didn't for too long. At least that appears to be the way it's panning out in the Western world - unless you have evidence to the contrary...

Hmmm.... you're comfortable with that?

I'm not comfortable with some of the conclusions with you seem to belevie I 'must' reach - as a Libertarian. If that's what you mean...

When you talk about 'advocating' welfare - I get the impression that you beleive that Libertarians can't be in favour of any kind of 'welfare' system at all.
I don't see why Libertarianism should be against any type of welfare system.
If a person is free to 'opt' out of society, why is it against the concept of 'freedom' to - of your own will - contribute to a democratically elected society with taxes, in return for the benefits of society?

Can you explain to me what I'm not seeing?

Thanks for not going crazy with the quotes. I'm going to try to answer point by point though.

Smacking? I really don't see your point on this? Maybe if you explained your point, I'd form one? :)

I think where we go astray is how I view libertarianism. As you know there are different strains and I skewed very close to the anarchist side. I do not believe the United States is anything at all like the libertarian philosophy or the Party would have it be. I'm actually surprised that you view it that way?

I view a Libertarian state (I'm going to capitalize when I'm talking about the state rather than the way I view the philosophy from now on, because that gets confusing) as being as minimal government interference as possible. Essentially in my view of a Libertarian state there would be limited taxation (although how you could ever force anyone to pay their taxes is really beyond me), no welfare (other than through private parties), no government monopolies of services (post office, garbage), etc... etc.. You know the drill don't you? I don't see the United States as being anywhere near a Libertarian state. War on Drugs anyone? Limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Redistribution of wealth is done quite a bit.... What am I not seeing that you see?

The taxes issue. I think as a party the Libertarian must address taxation and it must be implemented and collected. As a libertarian (I'm talking for myself now) I believe that if I force someone to turn their property over to the state then I am infringing on their rights. That's the way I viewed it.

I'm not trying to come to conclusions for you. I'm assuming that as a libertarian you do not believe people should be forced to do something that they do not wish to do. I'm asking you if you believe people should be forced to help other people, through taxation?

I believe Libertarians can be in favor of welfare (because really, how are we going to get around not taking care of those that can't help themselves) but I don's see libertarians as being in favor of a welfare state. Or at least I couldn't. A Libertarian can brainstorm and come up with the best possible policy solutions so that the infringement of liberty is minimal. A libertarian (as I was) could never grasp that I could force someone else to give up even a bit of their liberty to do what they choose not to.

I hope that's clearer.

There's a current debate in my home town (which I think is ridiculous) that really pisses me off and deals with the opt out issue for me. There are lots, and lots of elderly people in my community. These people pay the vast majority of the property taxes in our community. These taxes are funneled to our schools. The elderly in my community have decided that they really do not want to fund schools anymore and that should be left up to parents that actually have children in the school. What say you?

[_Tarski]

I will NOT get embroiled in a lengthy political discussion here (I'm saying that as a mantra in the hopes that it will make itself come true); but I'd like to express my opinion that American libertarianism (right libertarianism, as opposed to European libertarianism--left libertarianism) amounts to basically the worship of The Free Market. As instrumental as the market is in producing widespread prosperity, promoting republican government, and breaking down racial and religious prejudices, the market doesn't always place the right values on things and often creates problems as great as those it solves. The problem of public goods, for instance, is one the market can't fix, and one where it requires repeated government intervention even to keep the market itself working effectively.

The reason the market (within some constraints) is a good thing is that it does much to promote human welfare. This being the reason it's good, where the market doesn't promote human welfare, its raison d'etre is violated, and it requires intervention from outside the market.

The trouble with right libertarians, and with Ayn Randian "Objectivists" in particular, is that they assume that great good done by the market in many areas of human life means that the market is good and right in itself and makes no mistakes--I.e., that it always places the proper value on things, as if it were an omniscient Deity. Such slavish devotion to the market as a moral arbiter makes the market one's God and capitalism one's faith.

Don

I'm with ya on this.
I am a tiny bit of a "left libertarian" but usually identifiy myself as essentially a moderately liberal progressive.

[_Ren]

but I'd like to express my opinion that American libertarianism (right libertarianism, as opposed to European libertarianism--left libertarianism) amounts to basically the worship of The Free Market.

Hey Don.
Interesting observation. And now that I think about it, this makes a lot of sense. This probably explains why it's being expected of me to whole-heartedly deny all ideas of welfare if I am a Libertarian.

Here in the UK, we have a mix bag. Obviously, we are deeply capitalist in many ways - and that to me is right.
But we also have significant socialist leanings. The NHS, and various other services that are still handled directly by the goverment. When you consider the notion of 'positive rights' within Libertarianism, I beleive one can easiely argue the Libertarian case for national health case - for example.
What good is freedom when you have nothing to eat? Or you have no shelter? Or you die? Does anybody choose these outcomes?!

...I do think there is a bit of a cultural divide here. It's a good observation...

[_barrelomonkeys]

I will NOT get embroiled in a lengthy political discussion here (I'm saying that as a mantra in the hopes that it will make itself come true); but I'd like to express my opinion that American libertarianism (right libertarianism, as opposed to European libertarianism--left libertarianism) amounts to basically the worship of The Free Market. As instrumental as the market is in producing widespread prosperity, promoting republican government, and breaking down racial and religious prejudices, the market doesn't always place the right values on things and often creates problems as great as those it solves. The problem of public goods, for instance, is one the market can't fix, and one where it requires repeated government intervention even to keep the market itself working effectively.

The reason the market (within some constraints) is a good thing is that it does much to promote human welfare. This being the reason it's good, where the market doesn't promote human welfare, its raison d'etre is violated, and it requires intervention from outside the market.

The trouble with right libertarians, and with Ayn Randian "Objectivists" in particular, is that they assume that great good done by the market in many areas of human life means that the market is good and right in itself and makes no mistakes--I.e., that it always places the proper value on things, as if it were an omniscient Deity. Such slavish devotion to the market as a moral arbiter makes the market one's God and capitalism one's faith.

Don

I'm so glad you stuck your toe in. Go after him Renegade. :)

Oh shoot. You just agreed with him. That means you'll keep after me?